Bollocks. They are all different kinds of brackets, if you can get your head around such a concept. () are commonly known as round brackets {or even just brackets}, [] are commonly known as square brackets, {} are curly brackets or posh brackets, and <> -- the less-than and more-than signs -- are sometimes called angle brackets or pointy brackets. I've also heard them referred to as 'mustang signs' {no idea why, I thought a mustang was a wild pony and don't see the connection}.
As a website owner, I'm in a position to decide if you're stealing from me or not by not downloading your ads. You are not.
As a computer owner, I'm in a position to decide whether or not I wish to view advertisements. That's the bottom line. My computer, my choice. If I want to recompile my browser not to display any page with the colour orange on it, that's up to me. Nobody else. I am in control of what I see.
Are you trying to say that somebody will pay you a sum of money if I download an advert from their server from a link on your site, but you will get nothing if I don't download the advert? That sounds like an incredibly broken business model to me, and if that's really the way things are set up then it deserves to fail just for assuming people are so stupid.
When someone spends money on an advertisement, it is a gamble which may or may not pay off. If the advert "works" and they get more business than the advert cost them, they win; if the advert generates less revenue than it cost, they lose. You can't get mad just because your little advert didn't work on me. People who spend money on intrusive advertising are pricks, they make their money by misappropriating my bandwidth {which I paid for for my purposes} for their and, for that, I have no compunction towards them. I don't remember ever being obliged to prop up broken business models. (Hey, is that one of the reason why americans don't like the teaching of evolution in schools? Because the idea of "survival of the fittest" sits uncomfortably with them, and they would rather believe a theory, no matter how outlandish it may seem, which did not compel them to adapt or perish?)
The first rule of gambling is "never bet more than you could afford to lose". A corollary of that is that if someone made a bet, they can afford to lose the money. Suppose you bet on the outcome of a boxing match, and the boxer you were backing lost the fight. Has he stolen your money? Can you legitimately blame him for the fact that you ended up out of pocket? Or maybe the bookmaker is to blame?
No -- I'm not stealing anything. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not I download unwanted advertisements. In fact, if anything, I'm saving the advertising company bandwidth by not downloading anything from them.
Don't try to make me feel as though I'm doing anything wrong, because I'm not. I would never buy the product advertised anyway. If you want to call me a thief that's fine -- I can live quite comfortably with that kind of stealing on my conscience.
It's a JavaScript redirector. Block images, turn off JavaScript and reload the site. Then save it {/var/www/html/ is as good a place as any}, and bookmark your local saved copy. The periodic table itself is rendered using CSS and doesn't need the images.
It'll wake up any Apache server you're running, though, and that will slow your system down a bit while it goes looking for non-existent virtual host containers in httpd.conf, then writes to a logfile that it couldn't find the requested page.
Don't forget that many GNU/Linux users do not download from SourceForge, but from their distribution's own servers or installation media, or from independent sites. Some distros have a lot of ready-made packages on their I.M.
It's fastclick which from what I've heard is one of the hardest to get into, and in my experience they do pay very well for the industry and are great to work with.
And they are also on my Squid Proxy Server's banned list -- along with doubleclick, tribalfusion and falkag. I'm not going to buy the product, so I'm f**ked if I'm going to waste bandwidth letting the advert get onto my screen.
That's why computer keyboards {usually} have several different kinds of brackets: round (these ones), square [like this] and curly {my personal favourite}, plus more-than and less-than signs . (The idea being that you can nest them {like [in case you really need an example] this sort of thing} to reduce the potential for confusion).
Of course, to a programmer, it's common that () delimit function parameters, [] delimit array indexes, {} delimit blocks of statements to be executed together and <> as less-than and more-than, or file indirection operators. This method of thinking can sometimes lead to people becoming afraid to experiment a little.
BECAUSE AJS318 HAS CHANGED THE LAW TO COMPEL HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS TO RELEASE DETAILS TO WRITE HOME DRIVERS, THERE ARE NOW 13 YEAR OLD KIDS, AND TERRORISTS, AND 13 YEAR OLD WANNABE TERRORISTS ALL BUILDING NUKES IN THIER BACK YARDS
This is a tired old argument and is inconsistent with observed facts. The laws of physics are essentially Open Source, so if it is not physically impossible for someone to build a weapon, we must assume they can -- it is possible that they might find out how to do it independently of anyone else's knowledge or attempt to keep it secret.
Although anybody could build a weapon of mass destruction from first principles, most of the ordnance used by third-world troublemakers is of first-world origin. So the obvious way to prevent this is for 'acme nuclear rockets inc - supplier to the us defence force' just not to make the nuclear rockets in the first place. If the terrorists haven't bothered making their own weapons from scratch up to now, why should they suddenly start? Maybe if the Western world weren't so paranoid that everyone else is out to get them, other nations would not feel so threatened, and would not be spending money that should be going on education and healthcare on weapons.
And your assertion that companies would not make money if they could not keep secrets is laughable. The world is not run just so that companies can make money. Maybe a few companies going out of business would be no bad thing, after all, how are the poor going to get richer unless the rich get poorer?
The truth is most people are just too lazy to build their own hardware, even if they had the knowledge and equipment. Or they don't have access to the kit they need, even if they have the plans and the motivation. Or their skills lie in other areas, even if they could afford the equipment. Those conditions are the makings of a market. With Mandatory Full Declaration, there would still be an opportunity to hold information to ransom -- but the level of that ransom would be determined by the cost of independently discovering the same information, and not set by the company with the information.
By your logic there would be no market for ready-made sandwiches. After all, sandwiches are an enforced open source product -- the packet must legally say what the contents are, and you can buy a range of bread, spreads, meat, pate, salads and so forth at any supermarket. It isn't even hard to make a sandwich -- the only tool you need is a knife. But sometimes people haven't the inclination or the time to make their own sandwiches, and are prepared to pay money for the convenience of having one ready-made.
i'm glad you want the entire world to be open source and open-spec'd. its not. it will never be. deal with it
I could hardly disagree with you more. I for one actively avoid closed source products as far as practicable, I make no secret of my antipathy towards the very concept, and encourage as many people as possible to follow suit. And the tide is turning, slowly but surely. Open source alternatives to proprietary solutions are emerging. I don't think a technology can be said truly to have been invented until it becomes open source. The open source movement is apparently playing catch-up, for sure, but it's not aiming simply to catch up with the closed-source world, but to push the very boundaries of possibility. And our motivation is purer: we aim for true perfection, not simply to be just enough better than the current state of the art so we can still make a profit. The whole closed-source model of security through obscurity is a house of cards. One flash of genius outside that system is all it's going to take; some bright kid gives away an idea, or some old hippy wins the lottery and invests in an idea, and suddenly there are a dozen or more Oriental, Eastern European and Latin American outfits supplying fully-open specced kit better
Is this legal? We don't know. But it's how Paypal operates.
It's almost certainly illegal.
In most countries, if the law of the land gives you a right, nobody can take that right away from you. Which is why EULAs are on such shaky ground..... you can't be held to an agreement not to reverse-engineer or disassemble the software {which the law gives you a specific right to do, as long as it's for the purpose of satisfying your own morbid curiosity and you aren't trying to run a business based on it}. It's also the reason why a man can still be convicted of raping his own wife -- a marriage certificate does not override a woman's right to refuse consent to sexual intercourse. And it's why you see the words "THIS GUARANTEE DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR STATUTORY RIGHTS".
is who the hell decided you could patent a living thing, and why haven't they had a DGK?
If I were Prime Minister, the law would be clear-cut; any intellectual property that may be present in DNA belongs strictly to the living organism which contains that DNA and is absolutely non-transferrable.
Unlike some of the watermelons {green on the outside, red on the inside} I've nothing against genetically modified foods per se {cabbages, cauliflowers, turnips, swedes, Brussels sprouts and broccoli are all genetically modified forms of a now-extinct wild plant Brassica sativa} but I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would seek to control agriculture by demanding payment for their seeds, attempting to restrict propagation, and so forth. Nothing would ever be worth that price.
I don't understand how someone could be so resentful of a company that fulfills a need (HSF drivers), just because the company doesn't submit to their demands (source code).
It's not fulfilling a need -- rather, it's making a big show of pretending to fulfil a need, while still leaving it mainly unsatisfied. Closed-source drivers aren't even half a loaf; they're just a pile of stale crumbs.
What I for one object to is the concept that anyone could write a piece of software and then keep the source code to themself. It goes dead against one of my core beliefs, which is that all the benefits of all human endeavour belong to all of humankind.
Maybe others are taking advantage of my code, robbing me of some deserved egoboo, but they have never once robbed me of the knowledge or joy I gained by creating the code.
It's not about robbing you of the knowledge or joy you gained by creating the code. It is about robbing other people of the right to enjoy and improve the software you wrote.
And you're right, there are too many lawyers involved. The future should be made in the laboratory, not the courtroom. I propose a more radical solution: make it a criminal offence not to release your source code. Criminal cases can't be dragged out for as long as civil ones, since the prosecution service simply won't stand for it. Obviously Microsoft et al won't be happy about that, but no doubt a lot of rich people were pissed off by the Thirteenth Amendment -- and if the government don't think it's their job to protect the likes of you and me from the excesses of the big corporations, then we would be better off without them.
I am using GNU/Linux -- which, by the way, is the first piece of software I would install on any Windows box. I am already campaigning actively for Mandatory Full Disclosure; but should the occasion arise, I would consider myself well within my rights to examine any firmware in any device I bought and paid for with my own money -- and then sue the manufacturer for any expenses incurred {hire of specialist equipment &c}.
Giving kids computers is not the answer. The right answer is to design your course in such a way that the use of a computer -- or not -- will not affect any pupil's work. Children need to be taught to use their own minds first. I was never allowed a calculator till I could do sums on paper, nor a digital watch till I could tell the time with an analogue watch. Had such things as word processors been available in my schooldays, I suspect that I would still never have been allowed one until I could write with a fountain pen.
{I suppose this could be taken to the logical extreme of not living in a house with central heating till I had learned to light a fire without using liquid fuel..... a skill I'm proud of BTW}
But there should be no requirement for kids to be using computers in schools. They should be out playing in the fields, or exploring in the woods, running around and using up the energy they get from the food they eat {which is better than the food we had in my day}, breathing fresh air, falling over, getting cuts, scrapes, bruises and maybe a dose of the trots and actually building up an immune system -- not staying indoors playing with computers and vegetating, and definitely not learning how to use Microsoft software on the taxpayer's shilling.
WinRAR is good software. I don't see the problem with paying (only $29) for a quality piece of software.
I don't object to paying money for software. What I do object to is not having the source code for the software I use. I for one would sooner forego a computer altogether than have to use closed-source software.
Installing Cygwin on a Windows box is like buying a cat and then trying to teach it to bark. I'd go with the top-level post and install GNU/Linux. Better not to use a computer at all, than to use one piece of software without the source code.
Bollocks. There is never any good reason for closed-source drivers. If I have bought a piece of hardware and paid for it with my own money, earned through my own graft, whether by hand or by brain, then I have the right to know everything about that piece of hardware. The manufacturer has no right to prevent me using it in whatever the hell way I choose. Closed source drivers are not good enough. I might not want to use it with Windows. I might not even want to use it with Linux -- I might want to write my own operating system from scratch. This is all part of my right of quiet enjoyment -- and my purchase receipt is proof of this right.
It really is time the law was changed to compel hardware manufacturers to release, if not an open source driver then sufficient details to enable any competent programmer to write a driver -- or be barred from selling their products. Screw the whingeing about "competitors might discover our secrets" -- we are the consumers and we pay their wages.
Now, another interesting question is this. If somebody promises you something but makes it obvious that they were lying, have you the right to hold them to that promise anyway?
Obviously. If you modify it and distribute it in source form, you are complying with both the letter and the spirit of the licence. If you modify it and keep it all to yourself, that's your own sordid business and nobody can do very much about it. However, if somebody else finds about it, they are entirely within their rights to distribute an identically modified version in source form -- and now it's you who can't do anything about it.
Why do you have a problem with the GPL? It's easy to understand, the GPL boils down to just four words; not sharing is theft. GPL is for developers -- by placing software you write under the GPL, you are ensuring that everybody gets to see the source code. If anyone modifies your work, they have to release the source code too. GPL is also for users -- if you use GPL software, you know that the law will protect your right to share the software with others.
Look, make your freakin' mind up. You can't have the newest software and expect it to be stable. It usually takes longer for bugs to come to light than it does to fix them, and the people who developed the software have a human tendency to be a bit careful with it anyway, like they can't help not wanting to disturb anything that creaks.
Them, unfortunately, is the breaks: you can have it tried and tested, or you can join the crew trying and testing it. And just because the packages in Stable have "old" version numbers, doesn't mean that they aren't patched bang up to date with critical security stuff.
I have often suspected that British policy towards the EU is to try to very hard to get kicked out. Nobody under 30 in this country actually knows how many ounces there are in a pound, pounds in a stone, or inches in a foot, or pints in a gallon -- but it took the British government -- the same government that actually did most of the hard work in creating the SI system -- until the year 2000 just to allow shops to sell goods by the kilo, which coincidentally was the date which we had agreed -- back in the 1960s -- finally to phase out the use of pounds and ounces. You aren't telling me that was an oversight. You can't just miss for nearly 40 years the fact that it was illegal to sell a kilo of tomatoes {and people have been busted for using SI measurements} while knowing that sooner or later it would be illegal to sell 2lb4oz of tomatoes. That was very obviously a deliberate attempt to piss somebody off.
WTF are you talking about? Debian includes the most cutting-edge software versions in SID {unstable; named after the boy in "Toy Story" [all Debian releases have codenames taken from this movie; I'm betting when they run out of T.S. characters they'll start on "Finding Nemo"] who breaks toys, and also for "still in development"}. You just need to edit your/etc/apt/sources.list and change every instance of "stable" to "unstable". Then # apt-get update, #/etc/init.d/kdm stop {otherwise you will muck it up} and finally # apt-get upgrade. You might need another untouched machine to run a web browser to run google if you get into trouble, but unstable isn't as unstable as it used to be.
It does tell you all this on the Debian site if you can be bothered to look for it; but you obviously prefer putting other people down because you mistakenly think it makes you look better {as opposed to making you look like a whining jerk-off, which is what your dad ought to have done and then we'd all be happy}.
But my point is that no matter how hard you make it for someone to defeat the copy-prevention, somebody will succeed -- and then they will begin distributing unencumbered versions.
An analogy {because we all love them}:
Recording companies == emperor
DRM == special fabric spun out of gold which only pure and wise people can see
Jon Johansen == little boy who cries out "What is the king doing in the buff?"
Slashdot Mirror
Bollocks. They are all different kinds of brackets, if you can get your head around such a concept. () are commonly known as round brackets {or even just brackets}, [] are commonly known as square brackets, {} are curly brackets or posh brackets, and <> -- the less-than and more-than signs -- are sometimes called angle brackets or pointy brackets. I've also heard them referred to as 'mustang signs' {no idea why, I thought a mustang was a wild pony and don't see the connection}.
Are you trying to say that somebody will pay you a sum of money if I download an advert from their server from a link on your site, but you will get nothing if I don't download the advert? That sounds like an incredibly broken business model to me, and if that's really the way things are set up then it deserves to fail just for assuming people are so stupid.
When someone spends money on an advertisement, it is a gamble which may or may not pay off. If the advert "works" and they get more business than the advert cost them, they win; if the advert generates less revenue than it cost, they lose. You can't get mad just because your little advert didn't work on me. People who spend money on intrusive advertising are pricks, they make their money by misappropriating my bandwidth {which I paid for for my purposes} for their and, for that, I have no compunction towards them. I don't remember ever being obliged to prop up broken business models. (Hey, is that one of the reason why americans don't like the teaching of evolution in schools? Because the idea of "survival of the fittest" sits uncomfortably with them, and they would rather believe a theory, no matter how outlandish it may seem, which did not compel them to adapt or perish?)
The first rule of gambling is "never bet more than you could afford to lose". A corollary of that is that if someone made a bet, they can afford to lose the money. Suppose you bet on the outcome of a boxing match, and the boxer you were backing lost the fight. Has he stolen your money? Can you legitimately blame him for the fact that you ended up out of pocket? Or maybe the bookmaker is to blame?
Just stop acting like everyone owes you a favour.
No -- I'm not stealing anything. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not I download unwanted advertisements. In fact, if anything, I'm saving the advertising company bandwidth by not downloading anything from them.
Don't try to make me feel as though I'm doing anything wrong, because I'm not. I would never buy the product advertised anyway. If you want to call me a thief that's fine -- I can live quite comfortably with that kind of stealing on my conscience.
He's still getting fat off intrusive advertising, though.
It's a JavaScript redirector. Block images, turn off JavaScript and reload the site. Then save it {/var/www/html/ is as good a place as any}, and bookmark your local saved copy. The periodic table itself is rendered using CSS and doesn't need the images.
It'll wake up any Apache server you're running, though, and that will slow your system down a bit while it goes looking for non-existent virtual host containers in httpd.conf, then writes to a logfile that it couldn't find the requested page.
Don't forget that many GNU/Linux users do not download from SourceForge, but from their distribution's own servers or installation media, or from independent sites. Some distros have a lot of ready-made packages on their I.M.
That's why computer keyboards {usually} have several different kinds of brackets: round (these ones), square [like this] and curly {my personal favourite}, plus more-than and less-than signs . (The idea being that you can nest them {like [in case you really need an example] this sort of thing} to reduce the potential for confusion).
Of course, to a programmer, it's common that () delimit function parameters, [] delimit array indexes, {} delimit blocks of statements to be executed together and <> as less-than and more-than, or file indirection operators. This method of thinking can sometimes lead to people becoming afraid to experiment a little.
This is a tired old argument and is inconsistent with observed facts. The laws of physics are essentially Open Source, so if it is not physically impossible for someone to build a weapon, we must assume they can -- it is possible that they might find out how to do it independently of anyone else's knowledge or attempt to keep it secret.
Although anybody could build a weapon of mass destruction from first principles, most of the ordnance used by third-world troublemakers is of first-world origin. So the obvious way to prevent this is for 'acme nuclear rockets inc - supplier to the us defence force' just not to make the nuclear rockets in the first place. If the terrorists haven't bothered making their own weapons from scratch up to now, why should they suddenly start? Maybe if the Western world weren't so paranoid that everyone else is out to get them, other nations would not feel so threatened, and would not be spending money that should be going on education and healthcare on weapons.
And your assertion that companies would not make money if they could not keep secrets is laughable. The world is not run just so that companies can make money. Maybe a few companies going out of business would be no bad thing, after all, how are the poor going to get richer unless the rich get poorer?
The truth is most people are just too lazy to build their own hardware, even if they had the knowledge and equipment. Or they don't have access to the kit they need, even if they have the plans and the motivation. Or their skills lie in other areas, even if they could afford the equipment. Those conditions are the makings of a market. With Mandatory Full Declaration, there would still be an opportunity to hold information to ransom -- but the level of that ransom would be determined by the cost of independently discovering the same information, and not set by the company with the information.
By your logic there would be no market for ready-made sandwiches. After all, sandwiches are an enforced open source product -- the packet must legally say what the contents are, and you can buy a range of bread, spreads, meat, pate, salads and so forth at any supermarket. It isn't even hard to make a sandwich -- the only tool you need is a knife. But sometimes people haven't the inclination or the time to make their own sandwiches, and are prepared to pay money for the convenience of having one ready-made.
I could hardly disagree with you more. I for one actively avoid closed source products as far as practicable, I make no secret of my antipathy towards the very concept, and encourage as many people as possible to follow suit. And the tide is turning, slowly but surely. Open source alternatives to proprietary solutions are emerging. I don't think a technology can be said truly to have been invented until it becomes open source. The open source movement is apparently playing catch-up, for sure, but it's not aiming simply to catch up with the closed-source world, but to push the very boundaries of possibility. And our motivation is purer: we aim for true perfection, not simply to be just enough better than the current state of the art so we can still make a profit. The whole closed-source model of security through obscurity is a house of cards. One flash of genius outside that system is all it's going to take; some bright kid gives away an idea, or some old hippy wins the lottery and invests in an idea, and suddenly there are a dozen or more Oriental, Eastern European and Latin American outfits supplying fully-open specced kit better
In most countries, if the law of the land gives you a right, nobody can take that right away from you. Which is why EULAs are on such shaky ground
is who the hell decided you could patent a living thing, and why haven't they had a DGK?
If I were Prime Minister, the law would be clear-cut; any intellectual property that may be present in DNA belongs strictly to the living organism which contains that DNA and is absolutely non-transferrable.
Unlike some of the watermelons {green on the outside, red on the inside} I've nothing against genetically modified foods per se {cabbages, cauliflowers, turnips, swedes, Brussels sprouts and broccoli are all genetically modified forms of a now-extinct wild plant Brassica sativa} but I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would seek to control agriculture by demanding payment for their seeds, attempting to restrict propagation, and so forth. Nothing would ever be worth that price.
What I for one object to is the concept that anyone could write a piece of software and then keep the source code to themself. It goes dead against one of my core beliefs, which is that all the benefits of all human endeavour belong to all of humankind. It's not about robbing you of the knowledge or joy you gained by creating the code. It is about robbing other people of the right to enjoy and improve the software you wrote.
And you're right, there are too many lawyers involved. The future should be made in the laboratory, not the courtroom. I propose a more radical solution: make it a criminal offence not to release your source code. Criminal cases can't be dragged out for as long as civil ones, since the prosecution service simply won't stand for it. Obviously Microsoft et al won't be happy about that, but no doubt a lot of rich people were pissed off by the Thirteenth Amendment -- and if the government don't think it's their job to protect the likes of you and me from the excesses of the big corporations, then we would be better off without them.
I am using GNU/Linux -- which, by the way, is the first piece of software I would install on any Windows box. I am already campaigning actively for Mandatory Full Disclosure; but should the occasion arise, I would consider myself well within my rights to examine any firmware in any device I bought and paid for with my own money -- and then sue the manufacturer for any expenses incurred {hire of specialist equipment &c}.
Giving kids computers is not the answer. The right answer is to design your course in such a way that the use of a computer -- or not -- will not affect any pupil's work. Children need to be taught to use their own minds first. I was never allowed a calculator till I could do sums on paper, nor a digital watch till I could tell the time with an analogue watch. Had such things as word processors been available in my schooldays, I suspect that I would still never have been allowed one until I could write with a fountain pen.
..... a skill I'm proud of BTW}
{I suppose this could be taken to the logical extreme of not living in a house with central heating till I had learned to light a fire without using liquid fuel
But there should be no requirement for kids to be using computers in schools. They should be out playing in the fields, or exploring in the woods, running around and using up the energy they get from the food they eat {which is better than the food we had in my day}, breathing fresh air, falling over, getting cuts, scrapes, bruises and maybe a dose of the trots and actually building up an immune system -- not staying indoors playing with computers and vegetating, and definitely not learning how to use Microsoft software on the taxpayer's shilling.
Installing Cygwin on a Windows box is like buying a cat and then trying to teach it to bark. I'd go with the top-level post and install GNU/Linux. Better not to use a computer at all, than to use one piece of software without the source code.
Bollocks. There is never any good reason for closed-source drivers. If I have bought a piece of hardware and paid for it with my own money, earned through my own graft, whether by hand or by brain, then I have the right to know everything about that piece of hardware. The manufacturer has no right to prevent me using it in whatever the hell way I choose. Closed source drivers are not good enough. I might not want to use it with Windows. I might not even want to use it with Linux -- I might want to write my own operating system from scratch. This is all part of my right of quiet enjoyment -- and my purchase receipt is proof of this right.
It really is time the law was changed to compel hardware manufacturers to release, if not an open source driver then sufficient details to enable any competent programmer to write a driver -- or be barred from selling their products. Screw the whingeing about "competitors might discover our secrets" -- we are the consumers and we pay their wages.
Now, another interesting question is this. If somebody promises you something but makes it obvious that they were lying, have you the right to hold them to that promise anyway?
Obviously. If you modify it and distribute it in source form, you are complying with both the letter and the spirit of the licence. If you modify it and keep it all to yourself, that's your own sordid business and nobody can do very much about it. However, if somebody else finds about it, they are entirely within their rights to distribute an identically modified version in source form -- and now it's you who can't do anything about it.
Why do you have a problem with the GPL? It's easy to understand, the GPL boils down to just four words; not sharing is theft. GPL is for developers -- by placing software you write under the GPL, you are ensuring that everybody gets to see the source code. If anyone modifies your work, they have to release the source code too. GPL is also for users -- if you use GPL software, you know that the law will protect your right to share the software with others.
Look, make your freakin' mind up. You can't have the newest software and expect it to be stable. It usually takes longer for bugs to come to light than it does to fix them, and the people who developed the software have a human tendency to be a bit careful with it anyway, like they can't help not wanting to disturb anything that creaks.
Them, unfortunately, is the breaks: you can have it tried and tested, or you can join the crew trying and testing it. And just because the packages in Stable have "old" version numbers, doesn't mean that they aren't patched bang up to date with critical security stuff.
I have often suspected that British policy towards the EU is to try to very hard to get kicked out. Nobody under 30 in this country actually knows how many ounces there are in a pound, pounds in a stone, or inches in a foot, or pints in a gallon -- but it took the British government -- the same government that actually did most of the hard work in creating the SI system -- until the year 2000 just to allow shops to sell goods by the kilo, which coincidentally was the date which we had agreed -- back in the 1960s -- finally to phase out the use of pounds and ounces. You aren't telling me that was an oversight. You can't just miss for nearly 40 years the fact that it was illegal to sell a kilo of tomatoes {and people have been busted for using SI measurements} while knowing that sooner or later it would be illegal to sell 2lb4oz of tomatoes. That was very obviously a deliberate attempt to piss somebody off.
You probably are missing some -devel RPM {or -dev DEB} somewhere. That's the cause of 90% of compile errors. Good luck finding which :)
WTF are you talking about? Debian includes the most cutting-edge software versions in SID {unstable; named after the boy in "Toy Story" [all Debian releases have codenames taken from this movie; I'm betting when they run out of T.S. characters they'll start on "Finding Nemo"] who breaks toys, and also for "still in development"}. You just need to edit your /etc/apt/sources.list and change every instance of "stable" to "unstable". Then # apt-get update, # /etc/init.d/kdm stop {otherwise you will muck it up} and finally # apt-get upgrade. You might need another untouched machine to run a web browser to run google if you get into trouble, but unstable isn't as unstable as it used to be.
It does tell you all this on the Debian site if you can be bothered to look for it; but you obviously prefer putting other people down because you mistakenly think it makes you look better {as opposed to making you look like a whining jerk-off, which is what your dad ought to have done and then we'd all be happy}.
But my point is that no matter how hard you make it for someone to defeat the copy-prevention, somebody will succeed -- and then they will begin distributing unencumbered versions.
An analogy {because we all love them}:
Recording companies == emperor
DRM == special fabric spun out of gold which only pure and wise people can see
Jon Johansen == little boy who cries out "What is the king doing in the buff?"