Thank you for proposing an absolutely horrible UI idea that I'm sure some fucktard will actually try to implement and we'll be subjected to 5-10 years of MS trying to make it not suck ass before giving up and leaving us with a bunch of half assed software that is about as useful as a radio that changes channels when you throw a pencil across the room.
I hear the same bullshit about facebook and myspace as you just spewed, and I've yet to hear anyone give me any particular reason the same isn't true of email and the telephone.
What it says is that the world really isn't doing that bad. If they don't have anything more important to talk about than twitter, regardless of the reason they are talking about twitter then its an indication that things are doing pretty well in the world, regardless of the random nuts trying to scare people for political gain.
... You were doomed to fail for multiple reasons. 'nearly done supporting the CPU and the Cell'.... which CPU? ARM, x86, SPARC, PPC? Are you ignoring all the other implementations that already support OCL on x86?
If this comes as a blow to you, you didn't do any research before you started and I find it really hard to believe you haven't come across the other existing implementations in your research for your own project.
I am the administrator of my twitter account. The message is delivered when the client retrieves it. Okay, not really, I don't use twitter, but everyone who posts is effectively the administrator of their own account.
The push vs pull argument is retarded as in almost every case with just a slightly different point of view you can make it appear the exact opposite. In a TCP connection, which side is pushing and which side is pulling? The initiator or the listener? Hmm? Depends on which level you're looking at it and which why you'd like for it to appear. If you look at it at the high level with common sense, its clear, but if you really muck about and throw some one who argues like a lawyer at it, the lines get blurry real quick.
Either way, if you read the patent, push vs pull doesn't matter the way its written, only that it makes it to a client.
And C) the people who make these apps tend to charge for them. Selling software to the Linux crowd is about as difficult as keeping MJ away from little boys.
You either aren't a lawyer, or you are a shitty one.
You aren't expected to maintain confidentiality, you are required to by law in most countries. Since the agreement with Google for using apps makes no guarantee of confidentiality at all, you'd be liable for any leaks right off the bat.
So again, you either aren't a lawyer, or you fucking suck as a lawyer.
..the google apps contract is fine. IAAL and i use google apps for all my stuff.
No you aren't.
A) I've seen you claim to be something else in another post
B) No lawyer would make such a blanket statement since there are many instances where Google very clearly is NOT legal to use due to confidentiality requirements. Nevada for instance requires any email with any sort of personal information (such as your address) to be encrypted and unavailable to third parties, which pretty much rules out using it in Nevada. HIPAA compliance is another place where it fails completely.
Nice job though, you've managed to get people to not notice that you are a logged in user and assume you are anonymous as well as actually believe your spew. I'm impressed.
Go ahead and throw the troll mod on me, but Linux is not even a UNIX variant, its a UNIX wanna be. OS X is a UNIX variant, Solaris is a UNIX variant, Linux isn't.
I realize this is going to piss a bunch of you off and they'll be a bunch of posts about how it is using some silly BS justification that simply doesn't hold true.
You should be happy its been elevated to that level in their eyes.
Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.
Thats an absolutely shitty measurement, and warped to fit your specific agenda and idea of what open is, which is a lot different from mine as I consider GPL to be more restrictive than most of the commercial licenses I've had to deal with over the years.
Except the re-entry part turns orbital velocity into something closer to terminal velocity since the atmosphere tends to slow things down while its heating them up.
A few grams of anything falling isn't deadly to a person under all but most extreme cases.
You aren't building a weapon of any consequence with this service, you just don't have enough mass to work with.
No, the hash comes from the TPM module, that actually starts before the modifyable BIOS. The TPM actually contains the real initial code run on the machine, which authenticates the 'BIOS' that you are thinking of, does whatever checks it needs to do and then, if everything is okay, it bounces over to the 'BIOS'.
You don't ASK The bios what its hash is, you read the BIOS and hash it yourself.
The downside to this is, you can't allow the TPM bios to be updated, ever, to be safe, which can introduce problems since no one today bothers to write and test code the way we did before the Internet.
Encryption is meant to prevent data release with such a loss, but does nothing much to guarantee integrity of the system after recovery.
Then you are using the wrong system. A properly designed crypto system will guarantee the data hasn't been tampered with as well. You can't prevent tampering, but you sure as hell can detect it.
Please don't try to educate people on encryption when you don't actually know anything about it.
You picked the wrong license, you don't want freedom, you want it used the way you specify. Thats not freedom, that agenda pushing.
Here are the counter points to your issues:
Fair Compensation - Uhm, you didn't want compensation, thats why you chose GPL. You are getting fair compensation, 0, wrong license if you expected to be compensated monetarily for your work. Or, are you saying you picked the wrong license, it obviously wasn't restrictive enough for you, so much for your 'free as in freedom' bullshit.
No sustainable competitive advantage - So... it won't work... why exactly are you bitching instead of making and releasing the no charge version?
Alienation of contributors - You mean like how you are alienating him and complaining about the work and effort he put into it?
Limited user base - So you're complaining that someone put for the effort to port it to iPhone, but you haven't bothered to do so. So he added users that you weren't willing to add, and you're complaining about him limiting the potential user base. If you're so worried why don't you port it to every OS and hardware platform ever made.
In reality your just a whiney bitch, period. You and others released your software under the GPL which is very clear in allowing for this. You picked the wrong license and now you want to use something else, too bad. Stop whining about it and appreciate the fact that its still around and someone bothered to port it to one of the most popular/hyped devices on the planet. Take advantage of this to get your name out there and get a job rather than being such a whiney baby about it. This can benefit you if you let it.
If you think its against GPL to distribute through the app store you need to actually read the GPL. Sorry you don't like the license you used, but one of the things in that license is that you cant' go back on it, that is pretty clear and I'm pretty sure you knew that going into it.
You don't actually care about true freedom or you would have used public domain or the like. Personally, I'm a BSD/Apache/MIT license guy, and my software has been used in commercial products helping to make a fair amount of money for a couple companies. Am I disappointed that I don't get a cut? Sure, but I knew when I released the source that it was a possibility, there are also a lot of people using it in their projects who release their code for free as well. The companies using my code know who I am, and its netted me a job. What you don't see me doing is whining about it. You do see me bitching about douche bags who care about pushing their own personal agenda rather than freedom.
GPL doesn't require that you provide directions for compiling the code and getting it to run, just that the source code is available. Nor does it say that the software used to compile the code has to be free as well. There is no technical or moral problem with this according to the way the license is written.
Adding a 'moral wrong' to it is your interpretation, if you don't want this sort of thing, don't use GPL, use a license that specifies exactly what you want.
From one side is the real $$ cost to the end user if they wish to modify and improve the software ("Freedom for the user"). Sure, the source is free...but the dev kit is not ($99 I think?) nor is the Mac you are required to own to run the dev kit at all. Even if you gave the app away, this point would still stand.
So the computer that you run your GPL software on, thats free then, no one had to pay for it? The guys who compile the software for you, they do it on a free computer? How about the people who developed it originally? Everyone along the chain had to pay money to create the software, distribute and give it to you.
2) Another is the app store: Apple controls it, so there's little reason to believe someone else improving it a bit and publishing it again would be allowed to ("Freedom for the developer").
So what? My webserver is controlled by me, so that means I can't put any GPL software on it because I may not want to host someone elses GPL software? Redhat doesn't host my software, are they in violation of GPL? Google turned me down for hosting software because the name I wanted to use was in use on source forge, does that mean google can't host any GPL software because it can't be randomly modified by anyone who feels they should have the right to change it?
GPL doesn't require anarchy, which is what you are suggesting.
3) But mostly it is the real spirit of the GPL: To force all software to be "free" (however you choose to mis-define "free"), if it is yours or not. This application of the GPL does not force Apple to make the dev kit "free", the iPhone OS "free", or development on the iPhone "free". In fact if it's actually any good it promotes the closed nature of the iPhone ("Freedom for software itself").
Ahhh, I love when twits pull this shit out... its more free because we force it to be. Funny, I've never heard anyone who was being forced to do something consider themselves to be free. So you think in order to compile GPL source code the entire chain has to be free? So its impossible to run GPL software on Windows with visual studio's compiler or with the intel compiler since they aren't free... or since you don't have the source code to kernel of Mac OS X, or Windows, nor do you have the source to the gui toolkits, that you can't have GPL software on these OSes?
You aren't required to use Apple to distribute your app, you can use one of the jailbreak methods. GPL doesn't state anywhere that they have to share with you how they distribute apps or allow you to use their servers or libraries.
You are a zealot/fanboy/moron. The entire world doesn't revolve around GPL, sorry. By your definition Linux violates GPL because you have to run it on some hardware and hardware costs money.
You are, in short, an idiot who's just pissed off he doesn't have an iPhone. Get over it dude, its not even that great of a device, drop the iPhone envy, you'll feel better.
All computer software costs real money, you have to have a computer to run it on in the first place. Your argument is silly and is warped based on your own perception of what you think the GPL should mean, not what it actually says.
The 'free' in GPL has nothing to do with cost, read it sometime.
You have a twisted idea that GPL is meant to mean you never have to pay for it, which is entirely wrong. Once again I state, read the license before you talk about its spirit.
The 'free' part is that you can get the source code and modify it yourself. Thats it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for proposing an absolutely horrible UI idea that I'm sure some fucktard will actually try to implement and we'll be subjected to 5-10 years of MS trying to make it not suck ass before giving up and leaving us with a bunch of half assed software that is about as useful as a radio that changes channels when you throw a pencil across the room.
I hear the same bullshit about facebook and myspace as you just spewed, and I've yet to hear anyone give me any particular reason the same isn't true of email and the telephone.
What it says is that the world really isn't doing that bad. If they don't have anything more important to talk about than twitter, regardless of the reason they are talking about twitter then its an indication that things are doing pretty well in the world, regardless of the random nuts trying to scare people for political gain.
... You were doomed to fail for multiple reasons. 'nearly done supporting the CPU and the Cell'. ... which CPU? ARM, x86, SPARC, PPC? Are you ignoring all the other implementations that already support OCL on x86?
If this comes as a blow to you, you didn't do any research before you started and I find it really hard to believe you haven't come across the other existing implementations in your research for your own project.
I am the administrator of my twitter account. The message is delivered when the client retrieves it. Okay, not really, I don't use twitter, but everyone who posts is effectively the administrator of their own account.
The push vs pull argument is retarded as in almost every case with just a slightly different point of view you can make it appear the exact opposite. In a TCP connection, which side is pushing and which side is pulling? The initiator or the listener? Hmm? Depends on which level you're looking at it and which why you'd like for it to appear. If you look at it at the high level with common sense, its clear, but if you really muck about and throw some one who argues like a lawyer at it, the lines get blurry real quick.
Either way, if you read the patent, push vs pull doesn't matter the way its written, only that it makes it to a client.
And C) the people who make these apps tend to charge for them. Selling software to the Linux crowd is about as difficult as keeping MJ away from little boys.
You either aren't a lawyer, or you are a shitty one.
You aren't expected to maintain confidentiality, you are required to by law in most countries. Since the agreement with Google for using apps makes no guarantee of confidentiality at all, you'd be liable for any leaks right off the bat.
So again, you either aren't a lawyer, or you fucking suck as a lawyer.
No you aren't.
A) I've seen you claim to be something else in another post
B) No lawyer would make such a blanket statement since there are many instances where Google very clearly is NOT legal to use due to confidentiality requirements. Nevada for instance requires any email with any sort of personal information (such as your address) to be encrypted and unavailable to third parties, which pretty much rules out using it in Nevada. HIPAA compliance is another place where it fails completely.
Nice job though, you've managed to get people to not notice that you are a logged in user and assume you are anonymous as well as actually believe your spew. I'm impressed.
Go ahead and throw the troll mod on me, but Linux is not even a UNIX variant, its a UNIX wanna be. OS X is a UNIX variant, Solaris is a UNIX variant, Linux isn't.
I realize this is going to piss a bunch of you off and they'll be a bunch of posts about how it is using some silly BS justification that simply doesn't hold true.
You should be happy its been elevated to that level in their eyes.
Thats an absolutely shitty measurement, and warped to fit your specific agenda and idea of what open is, which is a lot different from mine as I consider GPL to be more restrictive than most of the commercial licenses I've had to deal with over the years.
I'm pretty sure neither you nor the parent post actually know what orthagonal means.
I think you need to go read your licenses again. I know for certain the BSD license doesn't have the silly 'can't be patented' crap you speak of.
I wasn't aware of patents being a problem with GPLv2 (v3 is just over the top so I won't be bothered to understand all its crap).
I think you have some reading comprehension issues to work out.
Wait wait wait ... come close to destroying slashdot?
Wtf, a few zealots can destroy slashdot? If that were the case it would have died in the mid 90s from the other zealots.
MS trolls won't destroy what the Linux trolls have created, you guys have more spare Friday nights.
Your ex-wife weighs 50 pounds?
Something makes me think you did the math wrong.
Except the re-entry part turns orbital velocity into something closer to terminal velocity since the atmosphere tends to slow things down while its heating them up.
A few grams of anything falling isn't deadly to a person under all but most extreme cases.
You aren't building a weapon of any consequence with this service, you just don't have enough mass to work with.
A marble that isn't going to hurt anyone.
The first problem with your post is you used the word quality next to Nirvana. After that, its hard to take any of your post seriously.
No, the hash comes from the TPM module, that actually starts before the modifyable BIOS. The TPM actually contains the real initial code run on the machine, which authenticates the 'BIOS' that you are thinking of, does whatever checks it needs to do and then, if everything is okay, it bounces over to the 'BIOS'.
You don't ASK The bios what its hash is, you read the BIOS and hash it yourself.
The downside to this is, you can't allow the TPM bios to be updated, ever, to be safe, which can introduce problems since no one today bothers to write and test code the way we did before the Internet.
Then you are using the wrong system. A properly designed crypto system will guarantee the data hasn't been tampered with as well. You can't prevent tampering, but you sure as hell can detect it.
Please don't try to educate people on encryption when you don't actually know anything about it.
Stop whining and put your own free version up.
You picked the wrong license, you don't want freedom, you want it used the way you specify. Thats not freedom, that agenda pushing.
Here are the counter points to your issues:
Fair Compensation - Uhm, you didn't want compensation, thats why you chose GPL. You are getting fair compensation, 0, wrong license if you expected to be compensated monetarily for your work. Or, are you saying you picked the wrong license, it obviously wasn't restrictive enough for you, so much for your 'free as in freedom' bullshit.
No sustainable competitive advantage - So ... it won't work ... why exactly are you bitching instead of making and releasing the no charge version?
Alienation of contributors - You mean like how you are alienating him and complaining about the work and effort he put into it?
Limited user base - So you're complaining that someone put for the effort to port it to iPhone, but you haven't bothered to do so. So he added users that you weren't willing to add, and you're complaining about him limiting the potential user base. If you're so worried why don't you port it to every OS and hardware platform ever made.
In reality your just a whiney bitch, period. You and others released your software under the GPL which is very clear in allowing for this. You picked the wrong license and now you want to use something else, too bad. Stop whining about it and appreciate the fact that its still around and someone bothered to port it to one of the most popular/hyped devices on the planet. Take advantage of this to get your name out there and get a job rather than being such a whiney baby about it. This can benefit you if you let it.
If you think its against GPL to distribute through the app store you need to actually read the GPL. Sorry you don't like the license you used, but one of the things in that license is that you cant' go back on it, that is pretty clear and I'm pretty sure you knew that going into it.
You don't actually care about true freedom or you would have used public domain or the like. Personally, I'm a BSD/Apache/MIT license guy, and my software has been used in commercial products helping to make a fair amount of money for a couple companies. Am I disappointed that I don't get a cut? Sure, but I knew when I released the source that it was a possibility, there are also a lot of people using it in their projects who release their code for free as well. The companies using my code know who I am, and its netted me a job. What you don't see me doing is whining about it. You do see me bitching about douche bags who care about pushing their own personal agenda rather than freedom.
Obviously, since it sells so much better than the iPhone.
So ... why are there so many Linux distros for sale for the PC, since the artificial bearer to entry you speak of doesn't exist there.
GPL doesn't require that you provide directions for compiling the code and getting it to run, just that the source code is available. Nor does it say that the software used to compile the code has to be free as well. There is no technical or moral problem with this according to the way the license is written.
Adding a 'moral wrong' to it is your interpretation, if you don't want this sort of thing, don't use GPL, use a license that specifies exactly what you want.
Let me take another stab at this ...
So the computer that you run your GPL software on, thats free then, no one had to pay for it? The guys who compile the software for you, they do it on a free computer? How about the people who developed it originally? Everyone along the chain had to pay money to create the software, distribute and give it to you.
So what? My webserver is controlled by me, so that means I can't put any GPL software on it because I may not want to host someone elses GPL software? Redhat doesn't host my software, are they in violation of GPL? Google turned me down for hosting software because the name I wanted to use was in use on source forge, does that mean google can't host any GPL software because it can't be randomly modified by anyone who feels they should have the right to change it?
GPL doesn't require anarchy, which is what you are suggesting.
Ahhh, I love when twits pull this shit out ... its more free because we force it to be. Funny, I've never heard anyone who was being forced to do something consider themselves to be free. So you think in order to compile GPL source code the entire chain has to be free? So its impossible to run GPL software on Windows with visual studio's compiler or with the intel compiler since they aren't free ... or since you don't have the source code to kernel of Mac OS X, or Windows, nor do you have the source to the gui toolkits, that you can't have GPL software on these OSes?
You aren't required to use Apple to distribute your app, you can use one of the jailbreak methods. GPL doesn't state anywhere that they have to share with you how they distribute apps or allow you to use their servers or libraries.
You are a zealot/fanboy/moron. The entire world doesn't revolve around GPL, sorry. By your definition Linux violates GPL because you have to run it on some hardware and hardware costs money.
You are, in short, an idiot who's just pissed off he doesn't have an iPhone. Get over it dude, its not even that great of a device, drop the iPhone envy, you'll feel better.
All computer software costs real money, you have to have a computer to run it on in the first place. Your argument is silly and is warped based on your own perception of what you think the GPL should mean, not what it actually says.
The 'free' in GPL has nothing to do with cost, read it sometime.
You have a twisted idea that GPL is meant to mean you never have to pay for it, which is entirely wrong. Once again I state, read the license before you talk about its spirit.
The 'free' part is that you can get the source code and modify it yourself. Thats it.