I had a friend back in high school made his own encryption program, thing works like a charm. Not that hard to make an undecypherable encryption scheme.
Ahh, I get it. Next time try enclosing your posts in <sarcasm> brackets. Otherwise some humour deficient reader might come along and believe you.
The problem with Boies is that he does just what his clients tell him to do. This is good lawyerly behavior, but if you don't choose the right clients, you're the one who ends up with egg on your face. Examples of this can be seen in each of the cited cases.
For one example, consider the Florida election. There was a legitimate dispute and a genuine recount needed to be made. But Boies and company didn't want a genuine recount, they only wanted a recount of selected counties. If they would have instead argued for a statewide recount, they would have gotten it with virtually no objection from the other side. And since the vote was so freaking close, statistics would have given them 50% odds of winning the election. But instead they argued over trivialities until the clock ran out.
Employees who object to this (perhaps by citing the law) are laid off.
Next step, profit handsomely in court. The employee, that is, not the employer. This is extortion, which is illegal.
A company tried to do this to me once. "Sign this agreement saying we own the software you wrote on your own time, or we'll fire you." I firmly told them no, and that I would sue if they followed through on their threat. They backed down so quick they raised a tailwind.
This is a piece of software, written by an employee for a software company.
There is no such thing as a "software" company. It's simply too broad of a concept. Can you imagine this being applied to other industries? You work for Walmart, therefore all proceeds from your weekend yard sale must be handed over to your employer. That would be ridiculous.
Closer to home. You work for Apple developing software. You leave Apple to go to work for Ford Motor Company. Apple then sues you for violating the non-compete agreement since you're programming ignition timing systems.
Free software gives us the power to refuse because you can earn a living with it without the help of a company that's way too powerful for comfort.
First, the software in question was shareware, not Free Software. Second, even if it were Free Software, I don't imagine one could make much of a living providing support for "NetFlix Fantastic". You could of course "sell" the software, but once a user stuck it up on a free download site, you're screwed.
Not every piece of software is suitable for the "give away the software, sell the support" business model.
I made the same demands every time I was told to sign a new "IP Agreement". The first one was quite sensible, and I didn't even have to ask for changes. The second one was too vague. So after discussing it with my VP, I didn't sign it, letting the older agreement remain in effect.
Are you sure the upgrade will help you with Ximian? From what I understand, the Exchange server needs to turn on "http export" or something like that. It's basically M$ speak for webdavs. I can't use either Ximian Connector or KOrganizer at work with the Exchange Calendar just because of this.
In FreeBSD, never. In Linuxland, everytime GNU bumps the minor version of glibc. To be fair, the upgrade works fine. It's just that everything else on the system breaks.
The difference is that the Amiga is dead, while FreeBSD is alive, well and kicking. FreeBSD could have done this way back in 1.0, but there was no pressing need to. In the immortal words of some anonymous software designer: "don't prematurely optimize."
Except in this case, the government is only mandating software for the government. They aren't telling the private citizens what software they can or cannot use. The government of Brazil is in the role of customer.
Microsoft may be bitching about the politics of this, but the fact is that the government of Brazil is still a *customer*. Customers are only as loyal as their pocketbooks allow them to be.
Good point. I wish my company would "negotiate" that way. We're large enough that we could get away with it. I once saw a list of the worlds largest organizations (government or other) ranked economically. My company was in the top fifty. Microsoft was in the list too, but far, far below us.
Of all the "large" corporations, I think Sun is the only one not using Microsoft software on the desktop.
I used the item "hardcore gay S&M mag" to get a rise out of people. In your case, I succeeded.
How do you know I wasn't talking about a 13 year old male looking at lesbian sado-masochism? I'm sure that kind of magazine will have absolutely no effect on the future adult's perception of the role of women in his life.
Huh? What makes you think Windows assumes you are running a single program at a time? I can (and do) run many programs simulataneously on Windows.
Although you can certainly run multiple programs at the same time, there are numerous "quirks" in the UI that constantly intrude to remind you that Windows was once a single-tasking system. These things are generally all trivial, but added together, they suggest that deep inside the bowels of WinXP, program.exe still exists.
I'll give just one example. Remember, this is trivial, so you'll need to add it to all the other trivial examples to get at my true annoyance. The example is "snap-to". Under most X11 window managers, I can easily snap windows to the edge of the screen or other windows. When you use multiple programs at the same time, this is very useful. It's a pain having to slightly nudge windows into place next to each other so they don't overlap and you can easily copy from one to the other. Tiling solves this issue, of course, but tiling takes the control of the window size out of the hands of the user. It's a minor issue, to be sure, and mostly aesthetic in nature. But it's still an annoyance. It makes me think that Windows was not designed to have two or more application windows up on the screen at the same time.
You can move/copy/delete multiple files simultaneously with Explorer.
Well, of course you can. If you couldn't, Windows would be in the dust heap of history. I will admit that I was not clear on my assertion about the Windows file manager. Sometimes it's hard being precise when you're talking about the GUI. And I will admit that my experience with the Windows file manager is lacking, so it may be able to do stuff I don't think it can. Here's one example out of many that I don't think it can do (though it might): with one mouse click, sort the files in a directory by last modification date, then with another sweep of the mouse, select all files modified in the last week. I do actions like this all the time at work when writing my weekly status reports. I have no idea how to do in Windows, but several X11 file managers can handle it easily.
I know nothing about twm, and quite honestly I don't really want to. However, what functionality do you believe is lacking with the MS window manager?
First, I'm talking about the window manager, not the desktop. The window manager is what actually displays windows on the screen. Here's what I can do in most modern X11 window managers: shade windows; maximize horizontally or vertically; send a window to the back with a mouse click (or otherwise control the z-order); snap-to; separate virtual desktops; window groups; and change the focus model. All of these things facilitate using multiple GUI applications at the same time. And they're all lacking in Windows.
But I wasn't fair. twm can't do everything in my list above. I only used it as a absurd example, since it's so ancient and crusty. A better example would have been Blackbox, which is about as bare-bones as you can get a modern window manager. It's not large. The source code is readable and straight forward. That fact that the Windows "window manager" doesn't have some basic things in it that Blackbox does simply boggles my mind. It also frustrates me to no end when I have to use it. Even the simple addition of "snap-to" would make a huge difference in usability.
Okay, get your flamethrowers ready, because Brandybuck the Prude is commenting...
First, you have to make a distinction between erotica and pornography. Catching your kid reading Playboy is a much different thing than catching him reading a hardcore gay S&M mag. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning homosexuality, kinky sex, or explicit depictions, but combine the three in an adolescent, and a loud klaxon should be going off in the worry center of your brain.
Another distinction that needs to be made is between curiosity and voyeurism. Children in the throes of hormone overload are going to be curious. But if depictions of sexual acts are the only way they can masturbate, they've got some issues.
But the above are really minor issues. The big problem with pornography is much subtler. It's the depiction of women as objects and sex as casual recreation. (this isn't limited to pornography, as we all know). A little exposure to pornography isn't going to harm your child. A lot of exposure, however, is going to teach them lessons you might not want taught.
Parents that are strict on rules... Parents which allow their kids more freedom
You need a balance between the two. And that balance can (and should) change according to the child's age.
Adolescence is a rough time (ask any parent with one). Prior to this time, the child wants firm rules. It tells them that the world has order, and gives them a base of stability with which to explore the world. But adolescence is when the child turns into an adult. They need BOTH rules and permissions. Without rules they'll disrespect you. Too strict of rules and they'll chafe under your "tyranny".
The adolescent is in the process of transferring your external rules into their own internal rules. Without them they'll wind up flailing around when they get out into the real world, which runs on rules. Too strict of rules and they'll reject them outright once they move out, and they'll still flail about trying to find their moral center.
You're right, it's not. But neither is GNOME or KDE about widgets either. They're frameworks, same as.NET. But if we told to choose one or the other in UNIX land, why is it okay to have multiple frameworks in Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
I had a friend back in high school made his own encryption program, thing works like a charm. Not that hard to make an undecypherable encryption scheme.
Ahh, I get it. Next time try enclosing your posts in <sarcasm> brackets. Otherwise some humour deficient reader might come along and believe you.
The problem with Boies is that he does just what his clients tell him to do. This is good lawyerly behavior, but if you don't choose the right clients, you're the one who ends up with egg on your face. Examples of this can be seen in each of the cited cases.
For one example, consider the Florida election. There was a legitimate dispute and a genuine recount needed to be made. But Boies and company didn't want a genuine recount, they only wanted a recount of selected counties. If they would have instead argued for a statewide recount, they would have gotten it with virtually no objection from the other side. And since the vote was so freaking close, statistics would have given them 50% odds of winning the election. But instead they argued over trivialities until the clock ran out.
...who is technically one of the Regents of the University of California, IIRC.
I wondered why, in the technologically advanced Star Wars society that damned robot couldn't speak in a human (or whatever) language.
Because it was a movie! R2D2 couldn't speak English for the same reason the starships made a loud noise when they blew up in the vacumn of space.
Employees who object to this (perhaps by citing the law) are laid off.
Next step, profit handsomely in court. The employee, that is, not the employer. This is extortion, which is illegal.
A company tried to do this to me once. "Sign this agreement saying we own the software you wrote on your own time, or we'll fire you." I firmly told them no, and that I would sue if they followed through on their threat. They backed down so quick they raised a tailwind.
This is a piece of software, written by an employee for a software company.
There is no such thing as a "software" company. It's simply too broad of a concept. Can you imagine this being applied to other industries? You work for Walmart, therefore all proceeds from your weekend yard sale must be handed over to your employer. That would be ridiculous.
Closer to home. You work for Apple developing software. You leave Apple to go to work for Ford Motor Company. Apple then sues you for violating the non-compete agreement since you're programming ignition timing systems.
Free software gives us the power to refuse because you can earn a living with it without the help of a company that's way too powerful for comfort.
First, the software in question was shareware, not Free Software. Second, even if it were Free Software, I don't imagine one could make much of a living providing support for "NetFlix Fantastic". You could of course "sell" the software, but once a user stuck it up on a free download site, you're screwed.
Not every piece of software is suitable for the "give away the software, sell the support" business model.
I made the same demands every time I was told to sign a new "IP Agreement". The first one was quite sensible, and I didn't even have to ask for changes. The second one was too vague. So after discussing it with my VP, I didn't sign it, letting the older agreement remain in effect.
It's too bad your company doesn't have the http enabled.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to politely ask IT to turn it on, without letting it be known that I'm not using Windows.
p.s. I have permission to use FreeBSD at work, and IT doesn't "own" my system. But why provoke them unnecessarily?
Are you sure the upgrade will help you with Ximian? From what I understand, the Exchange server needs to turn on "http export" or something like that. It's basically M$ speak for webdavs. I can't use either Ximian Connector or KOrganizer at work with the Exchange Calendar just because of this.
I'm still trying to figure out why China needs a "nationwide standard desktop software system".
So which one is the "minor" definition?
/ - minimum required to boot and repair system
/rescue is for repairing the system. /bin and /sbin are a comfortable but minimal set needed for booting.
/bin and /sbin you might never use, all of it is used by someone or another at boot, single or rescue time.
It still is.
While there may be stuff in
How often do you have a libc upgrade fail, though
In FreeBSD, never. In Linuxland, everytime GNU bumps the minor version of glibc. To be fair, the upgrade works fine. It's just that everything else on the system breaks.
If not, how does this differ?
The difference is that the Amiga is dead, while FreeBSD is alive, well and kicking. FreeBSD could have done this way back in 1.0, but there was no pressing need to. In the immortal words of some anonymous software designer: "don't prematurely optimize."
The licesne for YaST doesn't meet the three major definitions of "free software"
Err, *four* definitions. You would think that somebody so concerned about FSFreedom would know this.
Except in this case, the government is only mandating software for the government. They aren't telling the private citizens what software they can or cannot use. The government of Brazil is in the role of customer.
Microsoft may be bitching about the politics of this, but the fact is that the government of Brazil is still a *customer*. Customers are only as loyal as their pocketbooks allow them to be.
Good point. I wish my company would "negotiate" that way. We're large enough that we could get away with it. I once saw a list of the worlds largest organizations (government or other) ranked economically. My company was in the top fifty. Microsoft was in the list too, but far, far below us.
Of all the "large" corporations, I think Sun is the only one not using Microsoft software on the desktop.
You need to drop the persecution complex.
I used the item "hardcore gay S&M mag" to get a rise out of people. In your case, I succeeded.
How do you know I wasn't talking about a 13 year old male looking at lesbian sado-masochism? I'm sure that kind of magazine will have absolutely no effect on the future adult's perception of the role of women in his life.
Huh? What makes you think Windows assumes you are running a single program at a time? I can (and do) run many programs simulataneously on Windows.
Although you can certainly run multiple programs at the same time, there are numerous "quirks" in the UI that constantly intrude to remind you that Windows was once a single-tasking system. These things are generally all trivial, but added together, they suggest that deep inside the bowels of WinXP, program.exe still exists.
I'll give just one example. Remember, this is trivial, so you'll need to add it to all the other trivial examples to get at my true annoyance. The example is "snap-to". Under most X11 window managers, I can easily snap windows to the edge of the screen or other windows. When you use multiple programs at the same time, this is very useful. It's a pain having to slightly nudge windows into place next to each other so they don't overlap and you can easily copy from one to the other. Tiling solves this issue, of course, but tiling takes the control of the window size out of the hands of the user. It's a minor issue, to be sure, and mostly aesthetic in nature. But it's still an annoyance. It makes me think that Windows was not designed to have two or more application windows up on the screen at the same time.
You can move/copy/delete multiple files simultaneously with Explorer.
Well, of course you can. If you couldn't, Windows would be in the dust heap of history. I will admit that I was not clear on my assertion about the Windows file manager. Sometimes it's hard being precise when you're talking about the GUI. And I will admit that my experience with the Windows file manager is lacking, so it may be able to do stuff I don't think it can. Here's one example out of many that I don't think it can do (though it might): with one mouse click, sort the files in a directory by last modification date, then with another sweep of the mouse, select all files modified in the last week. I do actions like this all the time at work when writing my weekly status reports. I have no idea how to do in Windows, but several X11 file managers can handle it easily.
I know nothing about twm, and quite honestly I don't really want to. However, what functionality do you believe is lacking with the MS window manager?
First, I'm talking about the window manager, not the desktop. The window manager is what actually displays windows on the screen. Here's what I can do in most modern X11 window managers: shade windows; maximize horizontally or vertically; send a window to the back with a mouse click (or otherwise control the z-order); snap-to; separate virtual desktops; window groups; and change the focus model. All of these things facilitate using multiple GUI applications at the same time. And they're all lacking in Windows.
But I wasn't fair. twm can't do everything in my list above. I only used it as a absurd example, since it's so ancient and crusty. A better example would have been Blackbox, which is about as bare-bones as you can get a modern window manager. It's not large. The source code is readable and straight forward. That fact that the Windows "window manager" doesn't have some basic things in it that Blackbox does simply boggles my mind. It also frustrates me to no end when I have to use it. Even the simple addition of "snap-to" would make a huge difference in usability.
Okay, get your flamethrowers ready, because Brandybuck the Prude is commenting...
First, you have to make a distinction between erotica and pornography. Catching your kid reading Playboy is a much different thing than catching him reading a hardcore gay S&M mag. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning homosexuality, kinky sex, or explicit depictions, but combine the three in an adolescent, and a loud klaxon should be going off in the worry center of your brain.
Another distinction that needs to be made is between curiosity and voyeurism. Children in the throes of hormone overload are going to be curious. But if depictions of sexual acts are the only way they can masturbate, they've got some issues.
But the above are really minor issues. The big problem with pornography is much subtler. It's the depiction of women as objects and sex as casual recreation. (this isn't limited to pornography, as we all know). A little exposure to pornography isn't going to harm your child. A lot of exposure, however, is going to teach them lessons you might not want taught.
Parents that are strict on rules ... Parents which allow their kids more freedom
You need a balance between the two. And that balance can (and should) change according to the child's age.
Adolescence is a rough time (ask any parent with one). Prior to this time, the child wants firm rules. It tells them that the world has order, and gives them a base of stability with which to explore the world. But adolescence is when the child turns into an adult. They need BOTH rules and permissions. Without rules they'll disrespect you. Too strict of rules and they'll chafe under your "tyranny".
The adolescent is in the process of transferring your external rules into their own internal rules. Without them they'll wind up flailing around when they get out into the real world, which runs on rules. Too strict of rules and they'll reject them outright once they move out, and they'll still flail about trying to find their moral center.
You're right, it's not. But neither is GNOME or KDE about widgets either. They're frameworks, same as .NET. But if we told to choose one or the other in UNIX land, why is it okay to have multiple frameworks in Windows?