He always posts about how the GPL is a contract not a license.
Actually, the GPL is a contract, just like most licenses are. It explicitly says you must accept it before you get any of the granted privileges. If you have to agree to something, it is a contract.
But the great thing about it is, if some parts are invalidated, the situation just reverts back to plain copyright law and whoever was breaking the GPL has even less permission than they did before.
Nope. A judge would take a very dim view if you sue me for distributing your software after you have given me explicit permission to do so. You might have some legal grounds to quibble over trivialities, but for all practical matters the software would still be Free Software.
If ICANN grants the.xxx domain, it is accused of trying to ghettoize porn. If it doesn't grant the.xxx domain, it is accused of trying to ban porn. No matter what, they can't win.
I was being sarcastic. Those of us who want cooler CPUs are not as loud as those who want faster CPUs. If we want cooler CPUs we need to make our voices heard. The people who wanted quieter computers bitched, and they got them. Maybe it's time we bitched about the scorch marks on our trousers.
Red herring. It was still scarce and was still rationed, and this "massive government interference" you talk of was making sure our troops had enough food.
I had family who were in agriculture at the time. The government came in bought their crops and livestock at below market prices. They also had their "plans" where they would pay subsidies for non-hog farmers to raise hogs. When you're losing money because the government is setting a ceiling on your regular crop, you take the subsidy. The food production market was severly out of whack at the time.
If the government wanted to ensure adequate food for the troops, they could have done what they do now: buy it at market prices. War is costly enough on an economy, without trying to centrally plan it at the same time.
With socialized medicine, it would be paid for by taxes, and as everyone pays taxes, everyone would be paying for it.
Unless you want to go the full route and move to a 100% Marxist pure socialist economy, then you have to take market economics into account. When you move health care out of the market, how the hell do you know what to tax? How do you know if you've set the price too high? Or too low? How do you know the doctors aren't overcharging the government if you don't have a market price to compare to? If you set the price too low you end up with shortages. That helps no one, least of all the poor. Get a basic economics text and start reading.
The problem we have now is that we have third party payers. The people who are paying for healthcare are insulated from its prices. That isn't working, as everyone can tell you. But your solution is to make it worse, by making government the sole third party payer. That's lunacy!
There are much better ways to do things that ensures people get the healthcare they need. Give the poor vouchers (like we do with food stamps). Give the middle class healthcare credits. Let the rich pay their full way. Then get out of the road and let the market forces work.
Again, please get an economics text and read it before you advocate removing a necessary good from the market.
And when the supply was scarce, food was rationed...remember WWII?
While some food items where scarce, it was not a market scarcity, but one caused by massive government interference.
Sidenote: All economic goods are scarce. Arguing that one type of good needs to be regulated because it is more scarce than another is economic ignorance. While I disagree with the "elasticity" arguments regarding healthcare, at least their somewhat grounded in economics.
the U.S. healthcare system is a failure because the whole thing is set up around getting someone else to pay the bill.
And what is everyone's solution to this? Getting a different third party to pay the bill! Currently the US healthcare system is NOT a market based system. The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be. It has some appearance of a market system, but there is so much government interference that it's horribly skewed.
The GPL isn't a usage-license, it's a redistribution license.
But only when it suits the purposes of the GNU advocates. If you write software that links to a GPL library, but do not distribute the library, the FSF will still argue that you're in violation of the license. The whole core of the no-dynamic-linkage argument rests on the FSFs assertion that it can regulate *usage*.
If centralized, "socialized" distribution of necessary goods by the government is so great, then why aren't we doing it for food? Isn't food more important than healthcare?
While we do have some government interference in food prices, primarily in the form of food stamps and farm subsidies, for the most part, grocery stores operate according to market forces. It's a system that works. The US poor are better fed than in any other time in history. The problems we have with malnutrition for some segments of the poor are caused by bad education (which happens to be a centralized socialized good distributed by the government).
I don't work at Google, but I do work one block down the street from them. Their employees do look happier, but in a Stepford sort of way. It seems like no one is older than thirty, you never see them at local cafes or restaurants during lunchtime, etc.
I'm about to make that transition. I currently work for one of the ten largest companies in the world, and I can't stand it anymore. It's been two years since anyone above my immediate manager ever gave me a simple "thank you."
It sounds like you're not so much pissed that a trophy hunter shot it, but that a wealthy trophy hunter shot it. This is class envy masquerading as ignorant environmentalistm.
The problem isn't that a text editor is needed to configure IPsec, the problem is that it needs to be configured in the kernel to begin with. That is a much different issue. Ideally it should be able to be turned on with sysctl via the sysinstall interface. Slapping a GUI on top of the kernel configuration file is solving the wrong problem.
And besides, even if you had a GUI for the kernel, you would still need a text editor for rc.conf an ipsec.conf...
I stand by my original statement, that if you can't handle a text editor you shouldn't be bothering to build a kernel. People seem to like automobile analogies, so here's one: if you don't how how to use a wrench, you shouldn't be trying to tune your automobile engine.
Kernels are too complicated to let the illiterate futz about with them. If you don't know what you're doing, then stay the hell out of there!
You can't abstract complexity away. That is a myth. A GUI does not simplify anything, all it does is give the illusion that something is simple. You may think the complexity has gone away because you can click a box instead of typing "yes" to build a driver. But it's just as easy to click the WRONG box as it is to mistype "yes".
Besides, as I said before, there is no reason to configure the FreeBSD kernel. Every driver you need is already a loadable module. And even if you do need to fiddle with it for some odd reason, it's EASIER to configure and build than Linux, even without the GUI.
But that all comes down to what a particular developer or team considers their platform to be.
In the example I gave, they considered "Unix" to be their platform. They supported Solaris, and had no problem with the lack of ALSA on Solaris. But when it came to FreeBSD they kept trying to treat it like a mutant Linux distro.
I could have accepted an answer in the form of "we don't have any FreeBSD developers...", but that wasn't their reason. Instead they bitched about not adhering to a Linux-only non-standard.
Complain to Sun and Adobe. It doesn't matter how much FreeBSD wants to support these proprietary applications, the most they can do is beg.
The good news is that Sun finally permitted Java binaries for FreeBSD. The bad news is that using Flash with FreeBSD is still FORBIDDEN by Adobe. Hell, it's FORBIDDEN to use it under embedded Linux too.
* Similar to the Java problem, too many apps in FBSD require Linux support.
Let me repeat. If the application is proprietary, then there's nothing FreeBSD can do about it (except beg). Stop complaining to FreeBSD and start complaining to the people who actually have the power to do something about it.
* Make compiling the kernel easier.
Compiling the kernel is already easier than under Linux. While it doesn't have a clicky gooey, it's quite straightforward. If you can't handle a text editor, then you shouldn't be compiling kernels.
Everything you need is already available as kernel modules, however. There is very little need to rebuild your kernel.
"You can only run desktop X if you also use filesystem Y"
Unfortunately a lot of developers do think like this. For a long time a certain program wouldn't work under FreeBSD, because it only supported ALSA. Every bug report on the problem was summarily closed with a message on the order of "we can't fix this until FreeBSD follows the ALSA audio standard."
Yes it is. But it isn't configured to do so in the default system. You have to set up some config files to do it. That's one of the things the "desktop" BSDs do that a stock FreeBSD doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
He always posts about how the GPL is a contract not a license.
Actually, the GPL is a contract, just like most licenses are. It explicitly says you must accept it before you get any of the granted privileges. If you have to agree to something, it is a contract.
But the great thing about it is, if some parts are invalidated, the situation just reverts back to plain copyright law and whoever was breaking the GPL has even less permission than they did before.
Nope. A judge would take a very dim view if you sue me for distributing your software after you have given me explicit permission to do so. You might have some legal grounds to quibble over trivialities, but for all practical matters the software would still be Free Software.
If ICANN grants the .xxx domain, it is accused of trying to ghettoize porn. If it doesn't grant the .xxx domain, it is accused of trying to ban porn. No matter what, they can't win.
Not everyone.
I was being sarcastic. Those of us who want cooler CPUs are not as loud as those who want faster CPUs. If we want cooler CPUs we need to make our voices heard. The people who wanted quieter computers bitched, and they got them. Maybe it's time we bitched about the scorch marks on our trousers.
is it impossible to keep a laptop cool now?
Considering everyone wants faster CPUs and higher benchmarks, the answer is "yes"
Red herring. It was still scarce and was still rationed, and this "massive government interference" you talk of was making sure our troops had enough food.
I had family who were in agriculture at the time. The government came in bought their crops and livestock at below market prices. They also had their "plans" where they would pay subsidies for non-hog farmers to raise hogs. When you're losing money because the government is setting a ceiling on your regular crop, you take the subsidy. The food production market was severly out of whack at the time.
If the government wanted to ensure adequate food for the troops, they could have done what they do now: buy it at market prices. War is costly enough on an economy, without trying to centrally plan it at the same time.
With socialized medicine, it would be paid for by taxes, and as everyone pays taxes, everyone would be paying for it.
Unless you want to go the full route and move to a 100% Marxist pure socialist economy, then you have to take market economics into account. When you move health care out of the market, how the hell do you know what to tax? How do you know if you've set the price too high? Or too low? How do you know the doctors aren't overcharging the government if you don't have a market price to compare to? If you set the price too low you end up with shortages. That helps no one, least of all the poor. Get a basic economics text and start reading.
The problem we have now is that we have third party payers. The people who are paying for healthcare are insulated from its prices. That isn't working, as everyone can tell you. But your solution is to make it worse, by making government the sole third party payer. That's lunacy!
There are much better ways to do things that ensures people get the healthcare they need. Give the poor vouchers (like we do with food stamps). Give the middle class healthcare credits. Let the rich pay their full way. Then get out of the road and let the market forces work.
Again, please get an economics text and read it before you advocate removing a necessary good from the market.
And when the supply was scarce, food was rationed...remember WWII?
While some food items where scarce, it was not a market scarcity, but one caused by massive government interference.
Sidenote: All economic goods are scarce. Arguing that one type of good needs to be regulated because it is more scarce than another is economic ignorance. While I disagree with the "elasticity" arguments regarding healthcare, at least their somewhat grounded in economics.
the U.S. healthcare system is a failure because the whole thing is set up around getting someone else to pay the bill.
And what is everyone's solution to this? Getting a different third party to pay the bill! Currently the US healthcare system is NOT a market based system. The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be. It has some appearance of a market system, but there is so much government interference that it's horribly skewed.
But those are LOADABLE modules. They are RUNTIME plugins for the kernel.
The GPL isn't a usage-license, it's a redistribution license.
But only when it suits the purposes of the GNU advocates. If you write software that links to a GPL library, but do not distribute the library, the FSF will still argue that you're in violation of the license. The whole core of the no-dynamic-linkage argument rests on the FSFs assertion that it can regulate *usage*.
If centralized, "socialized" distribution of necessary goods by the government is so great, then why aren't we doing it for food? Isn't food more important than healthcare?
While we do have some government interference in food prices, primarily in the form of food stamps and farm subsidies, for the most part, grocery stores operate according to market forces. It's a system that works. The US poor are better fed than in any other time in history. The problems we have with malnutrition for some segments of the poor are caused by bad education (which happens to be a centralized socialized good distributed by the government).
That statistic excludes agricultural firms. Put those in the mix, and you probably do get 85%.
I don't work at Google, but I do work one block down the street from them. Their employees do look happier, but in a Stepford sort of way. It seems like no one is older than thirty, you never see them at local cafes or restaurants during lunchtime, etc.
I would never go back.
I'm about to make that transition. I currently work for one of the ten largest companies in the world, and I can't stand it anymore. It's been two years since anyone above my immediate manager ever gave me a simple "thank you."
that would explain how the polar bears survived the
previous warm periods (like the 8000 BC to 4000 BC "climate optimum").
Wow! Homo Sapiens was destroying the planet that far back?
It sounds like you're not so much pissed that a trophy hunter shot it, but that a wealthy trophy hunter shot it. This is class envy masquerading as ignorant environmentalistm.
You need to configure the kernel to use IPSEC.
The problem isn't that a text editor is needed to configure IPsec, the problem is that it needs to be configured in the kernel to begin with. That is a much different issue. Ideally it should be able to be turned on with sysctl via the sysinstall interface. Slapping a GUI on top of the kernel configuration file is solving the wrong problem.
And besides, even if you had a GUI for the kernel, you would still need a text editor for rc.conf an ipsec.conf...
I stand by my original statement, that if you can't handle a text editor you shouldn't be bothering to build a kernel. People seem to like automobile analogies, so here's one: if you don't how how to use a wrench, you shouldn't be trying to tune your automobile engine.
Kernels are too complicated to let the illiterate futz about with them. If you don't know what you're doing, then stay the hell out of there!
You can't abstract complexity away. That is a myth. A GUI does not simplify anything, all it does is give the illusion that something is simple. You may think the complexity has gone away because you can click a box instead of typing "yes" to build a driver. But it's just as easy to click the WRONG box as it is to mistype "yes".
Besides, as I said before, there is no reason to configure the FreeBSD kernel. Every driver you need is already a loadable module. And even if you do need to fiddle with it for some odd reason, it's EASIER to configure and build than Linux, even without the GUI.
But that all comes down to what a particular developer or team considers their platform to be.
In the example I gave, they considered "Unix" to be their platform. They supported Solaris, and had no problem with the lack of ALSA on Solaris. But when it came to FreeBSD they kept trying to treat it like a mutant Linux distro.
I could have accepted an answer in the form of "we don't have any FreeBSD developers...", but that wasn't their reason. Instead they bitched about not adhering to a Linux-only non-standard.
Wasn't it Linus himself who called FreeBSD developers "incompetent"?
* Mix multiple audio inputs to /dev/dsp
Done!
* Have better Java and Flash support.
Complain to Sun and Adobe. It doesn't matter how much FreeBSD wants to support these proprietary applications, the most they can do is beg.
The good news is that Sun finally permitted Java binaries for FreeBSD. The bad news is that using Flash with FreeBSD is still FORBIDDEN by Adobe. Hell, it's FORBIDDEN to use it under embedded Linux too.
* Similar to the Java problem, too many apps in FBSD require Linux support.
Let me repeat. If the application is proprietary, then there's nothing FreeBSD can do about it (except beg). Stop complaining to FreeBSD and start complaining to the people who actually have the power to do something about it.
* Make compiling the kernel easier.
Compiling the kernel is already easier than under Linux. While it doesn't have a clicky gooey, it's quite straightforward. If you can't handle a text editor, then you shouldn't be compiling kernels.
Everything you need is already available as kernel modules, however. There is very little need to rebuild your kernel.
Why? Does the sight of plain text frighten you?
"You can only run desktop X if you also use filesystem Y"
Unfortunately a lot of developers do think like this. For a long time a certain program wouldn't work under FreeBSD, because it only supported ALSA. Every bug report on the problem was summarily closed with a message on the order of "we can't fix this until FreeBSD follows the ALSA audio standard."
Yes it is. But it isn't configured to do so in the default system. You have to set up some config files to do it. That's one of the things the "desktop" BSDs do that a stock FreeBSD doesn't.
So it's the user's fault he doesn't have a "swipe" card?
Graham Chapman, as the scientist with the ditzy blond in the blancmange sketch.