Daimaou used the GPL tools code but invented a new algorithm without changing the tool "itself". Hmm tough for him.
Only if "identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
The interesting bit is the patent stuff - is the patent (the idea of the new algorithm) an "independent and separate work"? Does the GPLed code qualify as prior art?
How hard would it be to take the perfectly good XP desktop and implement it for the benefit of us new Linux powerusers? Here you go, troll.
By the way, you should really replace the "perfectly good" in your sentence with "good enough" or "WORKSFORME".
Get the press and the unions in action. [...] Then point out that any incentive to invest in software knowledge for small and medium size companies is pointless when they can be killed instantaneously by large corps with large patent portfolio's.
What makes you think european unions like small and medium size companies? Its annoying to deal with them and there is no publicity in making a good deal. Big Companies on the other hand....
... if bubble sort was patented, it would have done serious harm to just even teaching the profession.
I think it would actually have done good. It would also help if Visual Basic would be patented too.
The root partition could be on a read only media such as a CD-ROM, right? In which case nobody could ever win. ... unless you make a installation into a RW media and reboot into it.
A lot of us can't run it because...
- the software support isn't there. No CATIA, no ProE, no etc. Can't be an engineer using Linux alone.
I dont think "a lot of us" need CATIA or ProE. But it's slower for getting things done because double-clicking an icon is easier than typing/usr/share/baoeu/otehu/ -x -die.
You need more doubleclicks to find the directory alone. Pressing a flurry of keys might feel faster, but it isn't actually faster. .. once you discover the [Tab]-Key it actually is. They've focused on making an OS that's sane to use while attempting to make it stable. And, lo and behold, it works.
Although they are drowning in bugfixes now because of this approach and have fewer ressources left for implementing new features. Hate to break it to you, but as a long time xfce4 user, XP is still faster. still haven't gotten octave working with gnuplot.
So you have a few things gone wrong with your installation. How often did that happen in Windows? BTW: http://r-project.org/ And so, until linux developers wake up, linux as an engineering tool will not progress.
It might progess, but only after open source has taken some inroads on standard office desktops, which it probably will: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/06/214 1225&tid=185&tid=218
To explain my rebuttal of the "KDE has better design" claim:
Gnome is more open in development. It allows concurrent solutions for the same problem. Later the best solution will get picked, and the other solutions are deprecated. This might sound like a pain in the ass. It is.
But the alternative (the approach used by KDE) is even worse. The requirements are collected and after that one solution is implemented. There are no alternatives to this solution. Just as you learned in your software engineering textbook. To bad reality doesnt play by the textbook rules. Requirements change all of the time - there is just no way to know them before you have a working implementation and its learned about limitations - there is no way to fix this later.
The different design approach resulted in a pretty crappy start for Gnome. But it is gaining speed (as you can see with the 2.X releases). KDE OTOH seems to seriously slow down the older it gets.
... that even with all that money and resources being thrown at Gnome, they can only keep up with KDE, not surpass it.
Yeah, right. We all know KDE is better than Gnome. Thats why nobody uses Gnome. Maybe KDE has better design...
Most certainly not.
Well, it took Blizzard quite some time to develop the Warcraft3 engine. I dont think they even concidered Linux when they started to work on it (and thus decided to use Direct3D and not OpenGL). Later, they noticed the importance of Starcraft and Diablo on Wine and made sure it runs in wine as an afterthought. If they would have thought about linux from the beginning they would have used OpenGL. Im just guessing here though.
It's because of apps like this no-one wants to adopt Linux as a gaming platform.
Not true. If that would be true, game developers would take care that the games runs in Wine/Cedega. They are not - the linux market is not important. If the market would matter, the game developers would use stuff that is easily portable (OpenGL, SDL), if they are not limited by the enviroment (for example the need to use a DirectDraw gfx engine).
The only game I can think of that took care of wine compatibility and had no native linux version was Master Of Orion III. If your argument ("no one develops for linux because of wine") would be true, there would be far more games like that.
Linux probably will never be a primary platform for commercial games. But as with most open source the availability of games is close to reaching a "good enough" state for most users. Honestly, no one needs 20.000 different first person shooters. There are rarely commericial games with new concepts. Only one for each group need sto be playable (native or via an emulation layer) to reach a "good enough" for the majority of users.
And since open source is a process the games will improve and improve. Freeciv, Wesnoth and Flightgear are good examples. They might not be as polished as the "originals", but they really finetune the engine basics (freeciv: multiplayer and configurability, Wesnoth: balance, Flightgear: faa certification)- eyecandy will come later. It worked with server software and it probably will work with game engines (and every open source game is also a open source engine by the very nature of the license):
... you might be interested in moving up to grognard-level wargames. ... where Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) by MMP (originally the game is by AH) is still the king of the hill.
Online training at:
http://vasl.org/
It's funny how one of the linked articles refers back to this site they way this site refers to it. It's like when you have a mirror and you face it towards another mirror
So this builds a resonator. We might get a coherent unidirectional high-energy slashdot beam out of this!
We only need to get a poplation inversion in the media, like more people in the higher states....
Damn, wont happen with the/.-crowd.
Or maybe we can excite them: Look there! Natalie Portman naked, petrified and in hot grits! And she is running linux!
I know it has been a issue with gnumeric. IIRC gnumeric supported more rows than the 2^16 that Excel supports and was later artificially limited for compatibility.
But nobody should use Excel with that many rows anyway. There is scientific software (Mathematica, R, S, SPSS. Maple and friends) or databases for that. I was really shocked when a friends wife complained about the row limit, because she did statistical analysis (market reseach) on huge datasets - with excel. Her solution was to split the data in 2^16 row pieces manually and add up all the stuff again later.
Thats what they get teached at the universities I guess - at least in the department of economics.
Slashdot Mirror
Daimaou used the GPL tools code but invented a new algorithm without changing the tool "itself". Hmm tough for him.
Only if "identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
The interesting bit is the patent stuff - is the patent (the idea of the new algorithm) an "independent and separate work"? Does the GPLed code qualify as prior art?
Its a Ubuntu LiveCD. .... so no joy.
Oh, and if anyone wants to try the ISO in qemu, it hangs here in the "preparing language settings" step
How hard would it be to take the perfectly good XP desktop and implement it for the benefit of us new Linux powerusers?
Here you go, troll.
By the way, you should really replace the "perfectly good" in your sentence with "good enough" or "WORKSFORME".
Gnome 2.1, now more like KDE! ...
If Gnome started moving in the direction of KDE with Gnome 2.1, Gnome 2.10 must be like Windows
How could a restaurant make profit if the service isn't included in the prize?
How could a restaurant make profit if the refills are free?
Get the press and the unions in action. [...] Then point out that any incentive to invest in software knowledge for small and medium size companies is pointless when they can be killed instantaneously by large corps with large patent portfolio's. ....
What makes you think european unions like small and medium size companies? Its annoying to deal with them and there is no publicity in making a good deal. Big Companies on the other hand
I think it would actually have done good. It would also help if Visual Basic would be patented too.
Actually you need a old type 1 Project to do the analysis for a good rewritten type 2 project dropping most unneeded backwards compability.
(Example: type 1 sendmail, type 2 postfix)
The root partition could be on a read only media such as a CD-ROM, right? In which case nobody could ever win.
... unless you make a installation into a RW media and reboot into it.
The chart says almost nothing, (esp. in short term) because it just measures search engine hits.
A lot of us can't run it because... - the software support isn't there. No CATIA, no ProE, no etc. Can't be an engineer using Linux alone. /usr/share/baoeu/otehu/ -x -die.
.. once you discover the [Tab]-Key it actually is.4 1225&tid=185&tid=218
I dont think "a lot of us" need CATIA or ProE.
But it's slower for getting things done because double-clicking an icon is easier than typing
You need more doubleclicks to find the directory alone.
Pressing a flurry of keys might feel faster, but it isn't actually faster.
They've focused on making an OS that's sane to use while attempting to make it stable. And, lo and behold, it works.
Although they are drowning in bugfixes now because of this approach and have fewer ressources left for implementing new features.
Hate to break it to you, but as a long time xfce4 user, XP is still faster. still haven't gotten octave working with gnuplot.
So you have a few things gone wrong with your installation. How often did that happen in Windows? BTW: http://r-project.org/
And so, until linux developers wake up, linux as an engineering tool will not progress.
It might progess, but only after open source has taken some inroads on standard office desktops, which it probably will: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/06/21
To explain my rebuttal of the "KDE has better design" claim:
i cle&sid=318
Gnome is more open in development. It allows concurrent solutions for the same problem. Later the best solution will get picked, and the other solutions are deprecated. This might sound like a pain in the ass. It is.
But the alternative (the approach used by KDE) is even worse. The requirements are collected and after that one solution is implemented. There are no alternatives to this solution. Just as you learned in your software engineering textbook. To bad reality doesnt play by the textbook rules. Requirements change all of the time - there is just no way to know them before you have a working implementation and its learned about limitations - there is no way to fix this later.
The different design approach resulted in a pretty crappy start for Gnome. But it is gaining speed (as you can see with the 2.X releases). KDE OTOH seems to seriously slow down the older it gets.
Some of these points can also be found here:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=art
... that even with all that money and resources being thrown at Gnome, they can only keep up with KDE, not surpass it. ...
Yeah, right. We all know KDE is better than Gnome. Thats why nobody uses Gnome.
Maybe KDE has better design
Most certainly not.
Well, it took Blizzard quite some time to develop the Warcraft3 engine. I dont think they even concidered Linux when they started to work on it (and thus decided to use Direct3D and not OpenGL). Later, they noticed the importance of Starcraft and Diablo on Wine and made sure it runs in wine as an afterthought. If they would have thought about linux from the beginning they would have used OpenGL. Im just guessing here though.
You don't understand flightsimmers: we need realism.n esis_3000_Overview.html
By what you describe Flightgear is too realistic for you. You are looking for something like this:
http://phoenixosfs.org/
http://targetware.net/
Also, I have a large console (yoke, switching, throttle, prop control, mixture) that only works with MS FS2004.
Oh, Im impressed. How do you think does that compare to this:
http://www.flightgear.org/Projects/Genesis3000/Ge
It's because of apps like this no-one wants to adopt Linux as a gaming platform.
Not true. If that would be true, game developers would take care that the games runs in Wine/Cedega. They are not - the linux market is not important. If the market would matter, the game developers would use stuff that is easily portable (OpenGL, SDL), if they are not limited by the enviroment (for example the need to use a DirectDraw gfx engine).
The only game I can think of that took care of wine compatibility and had no native linux version was Master Of Orion III. If your argument ("no one develops for linux because of wine") would be true, there would be far more games like that.
Linux probably will never be a primary platform for commercial games. But as with most open source the availability of games is close to reaching a "good enough" state for most users. Honestly, no one needs 20.000 different first person shooters. There are rarely commericial games with new concepts. Only one for each group need sto be playable (native or via an emulation layer) to reach a "good enough" for the majority of users.
And since open source is a process the games will improve and improve. Freeciv, Wesnoth and Flightgear are good examples. They might not be as polished as the "originals", but they really finetune the engine basics (freeciv: multiplayer and configurability, Wesnoth: balance, Flightgear: faa certification)- eyecandy will come later. It worked with server software and it probably will work with game engines (and every open source game is also a open source engine by the very nature of the license):
... you might be interested in moving up to grognard-level wargames.
... where Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) by MMP (originally the game is by AH) is still the king of the hill.
Online training at:
http://vasl.org/
Mmmmmm... Illuminati. The best back-stabbing game ;-)
I thought the throne belongs to Junta... http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/242 other back-stabbing favourites:
Diplomacy: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/483
Kremlin: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/196
(although it seems to have lost much of the minijokes in the english translation)
Age of Renaissance is even better. Its like a improved version of Civilisation.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/26
and when will all the browsers support it..
http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/main.html
the simple stuff already works with:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/
samples
But what will replace it?
SVG for vector-based animations and Java for the few minigames out there.
It's funny how one of the linked articles refers back to this site they way this site refers to it. It's like when you have a mirror and you face it towards another mirror /.-crowd.
So this builds a resonator. We might get a coherent unidirectional high-energy slashdot beam out of this! We only need to get a poplation inversion in the media, like more people in the higher states....
Damn, wont happen with the
Or maybe we can excite them:
Look there! Natalie Portman naked, petrified and in hot grits! And she is running linux!
I know it has been a issue with gnumeric. IIRC gnumeric supported more rows than the 2^16 that Excel supports and was later artificially limited for compatibility.
But nobody should use Excel with that many rows anyway. There is scientific software (Mathematica, R, S, SPSS. Maple and friends) or databases for that. I was really shocked when a friends wife complained about the row limit, because she did statistical analysis (market reseach) on huge datasets - with excel. Her solution was to split the data in 2^16 row pieces manually and add up all the stuff again later.
Thats what they get teached at the universities I guess - at least in the department of economics.