buy new television to replace the existing one (bigger screen or something). your not going to use the old one again, so should you throw it away, donate it to charity, put a sign in your window saying "steal the tele behind the sofa"?
if you do any of the above, your quite odd. Sell it.
That message is mostly untouched, except for a grammar correction I made by accident because I didn't see he had it wrong. But I'm not a grammar nazi.:)
So, what you're also saying is, odd people donate good things to charity? I would call those "odd" people very moral people for giving a decent system to those who really are less fortunate (if, of course, the thing still works properly).
God, I must be tired and/or need my eyes checked, because I swear that the first time I read that I thought you were typing "Just look for the guy with the goatse."
Hey idiot, the Brits could have murdered Gandhi early on. They didn't and much to their regret as to murder him after his popularity swelled would only serve to make him a martyr.
While you are probably right, they didn't murder him because they underestimated him and didn't think he would hold much sway over the Indian people. By chance, he ended up being able to hold that much sway, but by the time the British realized it it was too late.
Somebody should murder you before your stupidity catches on.
Oh, I feel so horrible now. At least I didn't misspell Gandhi.:)
Gandhi's situation was different -- what was ruling him and his people didn't have a legal iron grip over them that could destroy their lives at any time...
Wait a minute... what were we talking about again?:)
"H.L. Mencken once said, 'There's an easy solution to every human
problem -- neat, plausible... and wrong.' So if the solution to our problem is
not neat, plausible and wrong; then it could be messy, unlikely and right.
Right?" -Gil Grissom, CSI: episode Chaos Theory, Season 2
Yeah, it's offtopic, but I don't know where else to put it.
Then it doesn't cost any more than Linux (popular distros are 3+ CDs), or any other large Free/Open software product
Yeah, but there's a difference here: the CD Microsoft's selling contains only a component for development, while Linux distros are giving away entire OSes. If you're getting an entire operating system for the price of a Microsoft component, you're getting a lot of bang for your buck (that is, if you can run the thing, of course;))
Then tell her not to turn any Clear Channel station on.
Seriously, what they banned Howard Stern for is said pretty much every day in rap songs and the like. I know the DJs over here aren't that much better -- on ANY Clear Channel station!!!
See also: that damn "Tipsy" song, the Ignition Remix (though that's older, but not much better), nearly any (other?) 50 Cent song that Clear Channel still currently plays. Sure, it's not sexually explicit, but it's all the same.
I would suppose that in your ideal world, the minority of people who are murderers should be allowed to kill at will. Cannibals are a minority... let's supply human flesh at the grocery store.
The difference between what you're saying and what he's saying is that he's talking about the majority infringing on the rights of the minorities that aren't physically harmful or disgraceful to people.
Not only is dialup an "immune system" to worms (well, not really, it just slows things up a bit), it also gives you a fighting chance to get the hell out of here. On a cable modem, you're pretty much screwed because you get the image in the snap of a finger.:D
Or even more important, just give it complete, nearly bug-free support for all of CSS so that you don't have to do little JavaScript hacks for mouse-overs?
I would fear the former a hell of a lot more than the latter -- Windows programs launched in Wine are "sandboxed" in a way. They're somewhat born chrooted, and any change they make to the "Windows OS" won't stick because it's not a real Windows OS:)
Meanwhile, you have Perl scripts, which are interpreted directly, and have a hell of a lot more impact because they (can) directly access the OS, rather than going through a fake one.
Besides which, the people running firms like Dell, HP and IBM aren't stupid. They won't adopt EFI if it means they lose more control over their businesses (e.g. losing the option of selling systems running Linux), ergo it won't.
Do you mean systems that can run Linux, or systems that actually do? I don't recall those companies selling systems that have Linux installed and running by default, but times change.
EFI is no more an evil conspiracy than, say, ACPI, which is the Intel/Microsoft/Toshiba standard that enables operating systems to manage the power consumption of PCs (which is essential on notebooks).
EFI on its own isn't much of a conspiracy in itself, as I might have previously thought, but the way it could be used is. I'd definitely hope that you'd be able to turn the DRM crap in it off, though, if they use it to include DRM in PCs...
But I've heard success stories of Linux booting within EFI, so it can't be too bad.:P
Answering your question anyway, the grandparent poster probably meant that the X11 team could learn from the techniques that Microsoft used in Avalon. You can do that in more ways than just having the source -- you could read a description of the techniques (even a short one) and reconstruct it.
So, we're back to the original post. Where does it say that Microsoft's going to wield such control over the license? Nowhere. I thought it was the BIOS manufacturer who owned the license. Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when th ey're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
On slashdot, you lose all credit for calling it an "alleged" monopoly. It kinda screams "Astroturfer".:P
But anyway... perhaps the BIOS manufacturer does own the license; however, in this case, it could very possibly be Intel who owns the license because they're introducing the technology (and we both know that they've probably patented it by now). I think Intel's also making the motherboards that will have EFI on them. I guess it should also be mentioned that EFI isn't BIOS, and BIOS isn't a motherboard, but that has little bearing on anything.:)
And if Microsoft has a hand in more than 50% of the specification for EFI, what's to stop them from entering an agreement for the other members of the standards body that says that only they can publish their half or more of the spec? Then you enter into the whole thing about them putting up an agreement that says you can't disclose the information documented on their site, etc... (however, I doubt this will happen - the other members could always tell Microsoft to take a hike).
In the article, it doesn't say that Microsoft will wield control over the license, but does that specifically mean they won't?
I find it kind of sad that certain people seem to be obsessed with the idea that "if Microsoft's involved, it's evil, evil, evil!"
Considering the last flat quarter, Microsoft seems to be backed into a corner. Their major threat is Linux. You don't back an animal (or a human, before you start saying that I'm calling Microsoft an animal) into a corner because it will fight for its life. I fully expect Microsoft to do the same thing.
Paranoia is invalid, most of the time, but being paranoid and safe is better than not being paranoid and screwed over. (I couldn't think of anything else)
So, you can buy the specs? What's the problem? I'm sure IBM, RedHat, or SuSe can afford to license it.
Uh, yeah. Except for one little problem... if Microsoft controls the spec, there's going to be a license on it that prevents it from being introduced into the Linux kernel. And furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would license the spec to the competition (i.e. Red Hat Linux)? Well, I suppose they'd have to (otherwise they'd be found to have a monopoly, again), but then the license turns into the catch-all. Damn, I hope I'm not giving them ideas.
Ah, yes, that's the way to attract more people to try out Linux. You are a recent open source convert, now aren't you?
Err, it doesn't matter how long you've been using open source (though I've used it, albeit somewhat on/off, for a year or two)... and to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't even advocating Linux.
emerge sync doesn't touch emerge. Basically, all emerge sync does is get a listing of the Portage tree and fetch the latest ebuilds, and delete whatever is old. The only thing emerge sync does in relation to emerge itself is tell you that a new version is available if there is one.
Slashdot Mirror
That message is mostly untouched, except for a grammar correction I made by accident because I didn't see he had it wrong. But I'm not a grammar nazi.
So, what you're also saying is, odd people donate good things to charity? I would call those "odd" people very moral people for giving a decent system to those who really are less fortunate (if, of course, the thing still works properly).
God, I must be tired and/or need my eyes checked, because I swear that the first time I read that I thought you were typing "Just look for the guy with the goatse."
*shudder*
Oh, I feel so horrible now. At least I didn't misspell Gandhi.
Gandhi's situation was different -- what was ruling him and his people didn't have a legal iron grip over them that could destroy their lives at any time...
:)
Wait a minute... what were we talking about again?
Yeah, I can see it...
"I am PORTHOLIO! I need GZ for my tarball!" (damn the lameness filter from hell for not letting me use caps...)
"H.L. Mencken once said, 'There's an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible ... and wrong.' So if the solution to our problem is
not neat, plausible and wrong; then it could be messy, unlikely and right.
Right?" -Gil Grissom, CSI: episode Chaos Theory, Season 2
Yeah, it's offtopic, but I don't know where else to put it.
Or perhaps 'Darth McBride'?
I, for one, welcome our new digital billboard overlords!
WRCT 88.3 here in Pittsburgh, PA (CMU's radio station!)
:)
91.3 is also a college station.
Then tell her not to turn any Clear Channel station on.
Seriously, what they banned Howard Stern for is said pretty much every day in rap songs and the like. I know the DJs over here aren't that much better -- on ANY Clear Channel station!!!
See also: that damn "Tipsy" song, the Ignition Remix (though that's older, but not much better), nearly any (other?) 50 Cent song that Clear Channel still currently plays. Sure, it's not sexually explicit, but it's all the same.
Not only is dialup an "immune system" to worms (well, not really, it just slows things up a bit), it also gives you a fighting chance to get the hell out of here. On a cable modem, you're pretty much screwed because you get the image in the snap of a finger. :D
That could certainly let MyDoom live up to its name. :)
Dude, you REEK of ASTROTURF!
Or even more important, just give it complete, nearly bug-free support for all of CSS so that you don't have to do little JavaScript hacks for mouse-overs?
I would fear the former a hell of a lot more than the latter -- Windows programs launched in Wine are "sandboxed" in a way. They're somewhat born chrooted, and any change they make to the "Windows OS" won't stick because it's not a real Windows OS :)
Meanwhile, you have Perl scripts, which are interpreted directly, and have a hell of a lot more impact because they (can) directly access the OS, rather than going through a fake one.
At least, that's my understanding of it...
And in Soviet Russia, HE would represent HECKIMIR!
But I've heard success stories of Linux booting within EFI, so it can't be too bad.
Where does it say Avalon directly benefits XFree?
Answering your question anyway, the grandparent poster probably meant that the X11 team could learn from the techniques that Microsoft used in Avalon. You can do that in more ways than just having the source -- you could read a description of the techniques (even a short one) and reconstruct it.
But anyway... perhaps the BIOS manufacturer does own the license; however, in this case, it could very possibly be Intel who owns the license because they're introducing the technology (and we both know that they've probably patented it by now). I think Intel's also making the motherboards that will have EFI on them. I guess it should also be mentioned that EFI isn't BIOS, and BIOS isn't a motherboard, but that has little bearing on anything.
And if Microsoft has a hand in more than 50% of the specification for EFI, what's to stop them from entering an agreement for the other members of the standards body that says that only they can publish their half or more of the spec? Then you enter into the whole thing about them putting up an agreement that says you can't disclose the information documented on their site, etc... (however, I doubt this will happen - the other members could always tell Microsoft to take a hike).
In the article, it doesn't say that Microsoft will wield control over the license, but does that specifically mean they won't? Considering the last flat quarter, Microsoft seems to be backed into a corner. Their major threat is Linux. You don't back an animal (or a human, before you start saying that I'm calling Microsoft an animal) into a corner because it will fight for its life. I fully expect Microsoft to do the same thing.
Paranoia is invalid, most of the time, but being paranoid and safe is better than not being paranoid and screwed over. (I couldn't think of anything else)
Err, it doesn't matter how long you've been using open source (though I've used it, albeit somewhat on/off, for a year or two)... and to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't even advocating Linux.
... No modding up necessary.
emerge sync doesn't touch emerge. Basically, all emerge sync does is get a listing of the Portage tree and fetch the latest ebuilds, and delete whatever is old. The only thing emerge sync does in relation to emerge itself is tell you that a new version is available if there is one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linux already have support for HPFS?
*checks kernel config*... yep. Full read and write, and the config doesn't say that it's dangerous or even experimental.