You're wrong there, If I give you a piece of paper (the deeds to my house) I've given you my house, I can't just turn around and say that the paper isn't the house and so it doesn't mean anything. Same for my car documents. It's no different here.
No, you can't arbitrarily bind someone else to a license, Microsoft is distributing Suse Linux through the voucher program. If said voucher is for a version with GPL3 software in it, then the GPL3 applies.
Microsoft is of course free to burn the vouchers if they wish, which would solve the whole thing, but IIRC they've already distributed some, and are now just praying someone doesn't sit on one until the next Suse comes out.
This is the second thread on this, give it a break ok?
Mr Shiavo had already spent years keeping her alive, and paying for her treatement, when he could have just 'divorced and moved on' as you say. Also, the autopsy was performed by several doctors (not just one), and was overseen by people on both sides of the agenda, the point is that there was no brain left, and hadn't been for years.
It doesn't matter if they do or not, since he didn't agree to one.
That's the whole point, this whole thing is an exercise in double-speak. You can never be bound by any liscence you didn't accept, no matter how that acceptance could be obtained.
I stand corrected, but that isn't what's at stake here, tridge isn't using this, he's just talking to a bk server, without the official bk client, and is therefor in his right to do what he has done.
BTW: Could any one show me where in the BK liscence it says that if someone who didn't agree to the liscence does something BitMover doesn't like, BitMover can just go home taking the ball with them.
I understand that it's there right to do this whenever they want, but they shouldn't be blaming tridge if their liscence doesn't state the above.
McVoy thoght that by giving a free as in beer liscence he could kill off any free as in speach replacement (hell, it worked for device drivers), but he fell on his face and is bitter.
Larry never exposed BK source code, the code being pulled is the Linux kernel, it's just being pulled off a BK repository, which it is perfectly OK to do.
The point is that Tridge hasn't signed any liscence.
He hasn't even clicked through one. He wasn't useing the BK client, and was thus compleatly unbound by what BitMover thought and in the right to do what he was doing.
The day he installs the BK client and clicks through it's liscence, you'll be 101% right, until then I'm with tridge on this one.
I noticed, the point is that not everyone has show domain in brackets activated (and to be honest, I can't remember if the feature is there if you're not loged in), so I decided to be on the safe side.
If you read between the lines, you see that what the guy in question was doing was working on another SCM in his free time (which isn't allowed if you use BitKeeper at work or otherwise at the same time, dixit the liscence).
There is a far cry from this and warez.
Oh, and why would he want to warez a client he has for free anyhow?
MS MVP's are given damn good treatement for their contributions on newsgroups and such. Compare that with the experts on the Linux groups where all the thanks you get most of the time is some wintroll and a new user complaining that you're rubbish since you can't read his mind and magically resolve his problem. You can understand that tempers flair.
Oh, and I'm sure that even the MVP's prefer that you post polit, concise and exact questions, after having consulted the FAQ and google before.
Every computer user was new once, and I've always found that the newsgroups were always very helpful, providing that the poster showed a smidgon of personnal motivation.
Sorry, forgot to add that as far as documentation is concerned, the OSS DB's are just as well documented as most commerical offerings (with Oracle set asside), so to be perfectly honest, your post amounts to trolling no less.
The big problem though is that not all kernel devs are still contactable (or even still alive), so there would be a fair amount of rewriting involved in anycase.
Take the one that I studied at for a start: Nantes, France, the undergrad section alone in CS had a good 300-400 boxes, all either dualboot or Linux only
Learn to code, when you analyse you're problem, you end up with corner cases that you test (in the case of pow, you make sure that when x**y produces an overflow, the function throws an exception, or better still, limit your input to avoid an overflow).
You then work you're way up, testing as you go.
This approche works in every other industry (including electronics), so what makes software so special, apart from (1'm 4 133t, 1 d0|\|'t n33d t3sting).
The point is that if you analyse problem correctly, you can set up unit tests for the corner cases, the ones that matter.
Hence you get a better result with unit testing/integration testing etc.
Just throwing (pseudo) random numbers at the thing during the final week is just asking for trouble.
And no, things don't get better at the system level, because if you haven't tested properly at the module level, the bugs become virtually untraceable.
Re:Code can't be too big, just badly designed
on
Too Darned Big to Test?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And for those who didn't RTFA to the end:
The author is suggesting pseudo-random testing rather than exhaustive testing for a large code base, which may be a valid point when you recoup a large piece of monolithique code, but should never be used for a fresh project, where comlplete, staged testing is the only way to avoid a complete kludge.
David
Code can't be too big, just badly designed
on
Too Darned Big to Test?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For those who didn't RTFA, it is basically saying that exaustive (?sp) testing can't be done on a large codebase, and random testing is all you can use, to which most coders will say bull.
If a piece of code is too big to test exaustivly, it's time to refactor it into bits that can be.
After you've tested each part to make sure it works, you test a super set of parts, thus testing the interactions between the smaller parts, lather rinse repeat until you've tested th whole application.
Correct use of unit testing will always outstrip random testing.
This is just an excuse for badly designed code bases.
The point is that a new user would get confused by what is very unintuative behaviour.
And I'm not saying that Linux is better in this regard, KDE suffers largley from the same problem (in this and other areas). OS X OTOH always moves IIRC.
Not all users are geeks, if they were the web would be a better place. Thay aren't, theres nothing we can do about it, and bitching that "Windows is great in all respects, its just that 95% of the world is too stupid to use it properly" won't help.
Finally, if you look to my original post, you'll see that I'm not bashing anyone system more than another, and if you can't accept that your system has flaws then you're no better than the people you critisize./Rant off
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong there, If I give you a piece of paper (the deeds to my house) I've given you my house, I can't just turn around and say that the paper isn't the house and so it doesn't mean anything. Same for my car documents. It's no different here. No, you can't arbitrarily bind someone else to a license, Microsoft is distributing Suse Linux through the voucher program. If said voucher is for a version with GPL3 software in it, then the GPL3 applies. Microsoft is of course free to burn the vouchers if they wish, which would solve the whole thing, but IIRC they've already distributed some, and are now just praying someone doesn't sit on one until the next Suse comes out.
The for the record, it's 'kiki's delivery service' that has the bicycle!
This is the second thread on this, give it a break ok?
Mr Shiavo had already spent years keeping her alive, and paying for her treatement, when he could have just 'divorced and moved on' as you say. Also, the autopsy was performed by several doctors (not just one), and was overseen by people on both sides of the agenda, the point is that there was no brain left, and hadn't been for years.
Nop, since looking far is also looking back in time, they probably saw the Big Bang Burger Bar.
It doesn't matter if they do or not, since he didn't agree to one.
That's the whole point, this whole thing is an exercise in double-speak. You can never be bound by any liscence you didn't accept, no matter how that acceptance could be obtained.
I stand corrected, but that isn't what's at stake here, tridge isn't using this, he's just talking to a bk server, without the official bk client, and is therefor in his right to do what he has done.
BTW: Could any one show me where in the BK liscence it says that if someone who didn't agree to the liscence does something BitMover doesn't like, BitMover can just go home taking the ball with them.
I understand that it's there right to do this whenever they want, but they shouldn't be blaming tridge if their liscence doesn't state the above.
McVoy thoght that by giving a free as in beer liscence he could kill off any free as in speach replacement (hell, it worked for device drivers), but he fell on his face and is bitter.
Larry never exposed BK source code, the code being pulled is the Linux kernel, it's just being pulled off a BK repository, which it is perfectly OK to do.
Go troll somewhere else.
The point is that Tridge hasn't signed any liscence.
He hasn't even clicked through one. He wasn't useing the BK client, and was thus compleatly unbound by what BitMover thought and in the right to do what he was doing.
The day he installs the BK client and clicks through it's liscence, you'll be 101% right, until then I'm with tridge on this one.
I noticed, the point is that not everyone has show domain in brackets activated (and to be honest, I can't remember if the feature is there if you're not loged in), so I decided to be on the safe side.
But you're right: it's a pathetic troll.
Goatse link, be careful
If you read between the lines, you see that what the guy in question was doing was working on another SCM in his free time (which isn't allowed if you use BitKeeper at work or otherwise at the same time, dixit the liscence).
There is a far cry from this and warez.
Oh, and why would he want to warez a client he has for free anyhow?
Depends on where you post and how you post.
MS MVP's are given damn good treatement for their contributions on newsgroups and such. Compare that with the experts on the Linux groups where all the thanks you get most of the time is some wintroll and a new user complaining that you're rubbish since you can't read his mind and magically resolve his problem. You can understand that tempers flair.
Oh, and I'm sure that even the MVP's prefer that you post polit, concise and exact questions, after having consulted the FAQ and google before.
Every computer user was new once, and I've always found that the newsgroups were always very helpful, providing that the poster showed a smidgon of personnal motivation.
HTH
David
Sorry, forgot to add that as far as documentation is concerned, the OSS DB's are just as well documented as most commerical offerings (with Oracle set asside), so to be perfectly honest, your post amounts to trolling no less.
David
Unfortunatly MySQL 4 does have triggers and views, and if you need more, their's always postgres or firebird.
Oracle has it's uses in large enviroments since it scales so much better.
The big problem though is that not all kernel devs are still contactable (or even still alive), so there would be a fair amount of rewriting involved in anycase.
Take the one that I studied at for a start: Nantes, France, the undergrad section alone in CS had a good 300-400 boxes, all either dualboot or Linux only
>and actually engineering a system instead of just perpetrating random acts of hackery until it "works".
We agree on this point, it's just that for me, I don't see the limit of structured testing that pseudo random testing is supposed to overcome.
If they could use it to debug the shuttle flight control systems, then they can use it for other projects.
Learn to code, when you analyse you're problem, you end up with corner cases that you test (in the case of pow, you make sure that when x**y produces an overflow, the function throws an exception, or better still, limit your input to avoid an overflow).
You then work you're way up, testing as you go.
This approche works in every other industry (including electronics), so what makes software so special, apart from (1'm 4 133t, 1 d0|\|'t n33d t3sting).
AND FYI, yes I do code for a living.
The point is that if you analyse problem correctly, you can set up unit tests for the corner cases, the ones that matter.
Hence you get a better result with unit testing/integration testing etc.
Just throwing (pseudo) random numbers at the thing during the final week is just asking for trouble.
And no, things don't get better at the system level, because if you haven't tested properly at the module level, the bugs become virtually untraceable.
And for those who didn't RTFA to the end:
The author is suggesting pseudo-random testing rather than exhaustive testing for a large code base, which may be a valid point when you recoup a large piece of monolithique code, but should never be used for a fresh project, where comlplete, staged testing is the only way to avoid a complete kludge.
David
For those who didn't RTFA, it is basically saying that exaustive (?sp) testing can't be done on a large codebase, and random testing is all you can use, to which most coders will say bull.
If a piece of code is too big to test exaustivly, it's time to refactor it into bits that can be.
After you've tested each part to make sure it works, you test a super set of parts, thus testing the interactions between the smaller parts, lather rinse repeat until you've tested th whole application.
Correct use of unit testing will always outstrip random testing.
This is just an excuse for badly designed code bases.
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree, and to all the Trolls about the EU not being democratic: My apologies, you seem to have been right.
David
I think the problem would intervene when the same prouct key was used on multiple machines, so the case of false positives shouldn't arrise
The point is that a new user would get confused by what is very unintuative behaviour.
/Rant off
And I'm not saying that Linux is better in this regard, KDE suffers largley from the same problem (in this and other areas). OS X OTOH always moves IIRC.
Not all users are geeks, if they were the web would be a better place. Thay aren't, theres nothing we can do about it, and bitching that "Windows is great in all respects, its just that 95% of the world is too stupid to use it properly" won't help.
Finally, if you look to my original post, you'll see that I'm not bashing anyone system more than another, and if you can't accept that your system has flaws then you're no better than the people you critisize.