Re:Wine breaks backward compatibility a lot.
on
Wine 0.9.44 Released
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much every application or game I use under Wine requires either a patch against wine or some app specific hack to get it working properly, and often they don't work in the next Wine version.
Wine is great but setting up multiple apps or games to work under it is horrible.
This is a known problem, and the tools Wine-Doors and Winebot are working to address it. These tools make installing Windows software in Linux as easy as using a native package manager (apt, rpm, etc). They also track the specific hacks needed to make an application work, and provide an easy method for developers to test for regressions. Unfortunately, these tools are still in their infancy and so have a relatively small selection of supported aps, but they certainly bear watching.
No, it is not clear or obvious what the GP meant. He said "installed by a third party," notice the absence of the words "third party software" or "third party developers", and note the use of the word "installed," not "distributed." I took this to mean GPL software installed by users in a corporate environment. Your interpretation is most likely correct, but don't pretend that the GP was clearly written.
It could also scan for and find Open Source software that was installed by a third party without proper compliance with the GPL. Install as much third party junk as you can, then scan to see who is using GPL software without compliance.
Are you just spreading FUD? You don't have to agree to anything to simply download and use GPL software. The GPL only kicks in if you distribute the software.
Then who defines what is "stupid" and what is not?
While I see what you are saying, naming your software with the same name (or acronym) as a derogatory term is pretty stupid by any criteria. Ask yourself, would you use the New and Improved Graphics Generation and Enhancement pRogram? Would you tell your friends about it? Would you suggest it to your boss?
AND_ you can't legally use KDE's functions, because KDE is GPLed.
KDE's library's (kdelibs) are actually LGPLed, so you should be able to use them with the commercial version of QT just fine. Many of the KDE applications are GPLed, but that shouldn't affect you very much.
I've always been wondering why there isn't something like Daemon tools that fakes a CD recorder and just outputs iso files to disk. Like Nero does, just on the OS level. That way I could save much plastic. It can't be that hard to code. I mean CD emulation is oldschool so why not CD recorder emulation?
The reason it hasn't been done is that it is not all that generally useful, how many times do you want to burn something and immediately re-rip it? There are already a plethora of tools to let you create/copy/manipulate iso images, and as you say a lot of CD burning software will let you save your project as an iso quite easily. Of course, AFAIK you can't store audio CDs in iso format anyway. If you want to remove the DRM from iTunes songs there are already better methods then burning & re-ripping.
And no, this isn't stealing the code. They can use it however they want, it is the software license they are/were in violation of only because they distributed it and that is covered by copyright law. I never claimed anything but that.
Read the GPL/LGPL again. You are not required to accept the license to use the code, however you must accept the license to legally distribute the code, because otherwise standard copyright law prohibits you from doing so. However (and this seems to be where you are confused), if you distribute code without following the license, you are not in violation of the software license, you are just plain in violation of standard copyright law (and are thus "stealing" the code). This is a very important distinction. For example, if legal action were to be brought against SWSoft for this, they would not be sued for violating a license (sued under contract law), they would simply be sued for copyright infringement (copyright law).
The GPL/LGPL is very different from your typical proprietary software license. Proprietary licenses take away rights you would normally have under copyright law. The GPL/LGPL grants you additional rights that you would not normally have, but only if you follow the license. If you reject the license, then you only have the rights normally granted to you under copyright law (i.e. no distribution), and if you violate them you have simply violated copyright law, the license no longer enters into it.
No, they have every right to the use the code. It is when they distribute that code or make changes to it does the entire gpl LGPL and the copy right thing comes into play.
I have to wonder why you are bringing this up, just what is it that you think we are discussing here? No one is discussing whether or not they have the right to use LGPL code internally, the entire discussion is about the fact that they have distributed the code, in direct violation of copyright law, regardless of the cause. This is a fact, and does not appear to be in dispute by any of the parties involved. My previous post was just pointing out that, contrary to what you asserted, this is indeed copyright infringement, sometimes called "stealing" of code.
And no, they didn't steal code. They are in violation of a software license. It isn't the same thing.
Actually, they are in violation of copyright law, which is not the same thing as a software license. While I don't agree with using "stealing" to mean copyright infringement, this is indeed what people mean by the term.
Stealing code would imply they had no right to it in the first place, this isn't the case at all.
If they don't agree and follow the license (which they haven't), then they indeed have no right to the code in question, and are "stealing" the code.
They have every right to the code in question, they just have to follow the conditions of the license to have that right.
What are you saying here? They didn't follow the license, so they have zero rights to the code.
What this means is that it will always be slower than DX10 on Vista...Another problem is the increased overhead, so you'll need to spend much more on hardware to get a similar experience that a slower system gets in Vista.
You make this assertion with absolutely no proof to back it up. If you haven't noticed, generally speaking Vista is noticeably slower than XP at doing the same tasks (surely you've heard of the differences in their hardware requirements?). Therefore, it is by no means certain that XP + some performance overhead will be slower than Vista with it's already increased performance overhead.
and that it will be dependent on the quality of OpenGL drivers on WinXP.
These are provided by the card manufacturers, and from what I know are excellent.
Then there's the question if OpenGL even has anything comparable to geometry shaders yet
They do.
Even if you wanted to solve this by throwing more powerful hardware in your rig, it would only be possible for a year or so, as NVIDIA/AMD will not be interested in providing driver support for XP in future GPUs.
XP has been around for six years, and has a massive installed base. Furthermore, the shift to Vista is not happening at all quickly. XP support will be around for a good long while. From what I've heard, Vista is the one with driver issues.
Dump that lesser of the top two evils "vendor lockin" they always push, it's just plain harmful and results in the political situation you see today and what you have seen over the past generations.
I think the two party political situation has much more to do with the voting system used in the US. With the current "winner-take-all" voting method, voting for anyone but the top two really is throwing your vote away. If the US used a proportional system of some type then third parties would have much more power. I wonder why the two parties in power won't pass any laws to help make that happen?
Oh, they definitely have a set of shared morals, but its generally acknowledged to be more directly linked to living in a way that works for them, rather than a set of morals bestowed on them by their God or gods.
Well, that's a very different thing than "missionaries have to teach them about the concepts of good and evil, because they don't have the concepts in their culture", which is what you originally claimed. It sounds like the native tribes are doing just fine with the concepts of good and evil, although I'm sure the missionaries would not agree with me.
Funny thing- from what I've heard, a lot of the time when missionaries make first contact with various hunter-gatherer tribes, the missionaries have to teach them about the concepts of good and evil, because they don't have the concepts in their culture.
I call bullshit, I don't think that any society, even at the tribe level, can exist without some common shared morals (i.e. don't kill your neighbor for no good reason), although those morals may not align with the missionaries. Sources?
And where does the money come to pay the next recording's costs?
You seem to be confused, I didn't suggest that they abandon CD sales, concerts, and all the other ways that they currently use to make money, my point was that today they have already spent the money to finance the music that they have, so it would cost no more than TPB to set up a free ad-supported download site. TPB doesn't have a complete collection either, so maybe they don't put everything up on the site. Perhaps just songs that they play on the radio (aren't they already giving those away free with ad support?). Or maybe they just give away songs >30 years old whose artists are no longer quite as prolific (due in many cases to being dead).
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.
Look up the economic term "sunk costs." The music industry has already paid the costs of production, so its costs to set up a free ad-supported download site should be exactly the same as TPB, or perhaps even lower since they don't have to worry about legal annoyances.
I think you'll find this isn't just an American problem, and is hardly new. Hint: it wasn't an American who coined the phrase about bread and circuses.
is it just me, or is this really familliar to the e-paper that LG & Philips developed recently?
E-paper can't display full motion video, its response times are much too low for that sort of thing, but it should have great battery life for mostly static images. This appears to be a "normal" LCD, but thin and flexible, and the videos show it displaying video. Different technologies with different applications, but both very cool.
Bloody hell - how is the soldier supposed to handle -20 to +120 temperature shifts? OK, I suppose it is Farenheit and not Celsius, but that is still really tough temperatures.
What if the armor is used by soldiers training in Alaska, then put in stores, then brought out and sent to soldiers in Iraq? Will it then fall apart? The requirements may not be as unrealistic as you might think.
So in what way is a scholl (sic) place not public?
In the way that the general public is not allowed to enter and wander around a school, especially during class hours. Duh. In order to be "public," the "public" must have access. Simple enough?
If you are in a public space, and presumably public schools are considered public space, you have no right or expectation of control over media that includes you.
While you are correct over your expectation of privacy in a public space, why do you presume that a school classroom is a public space? Is the general public allowed to go there?
If you are in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Since when is a high school classroom "public"? Don't get confused by the whole "public school" thing, it's not like anyone off the street can just walk into a high school classroom.
So, do we sue HP, Cannon, Brother, Epson, etc. next for selling us scanners that scan at "2400x2400", when they really only do so through dithering?
Are you confusing dithering with interpolation? Besides, these days pretty much every manufacturer lists the actual optical resolution of the scanner in the specs (I know , I just bought a new scanner).
Not quite. The encryption on DVDs is a copy protection measure (snip). People who don't understand how it works usually come back with the response, "But you can just make a bit-for-bit copy!" Well, no, you can't, unless you work in a DVD manufacturing plant. With consumer-grade burners and media, it's impossible to burn a working encrypted disc, because you can't write to the area where the keys are supposed to be stored;
That means that consumer-grade burners and media are defective, it doesn't mean that CSS is a copy protection technology. This is the same as saying that CDs contained copy protection technology when they were first introduced, since there was no consumer-grade CD media and burners at the time.
the only way to make a working copy of the movie is to decrypt it first.
Or use non-defective media (of which there is no consumer-grade versions, but as you note a professional DVD press will work fine), or just copy the disk to your hard drive, CSS and all. Making a copy of a digital file doesn't mean that you must copy it to the exact same medium type.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not clear or obvious what the GP meant. He said "installed by a third party," notice the absence of the words "third party software" or "third party developers", and note the use of the word "installed," not "distributed." I took this to mean GPL software installed by users in a corporate environment. Your interpretation is most likely correct, but don't pretend that the GP was clearly written.
The GPL/LGPL is very different from your typical proprietary software license. Proprietary licenses take away rights you would normally have under copyright law. The GPL/LGPL grants you additional rights that you would not normally have, but only if you follow the license. If you reject the license, then you only have the rights normally granted to you under copyright law (i.e. no distribution), and if you violate them you have simply violated copyright law, the license no longer enters into it.