It's a bit disappointing that somebody was able to compromise their gnetwork, but i guess gno system can be comletely secure. I only hope people would stop putting G's in front of all the N words they use when they're talking about Gnome. It's getting on my gnerves.
Does this label apply to the 12 year old kids who know more about "teh intarweb" than their parents? I suppose that trend is dying down, but it was funny while it lasted =).
1 What is a non-technical user doing with Linux anyway? They need to crawl before they can walk.
2 Why not put in endless loops of windows that lead back to the same place over and over again. That would be funny.
3 Nobody likes documentation... except 4 n00bs
4 oh yeah... about those... er...
5 I like to think of Linux as a sort of technical boot camp. I started using it because I wanted to upgrade my status from "windozer coder of ascii art" to "codeNINJ4"
They should be GLAD to have people block their calls, because the people blocking their calls are (probably with some exceptions) the people who aren't going to buy anything from them. It eliminates wasted phone time. Now they should rejoice that they can cut costs by focusing on the few people who actually WILL buy from them, probably just to talk to another human being (that is, if it's not an automated system).
This kind of technology seems like a very healthy step toward making computers resistant to electromagnetic waves and/or pulses (aided also by the rise of optical storage devices), which is great for us humans now. But now what are we going to use against the "squiddies" when they come for our hovercrafts?
Apparently, SCO thought the comments were actually written about them and were infringing on their IP. And Microsoft thought the comments were too similar to comments written about Bill Gates that they had already copyrighted. And the RIAA believes that they were the lawful target of the comments, which were shared over the internet and used against somebody else.
If SCO actually started selling binary only (or whatever they are) licenses, wouldn't they be violating the GPL for every bit of code that wasn't theirs (assuming they had some in there at all)? Correct me if I'm wrong (no really, I think I might be wrong), but isn't it inevitable that if they have any code in the kernel, it'll be removed not because they have to point out what's theirs but because they have to point out what's not theirs?
Probably the stupidest thing to hack is a government computer. Probably the dumbest thing to put on stolen drivespace is pirated movies. Add the two and you're asking to get slapped with terrorism accusations for something stupid like a pirated copy of "Finding Nemo."
What is so wrong about paying for a resource you are using?
The difference is that you're already paying for your internet access, which covers email, web browsing, and everything else. That's because it's all the same to the computer. It's all just little packets of data blasting through your ethernet cable. Now if you sign up for some special email service, they could charge you for using it, but you shouldn't have to pay extra to your ISP because of the type of data you're sending. A packet is a packet no matter what it contains.
And how do they define email? Something sent through SMTP from your machine? What about webmail? Does the length of the email matter?
About phone calls... those are different from emails. While the purpose may be the same, they work completely differently and cannot really be compared that well. If all you used your internet for was to send and receive emails, then you'd be using it similarly to a phone, which only does one job and isn't always using up bandwidth. But you're not doing that; you're going on/. and downloading programs and pictures and mp3s and such. Now that little email where you said "hey there" seems a little trivial.
Emails are nothing compared to videos and other data formats. Charging for them for any reason wouldn't make sense from a technical point of view, and as for spammers, they'll get around it somehow. I had a friend who got hit with a trojan horse virus that sent out spam. She was on AOL so her account got frozen. At least she wasn't hit with a huge bill for somebody else's wrongdoing. I'm sure they could have sorted it out if she was, but it would only have been annoying and time-consuming.
I believe in Open Source, and I will not allow any government to keep me from using it and contributing to it.
And I'd like to know how Open Source would be defined by a law prohibiting it. If I made a program and asked for suggestions on how to make it run better, have I broken the law? Or is it just that after a group of people make a program, they can't sell it? And what's the difference between a group of people working in a company and a group of people working by themselves? What's wrong with sharing information?
I guess SCO's view of a perfect world is one where corporations control both the people and the government. They would like nothing better than to force us to buy their products and handcuff us to our computers while flogging us with Cat5 UTP.
What videogame compaines really want is for games to become a SERVICE and no longer be a PRODUCT. That way, they get money constantly despite the fact that the game is already finished and they're not doing anything to it anymore (unless they provide updates and such regularly, but that's nothing compared to designing a new game from scratch).
But it's not just videogame companies. Microsoft would LOVE to get money from all its users 24/7, but they can't.... at least now. You see, the wide range of expertise of their users as well as the fact that businesses rely on their products prevent or at least delay their doing so. If Microsoft were to start making people use web-based programs on internet-access-devices and making them save data to Redmond servers... they'd be out of business in a week. They're going into it gradually. Videogames are different. The target market is teenage kids who don't know RAM from ROM or "UID" from "EULA."
I don't think it'll happen any time soon... but if it does, it's not going to be software first- it'll definitely be the videogame market.
Does anyone here own or know anyone who owns a segway?
Wasn't it the biggest let down when you heard that this new type of mobile that would "revolutionize" transportation forever... turned out to be a bulky, overpriced scooter?
Hey- the wheels are next to each other. Neat. Now why would I want to buy one?
It was a great idea, but not any more than meal-in-a-pill was a good idea, or the anthropomorphic robot of the 1950's. Neat, but who really wants one (not counting rich people with money to burn)? So does it really deserve to be copied? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery... but... it's a scooter!
a little optimistic, aren't we? You make a good point. If Microsoft's products were absolutely horrible from a personal user viewpoint, then nobody would buy them. But you can't very well argue about cost effectiveness against a free product that is as basic as an office program.
Let's face it, word processors and spreadsheets aren't exactly like GUIs and 3D graphics utilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been very few major improvements in word processing technology since they started making the page background white and the text black. "Word art" doesn't count, and especially not that annoying little paper clip thing (I want to bend him into an inappropriate shape).
Think about it this way: they either pay 3-4% of MS's annual revenue... or they can pay nothing. Now, even if I had to type with my feet because the program only supported special foot-keyboards, I would STILL choose the free program. Maybe that was a bad analogy, but you get the point.
If SCO DOES prove to "own" Linux, what about all the GPLed software and kernel parts that people put into it legitimately? SCO cannot own that because the GPL forbids it, and the designer complied with the GPL. So SCO would only truly "own" the pieces it would be responsible for, nothing else.
Thus, they would HAVE to point the pieces out because otherwise they'd be violating the GPL several hundred times over by claiming rights to others' work.
So even if they DID win, they'd have to tell us where the code was, and it would be promptly removed. Otherwise, they would be guilty of violation of the GPL.
It's projects like these that show how much more productive Open Source is.
Proprietary companies may try to run other company's formats, but probably wouldn't be willing to say "oh here's how we do it, let's make it easier for people and merge the two for greater compatibility." Open Source companies can't (and I'd like to think wouldn't if they could) restrict compatibility for their own benefit.
For example: Microsoft comes out with special new features like "plug n' play" or some new way to install programs "faster" and "more easily," but RedHat releases an open source program, RPM, and allows anyone who will to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
...Gnot today.
It's a bit disappointing that somebody was able to compromise their gnetwork, but i guess gno system can be comletely secure. I only hope people would stop putting G's in front of all the N words they use when they're talking about Gnome. It's getting on my gnerves.
says the n00b: "it's good to see that GTK is catching up with the kernel version."
says the 1337: "..."
Does this label apply to the 12 year old kids who know more about "teh intarweb" than their parents? I suppose that trend is dying down, but it was funny while it lasted =).
The real question is: will Gyslain make an appearance? C'est possible, non?
1 What is a non-technical user doing with Linux anyway? They need to crawl before they can walk.
2 Why not put in endless loops of windows that lead back to the same place over and over again. That would be funny.
3 Nobody likes documentation... except 4 n00bs
4 oh yeah... about those... er...
5 I like to think of Linux as a sort of technical boot camp. I started using it because I wanted to upgrade my status from "windozer coder of ascii art" to "codeNINJ4"
those are my thoughts.... anyone else?
I am Spartacus!
They should be GLAD to have people block their calls, because the people blocking their calls are (probably with some exceptions) the people who aren't going to buy anything from them. It eliminates wasted phone time. Now they should rejoice that they can cut costs by focusing on the few people who actually WILL buy from them, probably just to talk to another human being (that is, if it's not an automated system).
Which of these three doesn't belong?
a pickup truck,
a six-wheeled all-terrain vehicle,
and a self-balancing motorcycle
Haiku article. So many haiku replies. So predictable.
This kind of technology seems like a very healthy step toward making computers resistant to electromagnetic waves and/or pulses (aided also by the rise of optical storage devices), which is great for us humans now. But now what are we going to use against the "squiddies" when they come for our hovercrafts?
Here's one[ratemyteachers.com]
And moderators: I posted this first... before you mod down for redundant, check the times of posting.
Apparently, SCO thought the comments were actually written about them and were infringing on their IP. And Microsoft thought the comments were too similar to comments written about Bill Gates that they had already copyrighted. And the RIAA believes that they were the lawful target of the comments, which were shared over the internet and used against somebody else.
If SCO actually started selling binary only (or whatever they are) licenses, wouldn't they be violating the GPL for every bit of code that wasn't theirs (assuming they had some in there at all)? Correct me if I'm wrong (no really, I think I might be wrong), but isn't it inevitable that if they have any code in the kernel, it'll be removed not because they have to point out what's theirs but because they have to point out what's not theirs?
i got it right here:4 J:www.google.com/+google&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF- 8 [google cache of google]
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:zhool8dxBV
now's our chance! I think we can slashdot Google!
Probably the stupidest thing to hack is a government computer. Probably the dumbest thing to put on stolen drivespace is pirated movies. Add the two and you're asking to get slapped with terrorism accusations for something stupid like a pirated copy of "Finding Nemo."
What is so wrong about paying for a resource you are using?
/. and downloading programs and pictures and mp3s and such. Now that little email where you said "hey there" seems a little trivial.
The difference is that you're already paying for your internet access, which covers email, web browsing, and everything else. That's because it's all the same to the computer. It's all just little packets of data blasting through your ethernet cable. Now if you sign up for some special email service, they could charge you for using it, but you shouldn't have to pay extra to your ISP because of the type of data you're sending. A packet is a packet no matter what it contains.
And how do they define email? Something sent through SMTP from your machine? What about webmail? Does the length of the email matter?
About phone calls... those are different from emails. While the purpose may be the same, they work completely differently and cannot really be compared that well. If all you used your internet for was to send and receive emails, then you'd be using it similarly to a phone, which only does one job and isn't always using up bandwidth. But you're not doing that; you're going on
Emails are nothing compared to videos and other data formats. Charging for them for any reason wouldn't make sense from a technical point of view, and as for spammers, they'll get around it somehow. I had a friend who got hit with a trojan horse virus that sent out spam. She was on AOL so her account got frozen. At least she wasn't hit with a huge bill for somebody else's wrongdoing. I'm sure they could have sorted it out if she was, but it would only have been annoying and time-consuming.
I believe in Open Source, and I will not allow any government to keep me from using it and contributing to it.
And I'd like to know how Open Source would be defined by a law prohibiting it. If I made a program and asked for suggestions on how to make it run better, have I broken the law? Or is it just that after a group of people make a program, they can't sell it? And what's the difference between a group of people working in a company and a group of people working by themselves? What's wrong with sharing information?
I guess SCO's view of a perfect world is one where corporations control both the people and the government. They would like nothing better than to force us to buy their products and handcuff us to our computers while flogging us with Cat5 UTP.
What videogame compaines really want is for games to become a SERVICE and no longer be a PRODUCT. That way, they get money constantly despite the fact that the game is already finished and they're not doing anything to it anymore (unless they provide updates and such regularly, but that's nothing compared to designing a new game from scratch).
But it's not just videogame companies. Microsoft would LOVE to get money from all its users 24/7, but they can't.... at least now. You see, the wide range of expertise of their users as well as the fact that businesses rely on their products prevent or at least delay their doing so. If Microsoft were to start making people use web-based programs on internet-access-devices and making them save data to Redmond servers... they'd be out of business in a week. They're going into it gradually. Videogames are different. The target market is teenage kids who don't know RAM from ROM or "UID" from "EULA."
I don't think it'll happen any time soon... but if it does, it's not going to be software first- it'll definitely be the videogame market.
Is this why nobody replies to my /. posts?
IBM+MS | SCO+LINUX ----> SCO-LINUX+MS | IBM+LINUX-MS
net: IBM+LINUX | SCO+MS
see? it all balances out!
Does anyone here own or know anyone who owns a segway?
Wasn't it the biggest let down when you heard that this new type of mobile that would "revolutionize" transportation forever... turned out to be a bulky, overpriced scooter?
Hey- the wheels are next to each other. Neat. Now why would I want to buy one?
It was a great idea, but not any more than meal-in-a-pill was a good idea, or the anthropomorphic robot of the 1950's. Neat, but who really wants one (not counting rich people with money to burn)? So does it really deserve to be copied? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery... but... it's a scooter!
MS will produce a better product in the future.
a little optimistic, aren't we? You make a good point. If Microsoft's products were absolutely horrible from a personal user viewpoint, then nobody would buy them. But you can't very well argue about cost effectiveness against a free product that is as basic as an office program.
Let's face it, word processors and spreadsheets aren't exactly like GUIs and 3D graphics utilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been very few major improvements in word processing technology since they started making the page background white and the text black. "Word art" doesn't count, and especially not that annoying little paper clip thing (I want to bend him into an inappropriate shape).
Think about it this way: they either pay 3-4% of MS's annual revenue... or they can pay nothing. Now, even if I had to type with my feet because the program only supported special foot-keyboards, I would STILL choose the free program. Maybe that was a bad analogy, but you get the point.
If SCO DOES prove to "own" Linux, what about all the GPLed software and kernel parts that people put into it legitimately? SCO cannot own that because the GPL forbids it, and the designer complied with the GPL. So SCO would only truly "own" the pieces it would be responsible for, nothing else.
Thus, they would HAVE to point the pieces out because otherwise they'd be violating the GPL several hundred times over by claiming rights to others' work.
So even if they DID win, they'd have to tell us where the code was, and it would be promptly removed. Otherwise, they would be guilty of violation of the GPL.
It's projects like these that show how much more productive Open Source is.
Proprietary companies may try to run other company's formats, but probably wouldn't be willing to say "oh here's how we do it, let's make it easier for people and merge the two for greater compatibility." Open Source companies can't (and I'd like to think wouldn't if they could) restrict compatibility for their own benefit.
For example: Microsoft comes out with special new features like "plug n' play" or some new way to install programs "faster" and "more easily," but RedHat releases an open source program, RPM, and allows anyone who will to use it.
Hooray for Open Source!