Well, I do tend to go look in the source of things that misbehave when I use them, and fix them, and post patches. I thus ended up maintaining, comaintaining and helping out with pieces of rather high visibility OSS software, which essentially all distributions carry and put in their main desktop menus. I would probably not be of much help in fixing a video driver, as I have absolutely none of the required knowledge; but I know for a fact that there are people that have it and would certainly be of much help. People have been able to come up with sort-of-working drivers -without- access to specs, source code or even a mildly encouraging look from nVidia and friends, so I am not being bold at all at thinking that they would pretty much be of use in more favourable contexts.
In any case, if that is the impression you got from reading Slashdot, I suggest you be more careful in selecting your sources of information. Even within Slashdot some judicious filtering would enourmously help with your understanding.
The codecs are gstreamer plugins, exactly like all the other plugins you can get for gstreamer. Unless by "require binary only gstreamer libraries" you mean that you need the.so file that the plugin comes in (like all plugins...) you do not make much sense.
Apart from trivial applications, mostly all software is going to have security flaws, as perfection is way too hard and way too expensive to achieve. The difference is how you react to flaws.
Of course, by Proprietary software company you mean Proprietary software company which has recently GPL'ed what it's probably its most valuable software asset, right?
Why not? As long as you keep in mind your approximation margins and they are enough for what you are trying to do, could can very well aproximate i by 1.
You've got to love the fact that that page proposes to use Mao's propaganda-as-cartoons. The image of little kids exclaiming "I guess communism has all the answers", "Mao is right" and "This must be true!" probably depicts what the people that setup that page aspire to. At least, it is quite honest...
That surely sounds like a great plan: when GPLc3 gets release and code starts getting rereleased with the new licence, you can simply abstain to using any of it.
What great improvements to gcc/g++, glibc and the unix user space tools have been done in the last 5 years?
Go read the changelogs. You will be surprised.
Besides, it's not as if compilers and little unix utilities are exactly rocket science.
While writing a compiler and a little unix utility might not be rocket science, writing a good compiler and reliable, solid, standard compliant little unix itilities is a bit more difficult than what you seem to think.
Strictly, you cannot observe the fall of objects. At most, you can propose it as a model (a rather consistant one!) to explain all the direct observations you can make, which are of a much, much lower level. Not even the position of something is directly observable, as the measurement of position is a rather elaborate set of indirect procedures.
And, of course, what I mean was "observe the fall of objects (due to gravitation)".
I would imagine the poster you are replying to, and I would surely use the word in that sense, is using the word 'observable' is the wide sense of (at least) 'can be tested in some way or inferred from the existence of other entities which can themselves be tested (even indirectly)'
Otherwise, you strictly cannot even say that the fall of objects due to gravitation is observable...
The very fact that you keep writing THEORY shows that you have no understanding of pretty much anything related to the evolutionary theory. You should probably abstain from commenting on matters that you do not understand.
How do you know he hasn't done anything?
How do you know he hasn't started coding a video editor, but jus had trouble getting it working.
How do you know that he hasn't contributed to one of the projects out there, but doesn't consider it up to his standards yet.
I do not know because he has not told us. That is why I asked.
Such as profesionals who need CYMK and need a linux replacement for photoshop. People say the GIMP is good enough all the time, photoshop is a photo editor, you can't claim GMIP is when it can't even split the colours needed for printing. I mean... for fucks sake, when will you fanboys realise that some linux programs JUST AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?
Anyone who thinks that an app is perfect is an idiot, be it a linux app or a non-linux app.
You are probably aware of the legal issues surrounding CMYK &c.
Slashdot Mirror
That's perfectly good grammar. It may not be great style, though.
The plugins are not DRMed and do not play DRMed content.
From asking on #fluendo on FreeNode, it becomes apparent that your second statement is not true.
Maybe you want to review how things happened before commenting?
Well, I do tend to go look in the source of things that misbehave when I use them, and fix them, and post patches. I thus ended up maintaining, comaintaining and helping out with pieces of rather high visibility OSS software, which essentially all distributions carry and put in their main desktop menus. I would probably not be of much help in fixing a video driver, as I have absolutely none of the required knowledge; but I know for a fact that there are people that have it and would certainly be of much help. People have been able to come up with sort-of-working drivers -without- access to specs, source code or even a mildly encouraging look from nVidia and friends, so I am not being bold at all at thinking that they would pretty much be of use in more favourable contexts.
In any case, if that is the impression you got from reading Slashdot, I suggest you be more careful in selecting your sources of information. Even within Slashdot some judicious filtering would enourmously help with your understanding.
The codecs are gstreamer plugins, exactly like all the other plugins you can get for gstreamer. Unless by "require binary only gstreamer libraries" you mean that you need the .so file that the plugin comes in (like all plugins...) you do not make much sense.
Apart from trivial applications, mostly all software is going to have security flaws, as perfection is way too hard and way too expensive to achieve. The difference is how you react to flaws.
Of course, you knew that.
Of course, by Proprietary software company you mean Proprietary software company which has recently GPL'ed what it's probably its most valuable software asset, right?
You do not need them: they are just a convenient tool with which carrying out the computations you need to do becomes simpler.
Why not? As long as you keep in mind your approximation margins and they are enough for what you are trying to do, could can very well aproximate i by 1.
After years of being a mathematician, I can report that I have yet to see "0" used to mean "nothingness".
You've got to love the fact that that page proposes to use Mao's propaganda-as-cartoons. The image of little kids exclaiming "I guess communism has all the answers", "Mao is right" and "This must be true!" probably depicts what the people that setup that page aspire to. At least, it is quite honest...
You mean in the same way that having people be able to mess at will with the Linux kernel, say, has lead to... hmm... to what?
That surely sounds like a great plan: when GPLc3 gets release and code starts getting rereleased with the new licence, you can simply abstain to using any of it.
Good luck.
You are beginning to think that?
Wow. You crearly have no comprehension of what copyright is.
Daft.
Go read the changelogs. You will be surprised.
While writing a compiler and a little unix utility might not be rocket science, writing a good compiler and reliable, solid, standard compliant little unix itilities is a bit more difficult than what you seem to think.
Also, google for "multiply linked list". There are even CS programming course problem sheets proposing this for students...
Strictly, you cannot observe the fall of objects. At most, you can propose it as a model (a rather consistant one!) to explain all the direct observations you can make, which are of a much, much lower level. Not even the position of something is directly observable, as the measurement of position is a rather elaborate set of indirect procedures.
And, of course, what I mean was "observe the fall of objects (due to gravitation)".
I would imagine the poster you are replying to, and I would surely use the word in that sense, is using the word 'observable' is the wide sense of (at least) 'can be tested in some way or inferred from the existence of other entities which can themselves be tested (even indirectly)'
Otherwise, you strictly cannot even say that the fall of objects due to gravitation is observable...
I do not feel like writing what's already there, so read http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=207834 &cid=16950624 and read some actual biblical scholarship.
Nice.
The very fact that you keep writing THEORY shows that you have no understanding of pretty much anything related to the evolutionary theory. You should probably abstain from commenting on matters that you do not understand.
It is generally believed? That's the silliest statement on this whole thread and that, my friend, is not a small feat.
I do not know about the buses, but as for innocent families getting killed in ridiculous ways, you can simply get a better source for your news.
I do not know because he has not told us. That is why I asked.
Anyone who thinks that an app is perfect is an idiot, be it a linux app or a non-linux app.
You are probably aware of the legal issues surrounding CMYK &c.