I'm a long time gkrellm fan, but I have to say, its time has passed. Same as XMMS. There are some nice things about gkrellm, such as running under a single process and having a nice array of plugins written for it. But it's klunky, and there's evidently no way to get around the vertical stack of krells and meters. Writing themes, while not technically difficult, is changelling because it's hard to know what it will look like on someone else's desktop, which may have custom meter heights and widths, fonts, and plugins. It's too themeable, IMO. And I have a feeling that's why none of these big theme engines coming out of Ximian and Red Hat include gkrellm themes (to my knowledge, anyway).
Everyone's got something different to contribute, but it's your job to appreciate it. As an introvert, you might find it fun as I do to sit back and watch how people work -- even the "stupid" ones.
Or Debian GNU/Linux. SCO's licensing schemes so far only seem to target "commercial" distributions.
I went trying to find out how much I owe them -- you know, for shits & giggles -- and found that they aren't even charging me. How nice!
I'd be interested in hearing what good ol Orrin Hatch has to say about all of this. Maybe he'll go ransack SCO's headquarters... or at least all of their hard drives.:-)
Somehow I think that no matter who is 'right' here, 50 states and the entire Federal government are going to win.
They'll "win" because there won't ever be a battle. In a world of billion dollar Microsoft contracts, I don't see why the government would have a problem with this. To paraphrase Rutherford B Hayes, this is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.
I haven't heard much GNOME/KDE infighting lately. What I hear is people bitching about the HIG, exemplified by the galeon/ephy situation.
And sorry to be blunt, Mr. Joyce, but from what I've seen in this thread, you are nothing but a pontificating troll.
So that's why humans are entitled to so many more fundamental privileges than nonhumans? Because we "can make decisions" and take responsibility for our actions? What about those humans who heavily rely on their instincts? What about infants and mentally handicapped people who are incapable of "reason"? And what about nonhumans that have the ability to learn and remember, and can alter their future actions accordingly? Are they not making decisions?
What you've proposed is a false dilemma, where one either a) has the capability to make decisions, or b) acts instinctually. It's not zero-sum: making decisions and taking responsibility IS instinctual for a great many species, including humans.
I'm sorry, but your handwaiving is no substitute for argument.
I'm not so sure why our capability to reason merits us so many exclusive rights, when many of those rights have absolutely nothing to to with reason. I'm also not sure there's such a precise quality called reason which, we can assert, all humans surely have and all nonhumans surely lack. Must one know the price of tea in China to suffer from being locked up in a cage?
Here's a favorite quote of mine from Richard Dawkins, who expresses my feelings very nicely on the subject.
"I'd worry about the humanist label if it implied something uniquely special about being human. Evolution is a gradual process. Humanness is not an all-or-none quality that you either have or don't have. It is a complicated mixture of qualities that evolved gradually, which means that some people have higher doses than others, and some nonhumans have non-negligible doses as well. Absolutist moral judgments founded on the "rights" of all humans, as opposed to nonhumans, therefore seem to me less justifiable than more pragmatic judgments based, for example, on quantitative assessment of the ability to suffer."
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, but Microsoft, as far as I know, has not taken to walking all over the GPL like SCO has.
You aren't damaging SCO by stripping support in GCC, you are damaging SCO's users.
Well, that's exactly why they decided not to strip support...
I'm a long time gkrellm fan, but I have to say, its time has passed. Same as XMMS. There are some nice things about gkrellm, such as running under a single process and having a nice array of plugins written for it. But it's klunky, and there's evidently no way to get around the vertical stack of krells and meters. Writing themes, while not technically difficult, is changelling because it's hard to know what it will look like on someone else's desktop, which may have custom meter heights and widths, fonts, and plugins. It's too themeable, IMO. And I have a feeling that's why none of these big theme engines coming out of Ximian and Red Hat include gkrellm themes (to my knowledge, anyway).
Well put.
> > As a shy extrovert, I can attest to this.
> And as a shy-but-I-got-over-it introvert, I agree.
Crap, I don't know which one to agree with.
Everyone's got something different to contribute, but it's your job to appreciate it. As an introvert, you might find it fun as I do to sit back and watch how people work -- even the "stupid" ones.
JMHO.
Naa, only 2-bit color... the Black Screen of Death
The best post Re SCO on /. I've seen yet.
Why? Is SCO claiming IP rights to the cotton stuffing? :-)
lol :-)
Well I can't say I agree, but time will tell.
:-)
I'd be interested in hearing what good ol Orrin Hatch has to say about all of this. Maybe he'll go ransack SCO's headquarters... or at least all of their hard drives.
Somehow I think that no matter who is 'right' here, 50 states and the entire Federal government are going to win.
They'll "win" because there won't ever be a battle. In a world of billion dollar Microsoft contracts, I don't see why the government would have a problem with this. To paraphrase Rutherford B Hayes, this is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.
They actually believe this'll work.
The only advertised job opening from SCOX: Senior Sales Account Manager
I totally agree. Very pretty.
Yeah I like his too.
Might as well cede the desktop to Microsoft.
There ya go, that's the attitude!
You know, it's ironic... both parent and grandparent are dupes of jokes in the previous story.
I haven't heard much GNOME/KDE infighting lately. What I hear is people bitching about the HIG, exemplified by the galeon/ephy situation. And sorry to be blunt, Mr. Joyce, but from what I've seen in this thread, you are nothing but a pontificating troll.
So that's why humans are entitled to so many more fundamental privileges than nonhumans? Because we "can make decisions" and take responsibility for our actions? What about those humans who heavily rely on their instincts? What about infants and mentally handicapped people who are incapable of "reason"? And what about nonhumans that have the ability to learn and remember, and can alter their future actions accordingly? Are they not making decisions?
What you've proposed is a false dilemma, where one either a) has the capability to make decisions, or b) acts instinctually. It's not zero-sum: making decisions and taking responsibility IS instinctual for a great many species, including humans.
I'm sorry, but your handwaiving is no substitute for argument.
I'm not so sure why our capability to reason merits us so many exclusive rights, when many of those rights have absolutely nothing to to with reason. I'm also not sure there's such a precise quality called reason which, we can assert, all humans surely have and all nonhumans surely lack. Must one know the price of tea in China to suffer from being locked up in a cage?
Here's a favorite quote of mine from Richard Dawkins, who expresses my feelings very nicely on the subject.
"I'd worry about the humanist label if it implied something uniquely special about being human. Evolution is a gradual process. Humanness is not an all-or-none quality that you either have or don't have. It is a complicated mixture of qualities that evolved gradually, which means that some people have higher doses than others, and some nonhumans have non-negligible doses as well. Absolutist moral judgments founded on the "rights" of all humans, as opposed to nonhumans, therefore seem to me less justifiable than more pragmatic judgments based, for example, on quantitative assessment of the ability to suffer."