I think it isn't "an interface that's hard to top" as much as it is "an interface that everybody is familiar with".
For instance, if I try to teach two groups of people (one has experience with the QWERTY layout, the others don't know any) touch-typing with Dvorak keyboard layout, the class that is familiar with the QWERTY layout will have a harder time than the class that is seeing a keyboard layout for the first time.
(that's from a mental standpoint, the people who have worked with QWERTY obviously have a better physical preparation at using a _keyboard_)
Seriously, though, it's good that stuff like that surfaces on PHB-radar range. Maybe somebody will ask things like "So why should *I* be taking all these measures because *your* software is buggy?" the next time the M$ rep comes in, hawking the latest and greatest from Redmond.
on your *LAPTOP*, wich weren't nearly standard in '95. I had 32MB of RAM in 95, in a corner of the world that at least half the population of slashdot can't place on the map.
Knoppix would be totally awesome if they had a lean version or an easy way
to uninstall some of the software that comes with a full system
installation.
Huh? How about dpkg -l to get the full list of installed packages and apt-get remove <unwanted packages>?
...it works perfect. Set them up as apt sources and works wonders. Although we are phasing out the RH7 servers, and putting our apps in a chroot environment with the precise apache/perl/mod_perl/whatever versions we need for our apps to work.
Just look at how much ammo the Janet tit thing gave the fundy christians.
In my experience, fundie christians are among the people who stray the most from the teachings of Jesus. But they are not the bulk of christianity. They are a very vocal minority (and, it seems, with quite a lot of power in the United States).
Not sure what you're implying there. I would be scared to run a 'Modern Linux Desktop' on an Intel machine with a mere 256MB of RAM.
What a wuss. "Scared to run". Pah.
Here I am, at work, running Fedora C1 with KDE3.2.1, on an AMD XP2400+ w/256MB ram. No big deal.
Smoothtly running a number of browsers, kmail, TOra (nice app, btw), the occasional OOo for when somebody sends me a.doc or.xls from windowsland and... ECLIPSE! Yes, that resource hog called eclipse runs just fine. And with nice transparent-bg konsoles to boot!
You spout about running Win95 on your circa-95 CPU with standard circa-95 ram quantity? Well duh. Try running WinXP on that. Good luck.
Now I'm confused, maybe you mean the hardware (and its driver module) detection?
(If you indeed mean that, I think it is a startup service that can be disabled as any other. Anyway, did you try asking in the gentoo forums? One thing I loved while using gentoo was the forums and community, there isn't a better one)
The problem with the creative license string is that it doesn't mark the kernel as "tainted", wich is a big deal for the people who debug the kernel and pore over kernel dumps. If you have a binary-only module loaded, you should try to reproduce your bug/crash without the binary module so that the kernel people are sure that your crash was due to the kernel and not the binary driver to wich they haven't got source to debug.
POOL OF RADIANCE baby, yeah!
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I remember wasting many a childhood afternoon playing this game. Finally, no more paper-chasing! (character sheets get boring when you are a pre-teen:)
Then, applying you hex editor and l33t h4x0r 5k1llz (although back then you didn't know it was called like that;) to set all your stats to 25.
And then realizing that the size of monster parties for random encounters in the wild used your party's stats as a parameter... 300+ kobolds that, while they offered no real risk to your party of 25-all characters, ate a sizeable chunk of your afternoon wiping them out... total boredom:(
Re:The flagship...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 5, Funny
My first d20 dice is almost a perfect sphere from wear! does that count?
Ooops... failed my "Burning Karma" saving throw...
1. If I'm downloading copies of song which I already own on CD, then I'm not infringing, am I? Maybe I'm just too lazy to rip my own disks. I can think of other reasons why I might do that.
That's true. And that's also why the *AA go after the guys who UPLOAD, who are infringing, regardless of the downloader's right to a backup/rip of the song/movie. While you may have permission to have a backup/rip, the uploader hasn't the right to redistribute.
I said "those are not your rights". So far you have not shown how is it that your rights are "restricted" by the GPL.
Of course, if I were arguing that "GPL has no restrictions" or that "copyright has no restrictions" I'd be full of shit. But I have not been arguing this, as I have explicitly stated it. I've been arguing over your use of the term "rights". As in "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Is somebody, for example, "due the ability of legally distributing modified software without source", other than the author and whoever he grants that right to?
I keep arguing, because you still keep saying that the restrictions of the GPL are on your rights. They are not. The rights of yours that you say are "restricted" are, in fact, the author's rights that the author never granted you. The restrictions of the GPL frame and state what you are and aren't allowed to do with the code. How are these restrictions framed? By stating what rights over his property the author grants and does NOT grant you.
As I said, it's not your right. You should have said "Ok, duh", instead of saying that I am some kind of GPL zealot.
I will, however, acknowledge that the "God-given" stuff was overboard. It's plain old rights. Fair enough.
And now, here, look at this:
In the future, don't pick a fight with someone based on things they didn't say. Especially after they point that out.
And then this:
Your reply should have been, "duh, OK" instead of "but copyright restricts your rights more" or "it didn't take something away that you already had."
But I never said that. I said copyright doesn't grant you any rights. So, in your own words:
That's why you're a dumb fuck.
Buh bye. Maybe someday you'll grasp the concept of "rights".
Yes. A restriction. Like I said in the post that you answered to: "Restrictions? Of course."
That same thing I said at the bottom of my post and you conveniently cut so you could call me a moron and a dumb fuck, and THEN accuse me of zealotry. Priceless! If you show me where I said there aren't any restrictions with GPL, I'll post "I'M A DUMB FUCK GPL ZEALOT".
Yet you insist this: "The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights." (emphasis mine). You say that is "perfectly valid". I argue that the GPL has not taken away any of your rights, not that the GPL has no restrictions whatsoever.
Get this through your thick skull: you NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT SOURCE, UNDER NORMAL COPYRIGHT. The GPL is something that restricts what you can do with the source, but it NEVER TOOK AWAY ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS!. There is nothing in the constitution of any country or in any UN charter or anyplace that says "No man shall take away thy right to modify and distribute without providing source to such modifications".
Again, so you understand. The GPL is giving you rights, not taking them away. You can do what you can do with GPL'ed code because the author granted you those rights. When you can't redistribute without source, it is not because the GPL took away your right to do so. It is because the author did not grant you his/her right to do it. No right of yours has been taken away. It restricts the redistribution because you don't have that right a priori and the author didn't give it to you.
Of course, if you do find something that says that right is yours(*), and not the author's, please post it here.
(*) Through the BSD license the author gives you this right, but it wasn't yours before the author gave it up. Why aren't you railing about your God-given right to strip copyright notices from code?
The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights.
That's the quote that started this thread. Now, on to your reply:
Can you release products using GPL code without releasing the source code?
No.
Can you modify GPL code and distribute that without the source code? Can you make those changes proprietary and not release them?
No.
Are those rights available to you under normal copyright? No.
So you are bitching because the authors of GPL software won't let you use their code as you please, but only as they please. How dare them? It isn't like they wrote the damn code, right?
So read this, real slow: "I can use other people's code only to the extent of rights they decide, be it public domain, BSD, GPL, whatever".
I really don't think they have taken anything away from you. They have the right to dictate the terms of use of their property, and if they want to place very precise boundaries on what you are allowed to do with their property, they can. The fact that you want more does not mean you have been deprived of rights.
Restrictions? Of course. Just as the BSD, there are restrictions. Of course, BSD restrictions are a lot easier to meet than the GPL's. But from there to GPL takes away your rights?. Think again.
you must try IntelliJ IDEA. It is so responsive and just a joy to use. On the systems I've run it on, it is significantly more responsive than Eclipse.
It probably is more significantly more responsive than Eclipse, but it made my wallet a little numb. It sets me back US$499 more than Eclipse!
(to put in a little perspective, I live in a part of the world were that $499 dollars pay the rent of my 3-bedroom flat and buys almost all my groceries for one month)
what about the OEM EULAS? Most notebooks have a "if you boot me into windows (wich is the only thing the computer has installed) you agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA".
Somebody had a webpage in australia that told of all the jumping through hoops he had to do to get his M$ refund. And newer laptops had a "if you TURN THE MACHINE ON you agree to the EULA" clause, so that the next poor sod can't even boot with a linux CD and wipe it clean before booting into Windows.
Yes, it hurts them. It hurts because Billy Gates said "Only one compiled version of Win64". So, beaten to the start by the AMD 64, Intel has no choice but to use the same instructions than AMD or face the "negligible" damage of being locked out of,
say, eventualy 90% of the market (when everybody has 64-bit windows shoved down their necks)
Just installed a server with an Assus board with the VIA8237 sata raid chip. One driver disk later, fully functional mirroring raid and man the SPEED of this things is a joy.
And, I don't know how, but now it boots straight from the raid. I really don't get how does it get the driver from the discs!?!
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, if I try to teach two groups of people (one has experience with the QWERTY layout, the others don't know any) touch-typing with Dvorak keyboard layout, the class that is familiar with the QWERTY layout will have a harder time than the class that is seeing a keyboard layout for the first time.
(that's from a mental standpoint, the people who have worked with QWERTY obviously have a better physical preparation at using a _keyboard_)
Seriously, though, it's good that stuff like that surfaces on PHB-radar range. Maybe somebody will ask things like "So why should *I* be taking all these measures because *your* software is buggy?" the next time the M$ rep comes in, hawking the latest and greatest from Redmond.
on your *LAPTOP*, wich weren't nearly standard in '95. I had 32MB of RAM in 95, in a corner of the world that at least half the population of slashdot can't place on the map.
Huh? How about dpkg -l to get the full list of installed packages and apt-get remove <unwanted packages>?
...it works perfect. Set them up as apt sources and works wonders. Although we are phasing out the RH7 servers, and putting our apps in a chroot environment with the precise apache/perl/mod_perl/whatever versions we need for our apps to work.
In my experience, fundie christians are among the people who stray the most from the teachings of Jesus. But they are not the bulk of christianity. They are a very vocal minority (and, it seems, with quite a lot of power in the United States).
What a wuss. "Scared to run". Pah.
Here I am, at work, running Fedora C1 with KDE3.2.1, on an AMD XP2400+ w/256MB ram. No big deal.
Smoothtly running a number of browsers, kmail, TOra (nice app, btw), the occasional OOo for when somebody sends me a .doc or .xls from windowsland and... ECLIPSE! Yes, that resource hog called eclipse runs just fine. And with nice transparent-bg konsoles to boot!
You spout about running Win95 on your circa-95 CPU with standard circa-95 ram quantity? Well duh. Try running WinXP on that. Good luck.
At least, they can't for much longer... below seven dollars and going down.
(If you indeed mean that, I think it is a startup service that can be disabled as any other. Anyway, did you try asking in the gentoo forums? One thing I loved while using gentoo was the forums and community, there isn't a better one)
Ever hear of loading modules on boot, like in, say, /etc/modules.conf or /etc/modprobe.conf (for 2.6 kernels)?
One word: RTFM!
Of course, could be that I've never run across a properly configured limited account on windows.
The problem with the creative license string is that it doesn't mark the kernel as "tainted", wich is a big deal for the people who debug the kernel and pore over kernel dumps. If you have a binary-only module loaded, you should try to reproduce your bug/crash without the binary module so that the kernel people are sure that your crash was due to the kernel and not the binary driver to wich they haven't got source to debug.
Then, applying you hex editor and l33t h4x0r 5k1llz (although back then you didn't know it was called like that ;) to set all your stats to 25.
And then realizing that the size of monster parties for random encounters in the wild used your party's stats as a parameter... 300+ kobolds that, while they offered no real risk to your party of 25-all characters, ate a sizeable chunk of your afternoon wiping them out... total boredom :(
Ooops... failed my "Burning Karma" saving throw...
That's true. And that's also why the *AA go after the guys who UPLOAD, who are infringing, regardless of the downloader's right to a backup/rip of the song/movie. While you may have permission to have a backup/rip, the uploader hasn't the right to redistribute.
I said "those are not your rights" . So far you have not shown how is it that your rights are "restricted" by the GPL.
Of course, if I were arguing that "GPL has no restrictions" or that "copyright has no restrictions" I'd be full of shit. But I have not been arguing this, as I have explicitly stated it. I've been arguing over your use of the term "rights". As in "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Is somebody, for example, "due the ability of legally distributing modified software without source", other than the author and whoever he grants that right to?
I keep arguing, because you still keep saying that the restrictions of the GPL are on your rights. They are not. The rights of yours that you say are "restricted" are, in fact, the author's rights that the author never granted you. The restrictions of the GPL frame and state what you are and aren't allowed to do with the code. How are these restrictions framed? By stating what rights over his property the author grants and does NOT grant you.
As I said, it's not your right. You should have said "Ok, duh", instead of saying that I am some kind of GPL zealot.
I will, however, acknowledge that the "God-given" stuff was overboard. It's plain old rights. Fair enough.
And now, here, look at this:
In the future, don't pick a fight with someone based on things they didn't say. Especially after they point that out.
And then this:
Your reply should have been, "duh, OK" instead of "but copyright restricts your rights more" or "it didn't take something away that you already had."
But I never said that. I said copyright doesn't grant you any rights. So, in your own words:
That's why you're a dumb fuck.
Buh bye. Maybe someday you'll grasp the concept of "rights".
Yes. A restriction. Like I said in the post that you answered to: "Restrictions? Of course."
That same thing I said at the bottom of my post and you conveniently cut so you could call me a moron and a dumb fuck, and THEN accuse me of zealotry. Priceless! If you show me where I said there aren't any restrictions with GPL, I'll post "I'M A DUMB FUCK GPL ZEALOT".
Yet you insist this: "The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights." (emphasis mine). You say that is "perfectly valid". I argue that the GPL has not taken away any of your rights, not that the GPL has no restrictions whatsoever.
Get this through your thick skull: you NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT SOURCE, UNDER NORMAL COPYRIGHT. The GPL is something that restricts what you can do with the source, but it NEVER TOOK AWAY ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS!. There is nothing in the constitution of any country or in any UN charter or anyplace that says "No man shall take away thy right to modify and distribute without providing source to such modifications".
Again, so you understand. The GPL is giving you rights, not taking them away. You can do what you can do with GPL'ed code because the author granted you those rights. When you can't redistribute without source, it is not because the GPL took away your right to do so. It is because the author did not grant you his/her right to do it. No right of yours has been taken away. It restricts the redistribution because you don't have that right a priori and the author didn't give it to you.
Of course, if you do find something that says that right is yours(*), and not the author's, please post it here.
(*) Through the BSD license the author gives you this right, but it wasn't yours before the author gave it up. Why aren't you railing about your God-given right to strip copyright notices from code?
First, let's remember:
The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights.
That's the quote that started this thread. Now, on to your reply:
Can you release products using GPL code without releasing the source code?
No.
Can you modify GPL code and distribute that without the source code? Can you make those changes proprietary and not release them?
No.
Are those rights available to you under normal copyright? No.
So you are bitching because the authors of GPL software won't let you use their code as you please, but only as they please. How dare them? It isn't like they wrote the damn code, right?
So read this, real slow: "I can use other people's code only to the extent of rights they decide, be it public domain, BSD, GPL, whatever".
I really don't think they have taken anything away from you. They have the right to dictate the terms of use of their property, and if they want to place very precise boundaries on what you are allowed to do with their property, they can. The fact that you want more does not mean you have been deprived of rights.
Restrictions? Of course. Just as the BSD, there are restrictions. Of course, BSD restrictions are a lot easier to meet than the GPL's. But from there to GPL takes away your rights?. Think again.
It probably is more significantly more responsive than Eclipse, but it made my wallet a little numb. It sets me back US$499 more than Eclipse!
(to put in a little perspective, I live in a part of the world were that $499 dollars pay the rent of my 3-bedroom flat and buys almost all my groceries for one month)
That means that "BSD gives you more rights over original copyright than GPL". GPL has no taken away anything that you had under plain old copyright.
(and yes, for once an example of the correct usage of "irony" :)
Somebody had a webpage in australia that told of all the jumping through hoops he had to do to get his M$ refund. And newer laptops had a "if you TURN THE MACHINE ON you agree to the EULA" clause, so that the next poor sod can't even boot with a linux CD and wipe it clean before booting into Windows.
Isn't that "nut (on the) loose behind the keyboard"?
Yes, it hurts them. It hurts because Billy Gates said "Only one compiled version of Win64". So, beaten to the start by the AMD 64, Intel has no choice but to use the same instructions than AMD or face the "negligible" damage of being locked out of, say, eventualy 90% of the market (when everybody has 64-bit windows shoved down their necks)
Just installed a server with an Assus board with the VIA8237 sata raid chip. One driver disk later, fully functional mirroring raid and man the SPEED of this things is a joy.
And, I don't know how, but now it boots straight from the raid. I really don't get how does it get the driver from the discs!?!