Look at it this way. There are 2 users, User A who has a subscription and downloads pre-releases. User B who has a subscription and downloads and redistributes pre-releases.
User A downloads 3 pre-releases. This costs him his initial subscription cost of $20.
User B also downloads 3 pre-releases and redistributes them. Since User B has his subscription revoked each time he redistributes a pre-release, this would cost him 3 subscriptions, or $60.
The difference between User A and User B is User B acted on rights granted by the GPL. User B is charged triple the fee of User A. Doesn't this sound like an extra restriction to redistribution?
This would force me to re-lease the appliance if a wanted to use it more. In essence I'm being charged more (than an average user) for acting on the rights given to me by the GPL. IANAL, but being charged for using those rights sounds like an added restriction.
4) Bleeding edge pre-release 'beta' firmwares require a subscription to download. I'm pretty sure linksys goes through beta cycles without widely releasing code. At some point they call is stable, and that becomes a release version.
The GPL makes no destinction between beta and release software, read section 6 of the GPL. Adding restrictions to software distribution is not allowed.
He is adding a restriction to redistribution by revoking the subscriptions of users acting well within their GPL rights. Example: User A downloads 3 prereleases of the software and does not redistribute them. This costs user A the one-time $20 subscription fee.
User B downloads 3 prereleases as well. But User B redistributes the prerelease each time, having his subscription revoked every time. This costs User B $60 for 3 subscriptions. This assumes User B is even allowed to resubscribe.
This sure sounds like a restriction to me. The user redistributing the code under his GPL rights is being charged more.
I'm not sure what the real problem is here. These guys are trying to make money while improving and supporting an open source product. If you don't like it go use another firmware.
I'm not sure what the real problem is here. There guys are trying to use their GPL rights since the software was derived from GPL code. If the software creator doesn't like it, he can go use another codebase and license.
If you were paying for support sure this would be "refusal of service" (ooh... another expression full of conotations and gut feelings). But you are not buying support. You are buying the binary and the source. The support is a bribe on the providers part asking that you don't redistribute.
Nope, you are not buying binary and source. You are buying a subscription to the site which includes: forums (which grant support) and updated firmware (couldn't an updated version be considered support?).
Users are being penalized for acting within their GPL rights. In my opinion that is an added restriction to distribution.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The GPL makes no destinction between release, pre-release, beta, alpha, gamma, delta, googleplex, or whatever. The simple fact is the he is imposing an extra restriction: Redistribute code of mine that I don't want redestributed and I will revoke (without refund) a service that you have paid for.
Firstly, Like QT, it is under a dual-licence. Secondly, remember GPL controls distribution, not use. Now, you can have the software distributed to you under the terms of sveasoft, which entitles you to upgrades, or under the terms of the GPL. The second option is there because they cannot take away rights under the GPL.
First off, as many have said before, a dual-license is not allowed. This source is not originally his, so it is not in his power to license the code under new terms.
However, the extra rights they are providing (the subscription/upgrade model) are optional -- the GPL does not mandate them. Therefore, they can take them away for any reason whatsoever and in this case, they have said they will take away those bonus rights if you choose to excercise the distribution rights you got through the GPL.
I've mentioned earlier in this discussion that I have an issue with this. Your subscription is revoked without refund if you redistribute. So you are being charged for excersizing one of your GPL rights. Wouldn't you call this an added restriction?
Imagine it were not revoking your subscription, but instead your support license. Or if you leased hardware and the hardware lease were revoked without refund.
The problem I have here is forcing someone to pay (or in this case, lose something they have already purchased, with no refund) for excersizing rights granted by the GPL.
Let's take this case to an extreme. You lease an internet appliance that runs Linux from company X. Company X provides the source code to you, as required by the GPL, but stipulates in your contract that if you redistribute, your lease is revoked without refund. Your appliance must be returned ASAP.
4) Sveasoft can track the subscribers who redistribute their binaries by attaching some kind of tag to each firmware binary (as demonstrated by the different MD5 sums found so far). This makes sense, considering Sveasoft thought TheIndividual was someone else at first. Arno Nym has done some work to try to find what the unique identifier is. It is unknown wether this is allowed under the GPL.
That's how they know who distributed the binary and whose account to revoke.
Any code you mix in with GPLed code automatically gets GPLed. But that's what's good about the GPL. It requires improvements are fed back into the community.
The GPL is viral. Unfortunate, "viral" has a negative connotation.
Why should it be the job of the Gaim team to dig through the Phonegaim source and make sure that a patch applies cleanly?
If the Phonegaim developers really want their changes merged, they will supply a patch that conforms to the design guidelines layed out by the Gaim developers.
Actually no, the original post was not by me. I just happened to be another person what got tired of everyone answering with 'vi!'.
I'm not saying you are wrong because vi is your main config tool. It just has no place in this discussion. So many people answering with vi and the like doesn't answer the question and makes it difficult to filter out any useful answers.
Well, I'd like to help out, but vim really is my primary configuration tool, and I believe, after going back and reading the question a few more times, that that actually does answer it.
Well, it's a silly answer. It's very well known that you can configure a *n*x system by editing the config files with a text editor of your choice.
What value does this answer add to the discussion? Esecially since so many before you have given the same answer.
Are we one step further towards Cross-distro RPMS?
URPMI is just a front-end for fetching RPMS + dependencies and running rpm to install them. yum or apt can perform the exact same function as URPMI. A cross-ditro RPM can just as easily be installed with any of these package managers.
An advantage of URPMI over APT is that URPMI can do small updates instead of taking the
whole package list and putting it in a big "rpm -Uvh" command line.
Huh? Are you saying that apt can't upgrade just one package at a time? That's absolutely false.
apt-get install mozilla-firefox
There. I just upgraded Firefox and any dependant packages that must be upgraded. No other possible updates are installed.
While I'm no fan of windows, much like others here, I do see the need to have a *fair* test, and at *many* points through the tests, I saw this:
"Again, we had to use 32-bit binaries for the Win-64 beta"
Maybe he was doing his best to test the different 64-bit operating system performance as it stands today. Part of the drawback of Windows is that right now it seems to be pretty hard to get your hands on 64-bit applications.
Oh, and one last part. The writer of the article doesn't quite get that 64bit binarys *should* be faster than 32bit ones, with this little gem:"Here shows another case of 64-bit optimized binaries working faster than 32-bit binaries"
Why?
Why is it so obvious 64-bit is faster than 32-bit? Just because the word size is doubled? For many applications that doesn't help at all. FYI, one of the big advantages of the amd64 instruction set is a larger (than ia32) set of registers for the compiler to work with. That is where the speed boost is most likely coming from. Only certain applications truly benefit from a 64-bit word size.
What's the more important part of an axe, the handle or the head?
Your proof by analogy is flawed, the handle is part of the mechanism of the axe, it is not merely an interface to the axe.
If you want to play the analogy game, try a car instead. You are used to driving a care with a wheel and pedals. A car could easily be designed with the same functionality, but instead use a joystick for control of both acceleration and turning.
My point is there is no one true interface. I don't want apps that are GUI only. I like the fact that I can control my running instance of xmms using the command-line. Apps should be designed with the interface separate from the functionality.
I know lots of peopel woh need training on unix systems, but pretty much the majority of people can jump on a Windows box and get on the internet etc.
I could easily do the same. Put someone in front of my linux desktop machine, point them to the Firefox icon (or change the Firefox icon to the IE icon) and suddenly they too are on the internet. Once the OS and apps are installed, it's all a piece of cake.
Most users don't install Windows. It comes with their machine. Installed and configured.
When they develop any piece of software, their primary focus is the interface. They first try to make the GUI as easy to use as possible, so a normal user can access all the functions of the software in an intuitive manner. The software is then written to facilitate the GUI. Howerver, first and foremost, it is Apples policy that a user should NEVER have to see a CLI.
Personally, I think that's the wrong way to design software. Why should the core functionality of an application be tied to the GUI? I would prefer the app be designed independant of the interface and then allow different interfaces to be used. Let me give you an example:
iTunes. Wouldn't it be great if iTunes had more than one front-end? Say maybe a web interface so you can access it from another computer in your home? Or maybe even a command-line interface so it is easier to access from a device with a small screen (or low bandwidth), like your PDA.
I started off as a Mac user, but I've since learned that there is a place for the CLI. It has a higher learning curve, but for some operations it is a much better tool.
Where did the parent say "Just use Debian"? I didn't see it. He used Debian as an example of a distro with good package management. All the new distros have package management utilities that will automatically handle dependencies:
The simple fact is that the great-grandparent's problem has already been solved by every major distro out there. Oh, and Debian is a perfectly valid solution. Just because it doesn't work for you does not mean it's not a solution.
When I read the topic summary, the first thing I thought was someone found a nifty way to use a web browser Net Friedman's Dashboard project. Only after clicking the Dashboard link did I realize it's some Apple UI technology.
The parent is on topic, this project has been around a hell of a lot longer than Apple's. How about a little fair moderation.
Nearly all computer manufacturers out there only ship computers with Windows. The cost is rolled into the price of the computer. I'm not even sure people realize they are paying for Windows. As far as they are concerned, when you buy a computer it comes with Windows. Don't they all come with windows?
If Firefox is really hot shit (I certainly think it is), then people will be willing to pay the extra cost.
Do you really think if Dell had a build-to-order option to ship Firefox with your computer for another $50 that people would pay for it? I sure don't.
The simple fact is that the Mozilla Foundation does not have an easy job in advertising their browsers. Most people use IE and think it's good enough. I'm sure many people don't even know there are alternatives to IE. In the worst case, the most clueless computer users think IE is the Internet.
Maybe if popular print magazines or local newspapers ran stories on this wonderful little open source browser things will change. But as of now, it's only people in the know, the ones that actually browse computer tech sites that really know about Firefox.
I've always been a huge advocate of Firefox and try to get people to switch, but often it's not so easy.
I have a friend that is too lazy to switch. Yes, I know how simple the install process is, but he just doesn't care enough to bother.
Other people are just addicted to IE. A friend of mine had IE stop working on his computer. He came to me for help with fixing the problem, but I haven't really worked with windows for years.The easiest solution I could think of was to show him how to install Firefox. A couple of weeks later he again asks me to help him fix IE. He couldn't give me a reason why he wanted IE back. He didn't cite any real problems with Firefox or advantages for IE. He just wanted IE back.
The more I think about it the more I realize that tabs aren't all that different from multiple browsers windows. I don't use many of the advanced features like tab bookmark groups.
But there is one key difference: new tabs open in the background. It's what lets me read an article and open reference links in the background to be read later.
I haven't seen a way to do this by opening a new browser window.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at it this way. There are 2 users, User A who has a subscription and downloads pre-releases. User B who has a subscription and downloads and redistributes pre-releases.
User A downloads 3 pre-releases. This costs him his initial subscription cost of $20.
User B also downloads 3 pre-releases and redistributes them. Since User B has his subscription revoked each time he redistributes a pre-release, this would cost him 3 subscriptions, or $60.
The difference between User A and User B is User B acted on rights granted by the GPL. User B is charged triple the fee of User A. Doesn't this sound like an extra restriction to redistribution?
This would force me to re-lease the appliance if a wanted to use it more. In essence I'm being charged more (than an average user) for acting on the rights given to me by the GPL. IANAL, but being charged for using those rights sounds like an added restriction.
The GPL makes no destinction between beta and release software, read section 6 of the GPL. Adding restrictions to software distribution is not allowed.
He is adding a restriction to redistribution by revoking the subscriptions of users acting well within their GPL rights. Example:
User A downloads 3 prereleases of the software and does not redistribute them. This costs user A the one-time $20 subscription fee.
User B downloads 3 prereleases as well. But User B redistributes the prerelease each time, having his subscription revoked every time. This costs User B $60 for 3 subscriptions. This assumes User B is even allowed to resubscribe.
This sure sounds like a restriction to me. The user redistributing the code under his GPL rights is being charged more.
I'm not sure what the real problem is here. There guys are trying to use their GPL rights since the software was derived from GPL code. If the software creator doesn't like it, he can go use another codebase and license.
Nope, you are not buying binary and source. You are buying a subscription to the site which includes: forums (which grant support) and updated firmware (couldn't an updated version be considered support?).
Users are being penalized for acting within their GPL rights. In my opinion that is an added restriction to distribution.
The GPL makes no destinction between release, pre-release, beta, alpha, gamma, delta, googleplex, or whatever. The simple fact is the he is imposing an extra restriction: Redistribute code of mine that I don't want redestributed and I will revoke (without refund) a service that you have paid for.
First off, as many have said before, a dual-license is not allowed. This source is not originally his, so it is not in his power to license the code under new terms.
I've mentioned earlier in this discussion that I have an issue with this. Your subscription is revoked without refund if you redistribute. So you are being charged for excersizing one of your GPL rights. Wouldn't you call this an added restriction?
Imagine it were not revoking your subscription, but instead your support license. Or if you leased hardware and the hardware lease were revoked without refund.
The problem I have here is forcing someone to pay (or in this case, lose something they have already purchased, with no refund) for excersizing rights granted by the GPL.
Let's take this case to an extreme. You lease an internet appliance that runs Linux from company X. Company X provides the source code to you, as required by the GPL, but stipulates in your contract that if you redistribute, your lease is revoked without refund. Your appliance must be returned ASAP.
Still legal, you think?
That's how they know who distributed the binary and whose account to revoke.
Any code you mix in with GPLed code automatically gets GPLed. But that's what's good about the GPL. It requires improvements are fed back into the community.
The GPL is viral. Unfortunate, "viral" has a negative connotation.
Why should it be the job of the Gaim team to dig through the Phonegaim source and make sure that a patch applies cleanly?
If the Phonegaim developers really want their changes merged, they will supply a patch that conforms to the design guidelines layed out by the Gaim developers.
Note: I am not affiliated with the Gaim project.
Actually no, the original post was not by me. I just happened to be another person what got tired of everyone answering with 'vi!'.
I'm not saying you are wrong because vi is your main config tool. It just has no place in this discussion. So many people answering with vi and the like doesn't answer the question and makes it difficult to filter out any useful answers.
Well, the question is how to automate or make administration easier. Answering "I use vi!" is off-topic, it does neither.
What value does this answer add to the discussion? Esecially since so many before you have given the same answer.
apt-get install mozilla-firefox
There. I just upgraded Firefox and any dependant packages that must be upgraded. No other possible updates are installed.
Why is it so obvious 64-bit is faster than 32-bit? Just because the word size is doubled? For many applications that doesn't help at all. FYI, one of the big advantages of the amd64 instruction set is a larger (than ia32) set of registers for the compiler to work with. That is where the speed boost is most likely coming from. Only certain applications truly benefit from a 64-bit word size.
If you want to play the analogy game, try a car instead. You are used to driving a care with a wheel and pedals. A car could easily be designed with the same functionality, but instead use a joystick for control of both acceleration and turning.
My point is there is no one true interface. I don't want apps that are GUI only. I like the fact that I can control my running instance of xmms using the command-line. Apps should be designed with the interface separate from the functionality.
Most users don't install Windows. It comes with their machine. Installed and configured.
Your message is currently modded +5. I think you need to chill out and worry less about your karma.
Oh yeah, this post by you, definately offtopic. As is mine.
iTunes. Wouldn't it be great if iTunes had more than one front-end? Say maybe a web interface so you can access it from another computer in your home? Or maybe even a command-line interface so it is easier to access from a device with a small screen (or low bandwidth), like your PDA.
I started off as a Mac user, but I've since learned that there is a place for the CLI. It has a higher learning curve, but for some operations it is a much better tool.
Where did the parent say "Just use Debian"? I didn't see it. He used Debian as an example of a distro with good package management. All the new distros have package management utilities that will automatically handle dependencies:
Fedora: yum, apt-rpm
SuSE: YaST2, apt-rpm
Mandrake: urpmi
Slackware: swaret
Gentoo: emerge
Debian: apt
The simple fact is that the great-grandparent's problem has already been solved by every major distro out there. Oh, and Debian is a perfectly valid solution. Just because it doesn't work for you does not mean it's not a solution.
When I read the topic summary, the first thing I thought was someone found a nifty way to use a web browser Net Friedman's Dashboard project. Only after clicking the Dashboard link did I realize it's some Apple UI technology.
The parent is on topic, this project has been around a hell of a lot longer than Apple's. How about a little fair moderation.
The simple fact is that the Mozilla Foundation does not have an easy job in advertising their browsers. Most people use IE and think it's good enough. I'm sure many people don't even know there are alternatives to IE. In the worst case, the most clueless computer users think IE is the Internet.
Maybe if popular print magazines or local newspapers ran stories on this wonderful little open source browser things will change. But as of now, it's only people in the know, the ones that actually browse computer tech sites that really know about Firefox.
I've always been a huge advocate of Firefox and try to get people to switch, but often it's not so easy.
I have a friend that is too lazy to switch. Yes, I know how simple the install process is, but he just doesn't care enough to bother.
Other people are just addicted to IE. A friend of mine had IE stop working on his computer. He came to me for help with fixing the problem, but I haven't really worked with windows for years.The easiest solution I could think of was to show him how to install Firefox. A couple of weeks later he again asks me to help him fix IE. He couldn't give me a reason why he wanted IE back. He didn't cite any real problems with Firefox or advantages for IE. He just wanted IE back.
The more I think about it the more I realize that tabs aren't all that different from multiple browsers windows. I don't use many of the advanced features like tab bookmark groups.
But there is one key difference: new tabs open in the background. It's what lets me read an article and open reference links in the background to be read later.
I haven't seen a way to do this by opening a new browser window.