I have never encountered WiFi cards that did not work
The Ubuntu forums are filled with people having trouble getting their WiFi working. That was one of the problems I ran into for installing Jaunty on my Mac. I found solutions but wifi doesn't work out of the box so to speak. There are other hardware problems such as with fan control, touchpad, the Apple keyboard, sound, and suspend
I am sorry but I do not understand you. Maybe I am a little dumb, but it' s actually true what I said. I pointed out facts... I think it's for the better not to lie and point at the problems...
You may of pointed out how things went for you but you did not point out the facts of others, Fact is is Ubuntu and other Linux distros have trouble with some hardware. Before installing any Linux distro on a computer it's wise to make sure there is compatibility with the hardware Linux will be installed on. Which is what I've been doing in order to prepare for when I install Ubuntu myself.
>But if I walk into BestBuy after work *today* and I grab any piece of hardware, off the shelf, it will come with a disk that provides drivers for Windows. How many will include drivers for Linux?
None because they are included with distro's, so what's the problem?
As linked to above Linux does not come with drivers that work with all hardware. That's why it's also recommended people try out a live disk before trying to install Linux. If a Live CD works then Linux can be installed with a minimum of fuss.
As we used to say in construction, measure once, measure again, and measure a third tyme before cutting. Measuring 3 tymes first then making a cut is better than measuring once, cutting, then having to measure and cut again.
When I said it can't be both - I meant that both of the above can't be true. You can buy any PC - even one preloaded with Linux and there is zero doubt in my mind that Windows will be able to run on that hardware.
Try installing Windows 7 or Vista on hardware that's 7 years old. Good luck, now try to install Linux on it. More than likely Linux can be installed.
trackballs suck as bad as those "natural keyboards" that were all the fad years ago.
I'll take a trackball over a mouse almost everyday. I used to use mice then I tried to use a trackball. At first it was awkward so I put it away. Later I got a new one and tried again. It took a little while to adapt but once I did that was that, now I won't give up my trackball for a mouse, you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. I have 2 now for my laptop, one stays on my desk and the other is in my backpack.
Do you recall the saying, joke, about Mormons and others who go door to door spreading the "Word of God"? It goes something like this, I don't recall what it goes exactly. When a person answers the door when the evangelical knocks the evangelical says they're there to spread the word of God. The person then asks what is the word of God and the evangelical says that God exists and those who heard but do not believe go to hell. The person who answered the door then tells the evangelical "you've just sentenced me to hell."
Personally I can't understand how, if there is a Supreme Deity, it can require faith. And that those without faith go to some "hell" to suffer for eternity. It reminds me of Keanu Reeves' Constantine. If you haven't seen it I don't want to spoil it but Reeves' character knows of the existence of God and angels. He grew up seeing them, but thinking he's imagining what he sees his parents put him in therapy which includes electroshock before he commits suicide. When he'd dead he comes to know what he sees is real, then he's revived. Afterwards he goes through life knowing that because he committed murder and he doesn't have faith he's going to hell. Why have faith when you know the truth?
Personally I'm agnostic, "a" without and "gnostic" knowledge, I am without knowledge. Or belief. I seek knowledge though and am willing to look at any spiritual or religious evidence. Otherwise I try not to do harm to others and say live and let live.
Under the BSD license, person B can close the code, e.g.. They can restrict you from further distributing the copy of the code you got from person B, even if it is essentially identical to something you could have gotten from person A under better terms.
Not quite. Say programmer A releases their own code with a BSD license. Two more programmers, B and C take programmer A's code and releases a new program using A's code as well as their own. Programmer B wants to close the source but C wants to keep it open. There is nothing programmer B can do to prevent A or C from releasing their own code into the wild, ie as open source. Programmer B can only close their own code.
What you say afterwards is exactly this, yet you keep saying I am wrong. Are you trolling?
don't know about settings but home folders can be synced using rsync
Not really
rsync basically checks for differences (using cryptographic hash functions to avoid sending all the data over the wire) between a master copy and a slave copy. Then it modifies the slave copy to match the master copy. Hence it is suitable for situations where all modifications are performed on one master copy and then replicated to one or more slave copies.
I consider what you describe as syncing, making sure two or more folders contain the same data. Except that is data on one drive being deleted but it's not deleted on others, this being useful for archival purposes.
syncing homedirs is a bit trickier because you have a number of copies being edited, potentially at the same time. The changes to each copy need to be determined (which is likely to require keeping a "base version" for each copy that is being edited) and then merged into the master copy.
From what I understand, though I don't know the command options, rsync can save edits and new versions but keep older versions. A basic utility that does that came with Iomega Zip drives. With it I set a certain folder to be backed up. After I edited documents in it I'd end up with a bunch of saved versions in the backup folder on the Zip disk. I rarely let more than a few minutes tyme pass by before saving docs I'm editing, so starting with a new doc in an hour's tyme I may have a couple of dozen saved versions in backup, each tyme "save" was executed the utility would save the file in backup. For some, though not necessarily all docs, I'd like to do the same with rsync.
Ah, so they can only close the code they distribute, they still can't close the code I distribute. In other words they can't close code others contributed previously.
Other people who got the code directly from you won't have to obey the additional restrictions, since you didn't impose them.
If I give others my code I can't put my own restrictions on it?
If 20 years from now, you (the original author) are no longer distributing the code, and the only copies that can be found in public places came from the person who added the restrictions, then the code has in fact been closed (because 'open' versions of it can no longer be found).
If after 20 years whether I've placed my code in the public domain or not it won't be of much use to others. Some may use code that old but I doubt it's more than a snippet or two of code that's unique.
The BSD license allows the recipient to take whatever they get, close it, or restrict it, and further redistribute it.
The BSD does not allow someone to close someone else's code. If I write software and release with a BSD license I still own the copyright, not someone who uses my code.
Or are you arguing I no longer own the copyright? Because that's the only way someone else can close my code.
First sale doctrine is a doctrine. That is, it is "that which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge". Its origin derives not from a mandate from Congress but a recognition of the inherent properties of a copy of a copyrighted work. As you state, it fleshes out that "the copyright owner relinquishes all futher rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy".
No I think you do. I never argued otherwise. In fact I repeatedly stated the First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of the copy to someone else. Pystar is not doing that though, Pystar is installing OS X on it's own hardware, against the Apple license. Pystar is also modifying OS X so it can be installed on non-Apple branded hardware.
Now I wouldn't have the problem I have with Pystar if they did not install OS X on their hardware. If they only sold a computer with their own software and either a paid for OS X DVD, which someone above previously said they could not provide a receipt for, or told buyers they would have to buy their own DVD. I may not like it but I can only see the DMCA, which I'd remove from the laws books, as a way to prevent or try to prevent them from doing so.
As much as I'd like Apple to license OS X to clone makers, Apple already tried that and lost money, I do not own Apple stock and have no say in how the business is run as long as they stay within the law. And so far no court said the business was not operating within the law.
The GPL does not prevent you from closing the code at a later date, as long as you don't accept contributions licensed under the GPL.
Like the BSD license the GPL only allows you close your own code. You admit it when you say if you contribute code to MySQL you have to sign your rights to MySQL AB, now Oracle.
With BSD I don't have to do that. With a background in computers I want to start a business in photography. Among the things I want to do is setup an online store where I sell photographs as well as use the3 website as my portfolio. Photographers can buy packages and software, individual apps as well as turnkey systems however they are expensive. So what I've been thinking of doing is building my own system, from a database to the online store with shopping cart. What I'm thinking is that if I spend much tyme developing the system I'd like to be able to sell it, or pieces of it, to other photographers. If I use the GPL I can not prevent others from copying the software and giving it away. On the other hand if I use the BSD I can sell the binary code and take steps to try to prevent others from distributing my software. If I wanted to run a software business I could just sale services and support, in which case the GPL would work, but I don't.
I find that ironic. It's the states that grant corporations their charters, not the federal government. Maryland is a favorite state to headquarters corporation because it's friendly to corporations.
If I had my way, say I were elected President of the USA, I'd cut down the size of government, er at least try to do as much I actually could without congress's approval. But I'd veto most bills out on my desk. Funding for the FCC? Vetoed. Funding for HUD? Vetoed. And so on.
I wasnt referring to people vs corporations, I was referring to gov't vs Corp ownership, how many corporations do you know that are even half as old as the US, and we are a baby amongst the nations.
You are trying to insert logic into an irrational entity. Courts are not as scientific, standardized, logical or as rational as you believe.
Oh, I don't believe courts, anywhere, are scientific, standardized, logical or rational. Courts convict, and sentence to execution, people on shoddy pseudo-science. What's worse is when a governor signs the death warrant of an innocent man, despite scientific evidence discrediting the pseudo-science used to convict him, yes I'm looking at the blood thirsty governor of Texas.
You can keep full control of your source code by not signing away the right to sublicense with additional restrictions.
In other words someone who uses my code has less control of my code than I do.
For example license under a weak copyleft, such as: The Mozilla Public License, The LGPL.
Or a strong copyleft such as the GPLv3, AGPLv3, OSL,
No, the BSD allows me to open or close my source code, that is control. It also allows me to sale a binary code for installation on 1 computer. That is control. I don't know about the other licenses you mention but the GPL is freedom for users not programmers. The GPL is about user's freedom to "run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve" software. It is not about programmer's freedom, other than the freedom to use the GPL or another license.
While the GPL is terrific and works well for many programmers it doesn't work well for others.
No, the BSD allows me to open or close my source code, that is control. It also allows me to sale a binary code for installation on 1 computer. That is control.
First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights.
The First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of that copy. "The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy." Otherwise it has nothing to do with this case.
In fact, the BSD license allows me to do just that; the BSD license allows sublicensing just like the MIT license does. None of the conditions of the BSD license prevent me from sublicensing or adding restrictions to your code. It doesn't matter whether I change the code or not.
Are you really going to tell me I can not control my source code? How then do you get to control yours?
Suspected terrorists. Let's not through due process out the window just yet.
Dur process was already thrown out the window. It was thrown out as soon as the first name of someone who had not been convicted of a terrorist action was put on a no fly list. Sen Ed Kennedy may of been a danger to liberty but he wasn't going to blow up a plane. And Cat Stevens wasn't about to force you to listen to him singing, as if that would kill you.
How many times do you have to post about the NSA and CIA before your phone starts having issues and your Mac, Windows or Linux box starts becoming extra unresponsive?
How many tymes do you have to watch Enemy of the State before you're put of the lists?
Slashdot Mirror
As have I, yet I run Windows. This is all nice little anecdotal evidence, but it all boils down to smart web browsing.
It's not all just smart browsing. If you have an always on connection, say cable or DSL, you need a firewall.
Falcon
I run without AV, and I haven't had a virus in years.
How do you know you've never had malware if you don't run AV software?
Falcon
I have never encountered WiFi cards that did not work
The Ubuntu forums are filled with people having trouble getting their WiFi working. That was one of the problems I ran into for installing Jaunty on my Mac. I found solutions but wifi doesn't work out of the box so to speak. There are other hardware problems such as with fan control, touchpad, the Apple keyboard, sound, and suspend
I am sorry but I do not understand you. Maybe I am a little dumb, but it' s actually true what I said. I pointed out facts... I think it's for the better not to lie and point at the problems...
You may of pointed out how things went for you but you did not point out the facts of others, Fact is is Ubuntu and other Linux distros have trouble with some hardware. Before installing any Linux distro on a computer it's wise to make sure there is compatibility with the hardware Linux will be installed on. Which is what I've been doing in order to prepare for when I install Ubuntu myself.
>But if I walk into BestBuy after work *today* and I grab any piece of hardware, off the shelf, it will come with a disk that provides drivers for Windows. How many will include drivers for Linux?
None because they are included with distro's, so what's the problem?
As linked to above Linux does not come with drivers that work with all hardware. That's why it's also recommended people try out a live disk before trying to install Linux. If a Live CD works then Linux can be installed with a minimum of fuss.
As we used to say in construction, measure once, measure again, and measure a third tyme before cutting. Measuring 3 tymes first then making a cut is better than measuring once, cutting, then having to measure and cut again.
Falcon
When I said it can't be both - I meant that both of the above can't be true. You can buy any PC - even one preloaded with Linux and there is zero doubt in my mind that Windows will be able to run on that hardware.
Try installing Windows 7 or Vista on hardware that's 7 years old. Good luck, now try to install Linux on it. More than likely Linux can be installed.
Falcon
trackballs suck as bad as those "natural keyboards" that were all the fad years ago.
I'll take a trackball over a mouse almost everyday. I used to use mice then I tried to use a trackball. At first it was awkward so I put it away. Later I got a new one and tried again. It took a little while to adapt but once I did that was that, now I won't give up my trackball for a mouse, you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. I have 2 now for my laptop, one stays on my desk and the other is in my backpack.
Falcon
Even if 9/10 viruses would be blocked by UAC, an anti-virus program that blocks the last one is worth it.
Thing is no AV program gets every virus. Like UAC they get most but not all.
Falcon
it is not the duty of the Christian to convert,
Do you recall the saying, joke, about Mormons and others who go door to door spreading the "Word of God"? It goes something like this, I don't recall what it goes exactly. When a person answers the door when the evangelical knocks the evangelical says they're there to spread the word of God. The person then asks what is the word of God and the evangelical says that God exists and those who heard but do not believe go to hell. The person who answered the door then tells the evangelical "you've just sentenced me to hell."
Personally I can't understand how, if there is a Supreme Deity, it can require faith. And that those without faith go to some "hell" to suffer for eternity. It reminds me of Keanu Reeves' Constantine. If you haven't seen it I don't want to spoil it but Reeves' character knows of the existence of God and angels. He grew up seeing them, but thinking he's imagining what he sees his parents put him in therapy which includes electroshock before he commits suicide. When he'd dead he comes to know what he sees is real, then he's revived. Afterwards he goes through life knowing that because he committed murder and he doesn't have faith he's going to hell. Why have faith when you know the truth?
Falcon
Personally I'm agnostic, "a" without and "gnostic" knowledge, I am without knowledge. Or belief. I seek knowledge though and am willing to look at any spiritual or religious evidence. Otherwise I try not to do harm to others and say live and let live.
Falcon
Under the BSD license, person B can close the code, e.g.. They can restrict you from further distributing the copy of the code you got from person B, even if it is essentially identical to something you could have gotten from person A under better terms.
Not quite. Say programmer A releases their own code with a BSD license. Two more programmers, B and C take programmer A's code and releases a new program using A's code as well as their own. Programmer B wants to close the source but C wants to keep it open. There is nothing programmer B can do to prevent A or C from releasing their own code into the wild, ie as open source. Programmer B can only close their own code.
What you say afterwards is exactly this, yet you keep saying I am wrong. Are you trolling?
Falcon
don't know about settings but home folders can be synced using rsync Not really
rsync basically checks for differences (using cryptographic hash functions to avoid sending all the data over the wire) between a master copy and a slave copy. Then it modifies the slave copy to match the master copy. Hence it is suitable for situations where all modifications are performed on one master copy and then replicated to one or more slave copies.
I consider what you describe as syncing, making sure two or more folders contain the same data. Except that is data on one drive being deleted but it's not deleted on others, this being useful for archival purposes.
syncing homedirs is a bit trickier because you have a number of copies being edited, potentially at the same time. The changes to each copy need to be determined (which is likely to require keeping a "base version" for each copy that is being edited) and then merged into the master copy.
From what I understand, though I don't know the command options, rsync can save edits and new versions but keep older versions. A basic utility that does that came with Iomega Zip drives. With it I set a certain folder to be backed up. After I edited documents in it I'd end up with a bunch of saved versions in the backup folder on the Zip disk. I rarely let more than a few minutes tyme pass by before saving docs I'm editing, so starting with a new doc in an hour's tyme I may have a couple of dozen saved versions in backup, each tyme "save" was executed the utility would save the file in backup. For some, though not necessarily all docs, I'd like to do the same with rsync.
Falcon
They can close the copy they distribute
Ah, so they can only close the code they distribute, they still can't close the code I distribute. In other words they can't close code others contributed previously.
Other people who got the code directly from you won't have to obey the additional restrictions, since you didn't impose them.
If I give others my code I can't put my own restrictions on it?
If 20 years from now, you (the original author) are no longer distributing the code, and the only copies that can be found in public places came from the person who added the restrictions, then the code has in fact been closed (because 'open' versions of it can no longer be found).
If after 20 years whether I've placed my code in the public domain or not it won't be of much use to others. Some may use code that old but I doubt it's more than a snippet or two of code that's unique.
Falcon
The BSD license allows the recipient to take whatever they get, close it, or restrict it, and further redistribute it.
The BSD does not allow someone to close someone else's code. If I write software and release with a BSD license I still own the copyright, not someone who uses my code.
Or are you arguing I no longer own the copyright? Because that's the only way someone else can close my code.
Falcon
First sale doctrine is a doctrine. That is, it is "that which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge". Its origin derives not from a mandate from Congress but a recognition of the inherent properties of a copy of a copyrighted work. As you state, it fleshes out that "the copyright owner relinquishes all futher rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy".
No I think you do. I never argued otherwise. In fact I repeatedly stated the First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of the copy to someone else. Pystar is not doing that though, Pystar is installing OS X on it's own hardware, against the Apple license. Pystar is also modifying OS X so it can be installed on non-Apple branded hardware.
Now I wouldn't have the problem I have with Pystar if they did not install OS X on their hardware. If they only sold a computer with their own software and either a paid for OS X DVD, which someone above previously said they could not provide a receipt for, or told buyers they would have to buy their own DVD. I may not like it but I can only see the DMCA, which I'd remove from the laws books, as a way to prevent or try to prevent them from doing so.
As much as I'd like Apple to license OS X to clone makers, Apple already tried that and lost money, I do not own Apple stock and have no say in how the business is run as long as they stay within the law. And so far no court said the business was not operating within the law.
Falcon
The GPL does not prevent you from closing the code at a later date, as long as you don't accept contributions licensed under the GPL.
Like the BSD license the GPL only allows you close your own code. You admit it when you say if you contribute code to MySQL you have to sign your rights to MySQL AB, now Oracle.
With BSD I don't have to do that. With a background in computers I want to start a business in photography. Among the things I want to do is setup an online store where I sell photographs as well as use the3 website as my portfolio. Photographers can buy packages and software, individual apps as well as turnkey systems however they are expensive. So what I've been thinking of doing is building my own system, from a database to the online store with shopping cart. What I'm thinking is that if I spend much tyme developing the system I'd like to be able to sell it, or pieces of it, to other photographers. If I use the GPL I can not prevent others from copying the software and giving it away. On the other hand if I use the BSD I can sell the binary code and take steps to try to prevent others from distributing my software. If I wanted to run a software business I could just sale services and support, in which case the GPL would work, but I don't.
Falcon
A rarity indeed! Excellent post.
I almost always try to back up my position by providing links. Here's one from Saturday with the same links.
Falcon
so my viewpoint is skewed.
I find that ironic. It's the states that grant corporations their charters, not the federal government. Maryland is a favorite state to headquarters corporation because it's friendly to corporations.
Falcon
It is often said amongst non-profits that what the private sector can do for $1.00 the public sector takes $1.20.
Oh I agree. I've said right here on slashdot that civil society can be more effective and do more than government. I don't know how many tymes I've posted about Danny Thomas's St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine's (Shriners) Shriners Hospital for Children. That doesn't excuse businesses taking taxpayer money but not doing what they were given the money for.
If I had my way, say I were elected President of the USA, I'd cut down the size of government, er at least try to do as much I actually could without congress's approval. But I'd veto most bills out on my desk. Funding for the FCC? Vetoed. Funding for HUD? Vetoed. And so on.
Falcon
I wasnt referring to people vs corporations, I was referring to gov't vs Corp ownership, how many corporations do you know that are even half as old as the US, and we are a baby amongst the nations.
First, nations change their form of government, this past century we had nations change their government at least twice. Llyod's of London was founded in 1688. Though not older the Insurance Company of North America was founded in 1792 and the Hartford Insurance Group in 1810. The Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire incorporated in 1768. The Hudson's Bay Company in Canada was founded in 1670.
I'm sure if I look longer I can find more corporations that are as old.
Falcon
You are trying to insert logic into an irrational entity. Courts are not as scientific, standardized, logical or as rational as you believe.
Oh, I don't believe courts, anywhere, are scientific, standardized, logical or rational. Courts convict, and sentence to execution, people on shoddy pseudo-science. What's worse is when a governor signs the death warrant of an innocent man, despite scientific evidence discrediting the pseudo-science used to convict him, yes I'm looking at the blood thirsty governor of Texas.
Falcon
You can keep full control of your source code by not signing away the right to sublicense with additional restrictions.
In other words someone who uses my code has less control of my code than I do.
For example license under a weak copyleft, such as: The Mozilla Public License, The LGPL.
Or a strong copyleft such as the GPLv3, AGPLv3, OSL,
No, the BSD allows me to open or close my source code, that is control. It also allows me to sale a binary code for installation on 1 computer. That is control. I don't know about the other licenses you mention but the GPL is freedom for users not programmers. The GPL is about user's freedom to "run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve" software. It is not about programmer's freedom, other than the freedom to use the GPL or another license.
While the GPL is terrific and works well for many programmers it doesn't work well for others.
Falcon
No, the BSD allows me to open or close my source code, that is control. It also allows me to sale a binary code for installation on 1 computer. That is control.
Falcon
First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights.
The First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of that copy. "The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy." Otherwise it has nothing to do with this case.
Falcon
In fact, the BSD license allows me to do just that; the BSD license allows sublicensing just like the MIT license does. None of the conditions of the BSD license prevent me from sublicensing or adding restrictions to your code. It doesn't matter whether I change the code or not.
Are you really going to tell me I can not control my source code? How then do you get to control yours?
Falcon
Suspected terrorists. Let's not through due process out the window just yet.
Dur process was already thrown out the window. It was thrown out as soon as the first name of someone who had not been convicted of a terrorist action was put on a no fly list. Sen Ed Kennedy may of been a danger to liberty but he wasn't going to blow up a plane. And Cat Stevens wasn't about to force you to listen to him singing, as if that would kill you.
Falcon
How many times do you have to post about the NSA and CIA before your phone starts having issues and your Mac, Windows or Linux box starts becoming extra unresponsive?
How many tymes do you have to watch Enemy of the State before you're put of the lists?
Falcon