"but anything that forced the entire industry to "disarm" would be a win for them all."...and a huge loss for lawyers. Just think about it they need to eat too.
The point is that if your password is plain-text when is transmitted over the Internet is just as well as you published your password. So, if you already "published" your password you won't mind of somebody gets hold of it through other means, right?
The company principle is "do no evil" Shareholders by buying into Google stock subscribe to that principle, they can't hold Google responsible for following their declared principle.
I don't think they do anything illegal, for example they don't distribute w32codecs. Not sure how they do the mp3 thing. The rest of the issues were more ideological than anything, for example there's nothing that stops Linux distros to install Flash and Java. In some cases there's the need of permission from the company, I'm sure Mepis got that.
>>Ubuntu represents it's distro as a "people should be able to modify and share changes" No, it's not quite like that, the packages that are covered by GPL have that condition, the distro as a whole doesn't. Mepis by the way takes packages and change them not the whole K/Ubuntu, it's concievable that it uses special packages not covered by GPL where there's a need.
Great point, not to forget that many of this distros collaborate and use work one from another. Ubuntu uses Debian work, Debian gets bug reports and fixes (no, the relation is not perfect from what I hear, but what human or company relation is?)
Directly from the Church of RMS (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html ): ------ This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property". --------- Also (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1754155,00.a sp): "according to Mark Webbink, Red Hat Inc.'s associate general counsel. "Some of the license attributes that Sun trumpets actually have the potential of making the software not fully open," he said. "For example, by permitting a different license for the binaries, it will be possible for the binaries to have all of the attributes of proprietary code."
Am I the only one who things that's ridiculous to ask $200 more for a black laptop? What else would Apple come up with -- cheaper yellow laptops? Price haggling?
"Linux starts to feel like a border town on the edge of the Wild."
Some people like border towns on the edge of the Wild.
For people obsessed with the idea of beating Windows or beating I-don't-know-what market share this is a bad thing... for me it's the best thing since I like how Linux works and I guess I like border towns on the edge of the Wild.
Well, let me tell you... I posted a logical comment to one post and I was immediately been told to GET A JOB and insinuated that I am a bitch or a communist (by anonymous cowards).
That's funny if this is the way you want to promote your BSD community and say how much better is than Linux community.
No, I didn't, I would install it if: 1. it would work on my hardware 2. it would be gratis/cheap (cost 0$ or, in the worst case, not more than $20) 3. it would be free (as in freedom) I do use closed source software, mainly Opera because it's superior to FF, but as an OS I would prefer something that I can fully control not something that controls me.
Sorry, OS X doesn't meet even one of those conditions, Linux does. These things matters to me, I imagine that they are not that important for other people.
Again, I was not comparing Linux installation time with OS X installation time, I was merely making the point that talking about hours of compilation, debuging, kernel configuration, etc that is plain FUD.
There are hundreds of Linux distributions (http://distrowatch.com/) , if joe_155 uses one that doesn't play Quicktime it's his problem.
However, the post to which I replied made it sound like is a long and hard process that takes hours and lots of knowledge -- that's plain FUD, I gave the example of what I use that is installed and configured in 10 minutes. That beats (at least in my case) Windows installation and of course beats Mac OS installation since it doesn't run on my hardware.
My post was moded as flaimbait... whatever... I just stated how things are, I'm not driven by any "ideological reasons" for example I prefer Opera to Firefox even though is closed source. I use Linux mostly for practical reasons: best solution for me and for my hardware.
I was just correcting some misconception or FUD about Linux: that you need to compile, debug, configure, teak kernel, etc to use Linux -- No, you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, man, why can't I mod your post higher! And it's not only funny, it's also insightful.
"but anything that forced the entire industry to "disarm" would be a win for them all." ...and a huge loss for lawyers. Just think about it they need to eat too.
The point is that if your password is plain-text when is transmitted over the Internet is just as well as you published your password. So, if you already "published" your password you won't mind of somebody gets hold of it through other means, right?
They are not going to "succeed" in politics anyway, at least with this name they will attract attention.
I would say it's "insightful" because that's exactly what SCO did to themselves.
How many of the 181 applications where for men?
Is Firefox for men or for women. Scuze me, but I think this is plain silliness.
Apple is a hardware company
That reminds me: Apple is a computer company they should not get involved in music.
If this is a safety feature I'm sure we can replicate it in Linux too. We don't want to miss the security benefits....
The company principle is "do no evil" Shareholders by buying into Google stock subscribe to that principle, they can't hold Google responsible for following their declared principle.
4 | *undefined formula* please check error in cell 3
I don't think they do anything illegal, for example they don't distribute w32codecs. Not sure how they do the mp3 thing. The rest of the issues were more ideological than anything, for example there's nothing that stops Linux distros to install Flash and Java. In some cases there's the need of permission from the company, I'm sure Mepis got that.
>>Ubuntu represents it's distro as a "people should be able to modify and share changes"
No, it's not quite like that, the packages that are covered by GPL have that condition, the distro as a whole doesn't. Mepis by the way takes packages and change them not the whole K/Ubuntu, it's concievable that it uses special packages not covered by GPL where there's a need.
Great point, not to forget that many of this distros collaborate and use work one from another. Ubuntu uses Debian work, Debian gets bug reports and fixes (no, the relation is not perfect from what I hear, but what human or company relation is?)
Directly from the Church of RMS (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html ):
a sp): "according to Mark Webbink, Red Hat Inc.'s associate general counsel. "Some of the license attributes that Sun trumpets actually have the potential of making the software not fully open," he said. "For example, by permitting a different license for the binaries, it will be possible for the binaries to have all of the attributes of proprietary code."
------
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".
---------
Also (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1754155,00.
I don't see how relevant is that you didn't get any virus. Do you have any statistical importance that I'm not aware?
"I'm not seeing anything impressive here... just insane memory and disk space requirements."
How would you run otherwise the 120,000 viruses?
of course I meant "thinks" not "things", sometimes I wish Slashdot had an edit feature.
Am I the only one who things that's ridiculous to ask $200 more for a black laptop? What else would Apple come up with -- cheaper yellow laptops? Price haggling?
"Linux starts to feel like a border town on the edge of the Wild."
Some people like border towns on the edge of the Wild.
For people obsessed with the idea of beating Windows or beating I-don't-know-what market share this is a bad thing... for me it's the best thing since I like how Linux works and I guess I like border towns on the edge of the Wild.
"Now go away, the parents are trying to talk."
Next time use a condom.
Nice people around BSD though... I'm more and more enlightened about the BSD community.
Well, let me tell you... I posted a logical comment to one post and I was immediately been told to GET A JOB and insinuated that I am a bitch or a communist (by anonymous cowards).
That's funny if this is the way you want to promote your BSD community and say how much better is than Linux community.
Or you could just use Linux.... it's open source and free and runs all the Linux applications.
No, I didn't, I would install it if:
1. it would work on my hardware
2. it would be gratis/cheap (cost 0$ or, in the worst case, not more than $20)
3. it would be free (as in freedom) I do use closed source software, mainly Opera because it's superior to FF, but as an OS I would prefer something that I can fully control not something that controls me.
Sorry, OS X doesn't meet even one of those conditions, Linux does. These things matters to me, I imagine that they are not that important for other people.
Again, I was not comparing Linux installation time with OS X installation time, I was merely making the point that talking about hours of compilation, debuging, kernel configuration, etc that is plain FUD.
There are hundreds of Linux distributions (http://distrowatch.com/) , if joe_155 uses one that doesn't play Quicktime it's his problem.
However, the post to which I replied made it sound like is a long and hard process that takes hours and lots of knowledge -- that's plain FUD, I gave the example of what I use that is installed and configured in 10 minutes. That beats (at least in my case) Windows installation and of course beats Mac OS installation since it doesn't run on my hardware.
My post was moded as flaimbait... whatever... I just stated how things are, I'm not driven by any "ideological reasons" for example I prefer Opera to Firefox even though is closed source. I use Linux mostly for practical reasons: best solution for me and for my hardware.
I'm sorry, I don't care what OS joe_155 uses.
I was just correcting some misconception or FUD about Linux: that you need to compile, debug, configure, teak kernel, etc to use Linux -- No, you don't.