I don't call that "beating" it. People can, in fact, still obtain the source, which is a lot better than being unable to obtain the source.
However, web services do "break" the original spirit of the GPL no matter what, in that even if Slashdot shares source (which I think they do), I can't run my own modified Slashdot on Slashdot itself. I'm not sure of a way around this, really, although it's still an incremental improvement to require source in any case.
By the way, I don't see/etc/rc*.d to be going away anytime soon. If you think there is any important features missing from it, the best way to go is probably to file a wishlist bug in the bug tracking systems of the distributors.
A) Because ODF did not exist at the time Micrsoft started to use XML for their Office document formats.
When was that?
I do remember hearing about an XML-based format a very long time ago, but it had large binary blobs, which makes it exactly as much XML as the following blockquote is English:
The following is in Latin.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
End of Latin text.
What's more, I also remember it being dumped on us in the form of a six thousand page document. Between the half-assed early attempts and the gigantic document, silence.
Am I wrong? Maybe I was just paying more attention to ODF...
B) Because ODF does not support the functionality that MS needs for it's Office suite
So why didn't they extend it?
C) Because ODF is effective fully controlled by Sun and IBM which means that MS even though being the biggest Office software developer has no influence on features of ODF
And you know this because...?
That's right -- Microsoft didn't even fucking try.
(which are purely driven by OOo development)
Right -- I thought they were "effective[sic] fully controlled by Sun and IBM"?
Or maybe it's controlled by whoever actually decides to contribute to the spec, especially now that it's a standard?
D) Because the EU asked Microsoft to standardise their Office document format at a standards organisation
Citation?
I imagine that either the EU asked them to standardize their existing Office format, and MS misinterpreted (or the EU didn't specify clearly enough), thus the new OOXML format is pretending to comply with the EU, while they know full well that everyone will just keep using the existing.doc formats...
That, or the EU simply asked them to use a standard format.
But if it's the big bad EU's fault, that doesn't answer the question of why MS felt the need to use strongarm tactics on a standards body. That's low, even for MS.
There are two vastly different interpretations of the GPLv2's intent.
Linus' interpretation is, so long as we get to see the code, it's fine, even if we can't do anything with it.
That is not the original intent. Say what you will about RMS, but he wrote the damned thing.
Do you know why RMS started this "free software crusade", founded GNU, and wrote any GPL at all? It starts with a printer. He'd messed with the old printer driver for the old printer -- it was prone to paper jams, so his hack was to at least detect a jam and alert the user, even if he couldn't fix it. Well, the new model of printer came in, and he was all set to port his fix, but he didn't have source code.
That's why GPLv2 is all about source code -- RMS wants to be able to tinker with any device he owns, and he saw lack of source code as the only thing stopping him. In the case of this printer driver, it was. But now we have tivoization. Tell me, if the lab computer was set to only accept signed binaries, what good would any amount of source code be? He could change it to do his paper-jam-fixing-hack, and even compile it -- he could do anything but run it -- which makes it completely useless.
Linus has a point, and so do you -- there is some academic value in seeing how people did what they did.
But Linus and you miss the crucial point -- it's not about restricting the developers, it's about empowering the users. The GPLv3 guarantees that any piece of software you get that's GPLv3-licensed, you can modify it, recompile it, and run it in the same way as the original. What's restrictive about that?
DJB's approach to standards is to write his own incompatible version.
Right, since there isn't a standard right now...
As for user friendly, he can't even put the man pages where they can be found.
That's why I called it "trying".
Other than not watching for dead processes, what exactly is the problem with/etc/init.d?
Well, init.d is complete in the sense that brainfuck is Turing-complete.
Which is to say, it's actually awkward for quite a lot of things. For instance: networking.
On Gentoo, the way multiple network interfaces are dealt with is by assigning each of them an init script, all symlinked to the same one. Gentoo init scripts have dependencies, so I can have something depend on some or all of the network interfaces being up.
On Debian, this is dealt with by having one "networking" init script that then ties into its own init-like system for individual interfaces -- ifup/ifdown. I can force certain scripts to run after an interface comes up or goes down.
On Ubuntu desktops, this is dealt with by having a NetworkManager daemon (started by init.d) that handles everything itself, by communicating with a GUI. I'm fairly sure it uses ifup/ifdown in some way, as it seems to respect some of my static scripts.
Gentoo is the closest to the "right way", in that there's a unified way to start/stop something. That is, on Gentoo, I know I can stop a network device by doing/etc/init.d/net.eth1 stop. But Ubuntu's the most user-friendly way, because I can do it from a GUI, and, for instance, easily migrate between wireless networks.
Now, go read about upstart, for a completely different approach. In particular, the ability to receive "events" from, say, udev or HAL, means that the equivalent of "/etc/init.d/net.eth1 start" will be run when I plug a cable into eth1, without removing that functionality, or forcing it into a completely different system (ifup/down).
At least, that's how I think it would work. In practice, while Upstart is used in Ubuntu, it's mostly used just to launch all the old sysv rc scripts, which then launch things like NetworkManager.
No, you couldn't do that. In fact that's exactly the scenario given as an example case for section 7:
Hmm, let me check...
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
That says nothing about also being able to compile and run it. I wonder if it's possible to patent the method used in the actual binary, but not the source?
However, I would say that giving away code, then requiring a royalty to do anything with it does fall under the "indian giver" label.
Just because someone can't share absolutely everything, doesn't mean they don't want to share.
No, it generally means they're under a contractual obligation with someone else who doesn't want to share.
Also, generally, what you can't share, you can isolate enough to GPL, or at least LGPL, the rest of your product. For example, several proprietary Linux games include things like SDL, which is LGPL'd.
have you done any temperature testing? I'd check to see what the hardware's temperature is before obsessing over whether it's cooking it. Also, does it do the same thing under Windows?
Without being entirely scientific, under Windows, there are various fan-spinups much more frequently, and for much shorter amounts of time.
Under Ubuntu, there's almost no fan activity, then loud, long bursts of flaming hot air coming out the side (compared to Windows). Also, when rebooting Windows, the first thing that happens is the BIOS turns the fan on FULL, and it stays that way until Windows is finally out of hibernate.
I've found that I tend to get overly concerned about little things that may or may not be a problem...
Oh, agreed. A full-time job means I'm more an Ubuntu user than developer now:(
But, what that means is, since it's not really my job to debug this issue, I just report it and move on with my life. It's a company laptop. Were it a personal laptop, I would not be having this issue, because I'd have picked one for Ubuntu, and not the other way around. If it dies, I'll hopefully have some influence over which one to get next.
There is no svn, so scripts may be modified for a version rev with no backup taken. It is not major development here...
I would strongly recommend that at least the scripts, if not the entire project, be covered by some version control. I'd recommend bzr, specifically.
(And you might consider the scripts themselves to be source for the project, in some way...)
The main reason I recommend this is it's so easy to do. I do this for all my personal projects that I intend to keep -- basically anything beyond just tooling around with a new language.
Well, this is good for you, because you can now write a script for/etc/init.d which wraps around svc. Well, you could do that anyway, but someone else can now do that and package Qmail with it.
Understand that he was trying to replace/etc/init.d with something slightly more standard and user-friendly. This is an admirable goal -- I'm not sure I agree with/service, but I do think, in particular,/etc/rc*.d needs to go, and maybe/etc/init.d with it.
He also complains about a few things that show that either Apple is dumber than I thought, or he's missing some fundamental concepts.
News flash: EVERY backup app can take a snapshot of the entire file system.
Nope. Last I tried MS backup -- which was awhile ago, I admit -- it was roughly equivalent to a simple copy, not any kind of snapshot. On Windows, this means it can't backup most open files, which means you're not going to get most of your system stuff.
So, news flash: Some backup apps just plain suck. I'm glad Apple is showcasing this -- at least users will be aware of it, and ensure that no one ever sells a "backup" app again that doesn't do this in some way.
First, you can do an image-based bare-metal restore with the MS version
I don't even do that when I backup Windows. I use a nice little utility called ntfsclone, which makes a "sparse" image of NTFS (unused space isn't backed up).
See, backups should record at a logical level, not a "bare-metal" level, while still encompassing everything needed to get the system back in a working state. To backup Linux, for instance, all you usually need is/etc,/home, and a list of packages to install.
Time Machine needs a working version of Leopard to talk to, so why am I backing up all that system stuff?
And what is it that does the "bare-metal restore" on his MS version? The tooth fairy?
I don't actually know how Time Machine does a restore. I imagine it involves either booting the OS X install DVD -- which does, itself, run OS X -- and restoring with that, or installing a brand-new Leopard and then restoring -- which actually makes a lot of sense, as that "system" stuff will have been patched/tweaked/corrupted/whatever. The net result, unless Apple is dumber than I thought, is exactly the same as the Vista restore.
Even if it requires you to plug the thing into another Mac via FireWire, figure that the most important part of a backup is that the backup is complete. A full restore is not something you need to do often, and when you do, it's generally because your computer exploded or something, so you do want to bring in the techs. And Time Machine does make partial restores easier.
Can't argue with the block-level stuff, except to say that you should backup virtual machines as if they were computers (so backup Fedora with rsync and Vista with MS Backup), and that Entourage is horribly written -- pretty much anything that uses a "database" format instead of the filesystem for data of any size, in a desktop app, is broken. I mean, yes, Time Machine could've done this better (though it's not easy), but that doesn't make Entourage any less retarded.
and now with GPL3 putting further restrictions on sharers
The restrictions are essentially closing loopholes whereby people could either avoid sharing or share something useless.
Under GPLv2, you could create a derivative work and run a website based on it, but not share the changes since you weren't technically distributing the software. Or you could create a signed binary, and hardware that won't run it unless that binary is exactly the same. Or you could patent some procedure used, so that people can see the source code, but if they do anything with it, they violate your patent.
All GPLv3 does is enforce the spirit of GPLv2. Specifically: Everyone has to be able to get the source code, make any change they want, recompile, and run the modified binary.
greater restrictions are a smack in the face to the original reason anyone wanted to get involved in the first place, i.e. to share.
If you're getting hit with these restrictions, chances are, you, yourself, are an "indian giver" -- you want to pretend to share, except, not really.
Public domain remains the last safe haven for shareable code.
Or GPLv2... or BSD... or Apache... or MIT...
You're suggesting that GPLv3 somehow "infected" GPLv2, or every other license out there. That's simply not true. While public domain is perhaps the only way to ensure your code can be included in any kind of project, I see nothing wrong with share alike, and I see no reason why closing the loopholes is "going too far".
Nothing anyone does with fixing or distributing fixes as a package will make the vanilla version from cr.yp.to any less secure.
One of the hallmarks of the DJB software is that it is secure and he backs it up with a $500 (it may be $1000 now) bounty for security holes in the software.
Which he's also refused to pay in a few notable cases where most people tend to agree it was deserved.
I'm too lazy to find the statistics, but there are places like Canada -- maybe Wisconson, too? -- which have a much higher-than-average ratio of gun-use, and a much lower-than-average ratio of murder.
It's a more complex problem than gun control. Go watch Bowling for Columbine.
It's actually not that difficult to make publishing the default. What version control system are you using? Most will allow public (read-only) access, either with their tool or via some web interface.
Well, if I'd italicized it, maybe. I chose quotes, because often "remove the quotes" is implied. If I did neither, you'd be wondering if the process of Googling the word "Ubuntu" would destroy your laptop. (Well, not really, but it makes for clumsy reading nonetheless.)
Disclaimer: I realize I am most likely taking this more seriously than you intended:P
On the other hand... It turns out that your kneejerk reaction may have been somewhat on-target. The issue described in the bug report in your second link (the "better description") seems to be a non-PEBKAC issue. Upon further research, I found this page
Hmm. You're right, I should have dug deeper. That page is exactly what I had in mind (and was preventing) when I first mentioned "Ubuntu destroys laptops".
On my own machine, it's worse -- Ubuntu detects my video card as having a slowdown temperature of 115 degrees celsius. I haven't been able to correct that, and the fan isn't spinning up nearly as often as I'd expect. It's nice and quiet, but I have to wonder if I'm overheating the thing every time I boot it.
I'll be honest, here, I was all set to blast back with the "truth" about the situation, and blame the BIOS/hard drive manufacturers (based on your second link), but after reading the actual bug reports, it seems like this is, at the very least, an Ubuntu-fixable issue.
Well, it is Ubuntu-fixable, but it is frustrating how this seems to be caused by manufacturers only testing for Windows. It's not that something is wrong with Linux, but rather, that Linux is not bug-for-bug compatible with Windows on all ACPI systems.
On the *other* other hand, it appears to only affects the machine if laptop mode is enabled and/or the machine can't determine if it's running on batteries, so I'm still going to use Ubuntu on my desktops. I just love it, it's so *shiny*.
Absolutely. And I'm still going to use it on my laptops, too.
Vista does it too! So there, nyaaah.
Which doesn't negate my point...
I'm right there with you, I'm installing the Linux I want (Kubuntu or ubuntu-server) on every device I own that can handle it. I was just trying to illustrate that simply having it boot and work fine is not proof that you have "working drivers" for everything (even if it's a conf setting somewhere), or even that it's safe to do.
Then again, it's not exactly the most expensive piece of hardware to destroy, if that does happen.
If you are loading a plugin in your app, perhaps you should load it in such a way that your app can keep control over it.
That's not far from:
If you are loading an app in your OS, perhaps you should load it in such a way that your OS can keep control over it.
It is possible to write an OS in which malicious programs can be run, and are unable to do anything harmful, due to reduced privileges. Most of us don't do this, even to the extent that most modern OSes allow.
Think about it -- why stop with plugins? You could run absolutely every app out there with buffer overflow protection. And then some of them would break, due to legitimately executing "data" memory natively -- Wine is one example, and I imagine it would hurt some of the faster LISP interpreters.
Or you could decide that it's not the browser's job to fix everyone else's security issues, or limit the potential of what a "plugin" can be. Apple could certainly have implemented their own "buffer overflow protection".
Now, I'm not advocating one approach over the other. I'd certainly rather live in a world where least privilege is the default (but without Vista's UAC popups); where QuickTime is written in a higher-level, managed-memory language; and where something like QuickTime can't possibly compromise more than what video it's showing you (it could show you Goatse out of spite, but not much else).
But the reality is, QuickTime wasn't written in Java, or Erlang, and probably couldn't be run with its privileges any more reduced (on Windows) without triggering UAC popups, or (on OSX) sudo popups (or just not working at all). Given all of that, I think Firefox makes a reasonably fair compromise -- plugins are separate programs. If you want "safe plugins", you could always implement them as your own plugin (like nspluginwrapper).
Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.
I know other lawyers who really are truly evil, the worst kind of people, who I think should burn in hell.
And so is he.
Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.
Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent to those who partake in the enjoyment of action games.
I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.
Yes he's an annoyance, but take away they guy's career completely, especially when there's such worse out there practicing law.
Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.
Wouldn't just some kind of restraining motion to limit his outbursts be sufficient?
We tried that. He violated his restraining order.
Should he lose his right to practice his profession?
Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?
Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.
The only remaining question is why it took so long.
It's obvious why they want him disbared. The question is, why did anyone let him pass the exam in the first place -- in other words, why did anyone want him bared?
A modern Ubuntu install should be able to defrag your hard drive as needed to resize it. If not from the GUI installer, then with a little utility called ntfsresize. If it's not on the livecd, then
If you haven't noticed, computers have gone from being $10K to $300 or less for a budget machine.
That argument is a lot less convincing when almost 1/3rd of that price is the software. That's why the $300 and less market is pretty much dominated by Linux right now, and Microsoft is just starting to wake up to that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't call that "beating" it. People can, in fact, still obtain the source, which is a lot better than being unable to obtain the source.
However, web services do "break" the original spirit of the GPL no matter what, in that even if Slashdot shares source (which I think they do), I can't run my own modified Slashdot on Slashdot itself. I'm not sure of a way around this, really, although it's still an incremental improvement to require source in any case.
It's being worked on.
I was kind of hoping someone would hunt down the sources to back it up or disprove it, so I don't have to.
It's 3 AM. Before 3, I check sources. After 3, I just ramble lamely.
When was that?
I do remember hearing about an XML-based format a very long time ago, but it had large binary blobs, which makes it exactly as much XML as the following blockquote is English:
What's more, I also remember it being dumped on us in the form of a six thousand page document. Between the half-assed early attempts and the gigantic document, silence.
Am I wrong? Maybe I was just paying more attention to ODF...
So why didn't they extend it?
And you know this because...?
That's right -- Microsoft didn't even fucking try.
Right -- I thought they were "effective[sic] fully controlled by Sun and IBM"?
Or maybe it's controlled by whoever actually decides to contribute to the spec, especially now that it's a standard?
Citation?
I imagine that either the EU asked them to standardize their existing Office format, and MS misinterpreted (or the EU didn't specify clearly enough), thus the new OOXML format is pretending to comply with the EU, while they know full well that everyone will just keep using the existing .doc formats...
That, or the EU simply asked them to use a standard format.
But if it's the big bad EU's fault, that doesn't answer the question of why MS felt the need to use strongarm tactics on a standards body. That's low, even for MS.
There are two vastly different interpretations of the GPLv2's intent.
Linus' interpretation is, so long as we get to see the code, it's fine, even if we can't do anything with it.
That is not the original intent. Say what you will about RMS, but he wrote the damned thing.
Do you know why RMS started this "free software crusade", founded GNU, and wrote any GPL at all? It starts with a printer. He'd messed with the old printer driver for the old printer -- it was prone to paper jams, so his hack was to at least detect a jam and alert the user, even if he couldn't fix it. Well, the new model of printer came in, and he was all set to port his fix, but he didn't have source code.
That's why GPLv2 is all about source code -- RMS wants to be able to tinker with any device he owns, and he saw lack of source code as the only thing stopping him. In the case of this printer driver, it was. But now we have tivoization. Tell me, if the lab computer was set to only accept signed binaries, what good would any amount of source code be? He could change it to do his paper-jam-fixing-hack, and even compile it -- he could do anything but run it -- which makes it completely useless.
Linus has a point, and so do you -- there is some academic value in seeing how people did what they did.
But Linus and you miss the crucial point -- it's not about restricting the developers, it's about empowering the users. The GPLv3 guarantees that any piece of software you get that's GPLv3-licensed, you can modify it, recompile it, and run it in the same way as the original. What's restrictive about that?
Right, since there isn't a standard right now...
That's why I called it "trying".
Well, init.d is complete in the sense that brainfuck is Turing-complete.
Which is to say, it's actually awkward for quite a lot of things. For instance: networking.
On Gentoo, the way multiple network interfaces are dealt with is by assigning each of them an init script, all symlinked to the same one. Gentoo init scripts have dependencies, so I can have something depend on some or all of the network interfaces being up.
On Debian, this is dealt with by having one "networking" init script that then ties into its own init-like system for individual interfaces -- ifup/ifdown. I can force certain scripts to run after an interface comes up or goes down.
On Ubuntu desktops, this is dealt with by having a NetworkManager daemon (started by init.d) that handles everything itself, by communicating with a GUI. I'm fairly sure it uses ifup/ifdown in some way, as it seems to respect some of my static scripts.
Gentoo is the closest to the "right way", in that there's a unified way to start/stop something. That is, on Gentoo, I know I can stop a network device by doing /etc/init.d/net.eth1 stop. But Ubuntu's the most user-friendly way, because I can do it from a GUI, and, for instance, easily migrate between wireless networks.
Now, go read about upstart, for a completely different approach. In particular, the ability to receive "events" from, say, udev or HAL, means that the equivalent of "/etc/init.d/net.eth1 start" will be run when I plug a cable into eth1, without removing that functionality, or forcing it into a completely different system (ifup/down).
At least, that's how I think it would work. In practice, while Upstart is used in Ubuntu, it's mostly used just to launch all the old sysv rc scripts, which then launch things like NetworkManager.
Hmm, let me check...
That says nothing about also being able to compile and run it. I wonder if it's possible to patent the method used in the actual binary, but not the source?
However, I would say that giving away code, then requiring a royalty to do anything with it does fall under the "indian giver" label.
No, it generally means they're under a contractual obligation with someone else who doesn't want to share.
Also, generally, what you can't share, you can isolate enough to GPL, or at least LGPL, the rest of your product. For example, several proprietary Linux games include things like SDL, which is LGPL'd.
Without being entirely scientific, under Windows, there are various fan-spinups much more frequently, and for much shorter amounts of time.
Under Ubuntu, there's almost no fan activity, then loud, long bursts of flaming hot air coming out the side (compared to Windows). Also, when rebooting Windows, the first thing that happens is the BIOS turns the fan on FULL, and it stays that way until Windows is finally out of hibernate.
Oh, agreed. A full-time job means I'm more an Ubuntu user than developer now :(
But, what that means is, since it's not really my job to debug this issue, I just report it and move on with my life. It's a company laptop. Were it a personal laptop, I would not be having this issue, because I'd have picked one for Ubuntu, and not the other way around. If it dies, I'll hopefully have some influence over which one to get next.
I would strongly recommend that at least the scripts, if not the entire project, be covered by some version control. I'd recommend bzr, specifically.
(And you might consider the scripts themselves to be source for the project, in some way...)
The main reason I recommend this is it's so easy to do. I do this for all my personal projects that I intend to keep -- basically anything beyond just tooling around with a new language.
Well, this is good for you, because you can now write a script for /etc/init.d which wraps around svc. Well, you could do that anyway, but someone else can now do that and package Qmail with it.
/etc/init.d with something slightly more standard and user-friendly. This is an admirable goal -- I'm not sure I agree with /service, but I do think, in particular, /etc/rc*.d needs to go, and maybe /etc/init.d with it.
Understand that he was trying to replace
He also complains about a few things that show that either Apple is dumber than I thought, or he's missing some fundamental concepts.
Nope. Last I tried MS backup -- which was awhile ago, I admit -- it was roughly equivalent to a simple copy, not any kind of snapshot. On Windows, this means it can't backup most open files, which means you're not going to get most of your system stuff.
So, news flash: Some backup apps just plain suck. I'm glad Apple is showcasing this -- at least users will be aware of it, and ensure that no one ever sells a "backup" app again that doesn't do this in some way.
I don't even do that when I backup Windows. I use a nice little utility called ntfsclone, which makes a "sparse" image of NTFS (unused space isn't backed up).
See, backups should record at a logical level, not a "bare-metal" level, while still encompassing everything needed to get the system back in a working state. To backup Linux, for instance, all you usually need is /etc, /home, and a list of packages to install.
And what is it that does the "bare-metal restore" on his MS version? The tooth fairy?
I don't actually know how Time Machine does a restore. I imagine it involves either booting the OS X install DVD -- which does, itself, run OS X -- and restoring with that, or installing a brand-new Leopard and then restoring -- which actually makes a lot of sense, as that "system" stuff will have been patched/tweaked/corrupted/whatever. The net result, unless Apple is dumber than I thought, is exactly the same as the Vista restore.
Even if it requires you to plug the thing into another Mac via FireWire, figure that the most important part of a backup is that the backup is complete. A full restore is not something you need to do often, and when you do, it's generally because your computer exploded or something, so you do want to bring in the techs. And Time Machine does make partial restores easier.
Can't argue with the block-level stuff, except to say that you should backup virtual machines as if they were computers (so backup Fedora with rsync and Vista with MS Backup), and that Entourage is horribly written -- pretty much anything that uses a "database" format instead of the filesystem for data of any size, in a desktop app, is broken. I mean, yes, Time Machine could've done this better (though it's not easy), but that doesn't make Entourage any less retarded.
How is it confusing?
The restrictions are essentially closing loopholes whereby people could either avoid sharing or share something useless.
Under GPLv2, you could create a derivative work and run a website based on it, but not share the changes since you weren't technically distributing the software. Or you could create a signed binary, and hardware that won't run it unless that binary is exactly the same. Or you could patent some procedure used, so that people can see the source code, but if they do anything with it, they violate your patent.
All GPLv3 does is enforce the spirit of GPLv2. Specifically: Everyone has to be able to get the source code, make any change they want, recompile, and run the modified binary.
If you're getting hit with these restrictions, chances are, you, yourself, are an "indian giver" -- you want to pretend to share, except, not really.
Or GPLv2... or BSD... or Apache... or MIT...
You're suggesting that GPLv3 somehow "infected" GPLv2, or every other license out there. That's simply not true. While public domain is perhaps the only way to ensure your code can be included in any kind of project, I see nothing wrong with share alike, and I see no reason why closing the loopholes is "going too far".
Nothing anyone does with fixing or distributing fixes as a package will make the vanilla version from cr.yp.to any less secure.
Which he's also refused to pay in a few notable cases where most people tend to agree it was deserved.
Don't quote me on that, though...
There are protocols for interop, they just require you to have a cooperating server.
I realize that's a bit of a big requirement...
I'm too lazy to find the statistics, but there are places like Canada -- maybe Wisconson, too? -- which have a much higher-than-average ratio of gun-use, and a much lower-than-average ratio of murder.
It's a more complex problem than gun control. Go watch Bowling for Columbine.
It's actually not that difficult to make publishing the default. What version control system are you using? Most will allow public (read-only) access, either with their tool or via some web interface.
Well, if I'd italicized it, maybe. I chose quotes, because often "remove the quotes" is implied. If I did neither, you'd be wondering if the process of Googling the word "Ubuntu" would destroy your laptop. (Well, not really, but it makes for clumsy reading nonetheless.)
Disclaimer: I realize I am most likely taking this more seriously than you intended :P
Hmm. You're right, I should have dug deeper. That page is exactly what I had in mind (and was preventing) when I first mentioned "Ubuntu destroys laptops".
On my own machine, it's worse -- Ubuntu detects my video card as having a slowdown temperature of 115 degrees celsius. I haven't been able to correct that, and the fan isn't spinning up nearly as often as I'd expect. It's nice and quiet, but I have to wonder if I'm overheating the thing every time I boot it.
Well, it is Ubuntu-fixable, but it is frustrating how this seems to be caused by manufacturers only testing for Windows. It's not that something is wrong with Linux, but rather, that Linux is not bug-for-bug compatible with Windows on all ACPI systems.
Absolutely. And I'm still going to use it on my laptops, too.
Which doesn't negate my point...
I'm right there with you, I'm installing the Linux I want (Kubuntu or ubuntu-server) on every device I own that can handle it. I was just trying to illustrate that simply having it boot and work fine is not proof that you have "working drivers" for everything (even if it's a conf setting somewhere), or even that it's safe to do.
Then again, it's not exactly the most expensive piece of hardware to destroy, if that does happen.
That's not far from:
It is possible to write an OS in which malicious programs can be run, and are unable to do anything harmful, due to reduced privileges. Most of us don't do this, even to the extent that most modern OSes allow.
Think about it -- why stop with plugins? You could run absolutely every app out there with buffer overflow protection. And then some of them would break, due to legitimately executing "data" memory natively -- Wine is one example, and I imagine it would hurt some of the faster LISP interpreters.
Or you could decide that it's not the browser's job to fix everyone else's security issues, or limit the potential of what a "plugin" can be. Apple could certainly have implemented their own "buffer overflow protection".
Now, I'm not advocating one approach over the other. I'd certainly rather live in a world where least privilege is the default (but without Vista's UAC popups); where QuickTime is written in a higher-level, managed-memory language; and where something like QuickTime can't possibly compromise more than what video it's showing you (it could show you Goatse out of spite, but not much else).
But the reality is, QuickTime wasn't written in Java, or Erlang, and probably couldn't be run with its privileges any more reduced (on Windows) without triggering UAC popups, or (on OSX) sudo popups (or just not working at all). Given all of that, I think Firefox makes a reasonably fair compromise -- plugins are separate programs. If you want "safe plugins", you could always implement them as your own plugin (like nspluginwrapper).
Why couldn't his advisers tell him to come out in favor of ODF?
Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.
And so is he.
Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.
I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.
Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.
We tried that. He violated his restraining order.
Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?
Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.
The only remaining question is why it took so long.
I imagine no one who had a clue would seriously consider replacing him.
It's obvious why they want him disbared. The question is, why did anyone let him pass the exam in the first place -- in other words, why did anyone want him bared?
I'm feeling lucky.
And there's a better description here.
A modern Ubuntu install should be able to defrag your hard drive as needed to resize it. If not from the GUI installer, then with a little utility called ntfsresize. If it's not on the livecd, then
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install ntfsprogs
Not entirely user-friendly, but pretty safe.
That argument is a lot less convincing when almost 1/3rd of that price is the software. That's why the $300 and less market is pretty much dominated by Linux right now, and Microsoft is just starting to wake up to that fact.