Adding or changing characters in a literal string seems like misquoting. Traditionally in handwritten work the comma went almost directly under the quotation mark. When people shifted to typewriters and then computers, an arbitrary choice was made to put the comma first. Most programmers I meet seem to have reversed that choice.
But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server. The things people claim macs are good about have to do with intuitive gui, clean gui, conducive to productivity. These are not really important for servers. On a server you want stablility, which OSX has but so do all the free unicies. All the fancy gui stuff would just go to waste sitting there headless.
So there is a small amount of very fast ram. Either this interacts with a larger amount of slower ram - in which case it's a cache - or it doesn't, in which case there isn't very much ram.
Not really. A cache sits between the processor and the memory and completely transparently to the program stores often-acessed memory to improve overall response. The local memory is different because it is completely distinct from main memory. If the programmer knows that a certain value will be used a lot (but not enough to merit a register) it should go in the local memory. This shifts some work to the programmer or compiler but should result in a faster program overall.
Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Some things you should ask yourself are how much your solution is helped by replacing X. Is your goal one that could be reached on the window-manager level, like KDE and Gnome? Do you plan on making a high- or low-level API? Are you going to make GTK and QT bindings available?
So make a little black button and know where it is, but also make an big red one that turns off the lights. That way you get to yell at little kids without much harm to your system.
No, it is entirely for them to give. The copyright holder -- usually the publisher -- is by definition absolutely entitled to grant permission to make copies of their copyrighted work. That's how the GPL works.
That's not at issue here. The library is breaking the law because they have to break DRM on the things they are copying.
But that's the way all slide rules work. And because you get used to the scientific notation and decimal places that bit becomes a snap. Try for something like 3.21 x 3.92.
Problems may occur over time with Microsoft trickery, but I think a larger concern is that the file format will be published (open enough for the State of Massachusetts) but patent encumbered (not open enough that your "Test Implementation" could be made Open Source). Massachusetts wants assurance that the documents can be read in 300 years. Microsoft wants to hold off competition for as long as possible. Open Source people want a file format that they can legally implement for reading and writing immediately. It is possible to satisfy Mass and Microsoft but not the OSS people, and so unless we make ourselves heard, that is what will happen.
The GPL does allow people to gain from other's work without giving back in any way. Look at RedHat, though, and see why this is not a problem. RedHat makes money off all the people who worked on the kernel, gnu apps, and all other OSS in their distribution, and doesn't give the authors a cut. But when RH makes improvements to software the GPL makes them make these available to all, and the GPL keeps RH from engaging in MS-style liscencing. So we all benifit indirectly, including the origonal authors.
Your example of IBM confuses me, however. You say IBM shows "how much money can be gained out of Open Source." Note first that IBM has made lots of really good programs and has released these as open source. But also see that unless you count OSS consulting or internal use of OSS, they're not making money off the author's work. So one of the commercial distros or an embedded Linux company seems like it would make more sense.
BUT when you look at the philosophies behind communism Marx is trying to prevent the coorperations from exploiting the working class.
The key word here is "exploiting". Having the source code available to all exploits no one and benefits everyone. Letting a corporation have equal acess to a resource is not the same as letting them exploit the creators of said resource.
There are still limits, they are just extended. Currently produced work will go into the public domain 75 years after the author dies. If the work was for a company (work for hire) then copyright is 95 years. So there are no infinite copyrights (which would be directly unconstitional) just frustratingly long ones.
Give me an example of these problems you're referring to. I really can't think of any way that app bundles are inferior to the Unix way
1) Bandwidth and space usage:
Downloading and keeping around 30 copies of the GTK+ library if you have 30 GTK aps is a waste.
2) Security and bug fixes:
If there's a problem in a library you want to just fix it, not wait for each developer to release an update for their application with the new library.
3) Memory use:
You don't want your system loading a copy of every used library into RAM for each program.
What's wrong with giving the *users* of the system the easiest way of doing things and letting the Administrators or Developers, the people who KNOW computers, doing the troubleshooting? The users can't troubleshoot; Administrators and Developers can.
Because the users have to suffer though the slow, buggy, bloated result. There are no benefits to the user that a nice package manager can't solve. If you want to be really "user friendly" you can make an interface to the package manager be a "folder" called "programs" that has an icon for each installed app and gives nice list of options on right click (update, remove...).
That only applies in criminal cases. In civil cases the standard is the "preponderance of the evidence" and trade-secret litigation is all under civil law.
From a look at the CDC site, it seems some things are getting worse and others are getting better. And the downhill trends didn't sound like the sort of things that would be caused by people being slowly cooked.
Depends what you're serving; many hosting companies give hostees shell acounts. And my comment was more one of general principle than a remedy for this particular attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding or changing characters in a literal string seems like misquoting. Traditionally in handwritten work the comma went almost directly under the quotation mark. When people shifted to typewriters and then computers, an arbitrary choice was made to put the comma first. Most programmers I meet seem to have reversed that choice.
But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server. The things people claim macs are good about have to do with intuitive gui, clean gui, conducive to productivity. These are not really important for servers. On a server you want stablility, which OSX has but so do all the free unicies. All the fancy gui stuff would just go to waste sitting there headless.
Not really. A cache sits between the processor and the memory and completely transparently to the program stores often-acessed memory to improve overall response. The local memory is different because it is completely distinct from main memory. If the programmer knows that a certain value will be used a lot (but not enough to merit a register) it should go in the local memory. This shifts some work to the programmer or compiler but should result in a faster program overall.
Some things you should ask yourself are how much your solution is helped by replacing X. Is your goal one that could be reached on the window-manager level, like KDE and Gnome? Do you plan on making a high- or low-level API? Are you going to make GTK and QT bindings available?
So make a little black button and know where it is, but also make an big red one that turns off the lights. That way you get to yell at little kids without much harm to your system.
see this comment.
That's not at issue here. The library is breaking the law because they have to break DRM on the things they are copying.
Though there doesn't seem to be a reason to add the "[example.com]" when someone links a URL with ""
Just overclock the hub!
But that's the way all slide rules work. And because you get used to the scientific notation and decimal places that bit becomes a snap. Try for something like 3.21 x 3.92.
Problems may occur over time with Microsoft trickery, but I think a larger concern is that the file format will be published (open enough for the State of Massachusetts) but patent encumbered (not open enough that your "Test Implementation" could be made Open Source). Massachusetts wants assurance that the documents can be read in 300 years. Microsoft wants to hold off competition for as long as possible. Open Source people want a file format that they can legally implement for reading and writing immediately. It is possible to satisfy Mass and Microsoft but not the OSS people, and so unless we make ourselves heard, that is what will happen.
Sounds like it probably isn't a KHTML issue anyway.
Your example of IBM confuses me, however. You say IBM shows "how much money can be gained out of Open Source." Note first that IBM has made lots of really good programs and has released these as open source. But also see that unless you count OSS consulting or internal use of OSS, they're not making money off the author's work. So one of the commercial distros or an embedded Linux company seems like it would make more sense.
Why? I don't see any connection at all. Unless you are talking about the state of today's daycare facilities.
Or did you mean if you wanted your child to come with you?
What exactly does Safari do? It might be a KHTML bug and I'd like to submit a bug report.
Why through open source software, of course!
The key word here is "exploiting". Having the source code available to all exploits no one and benefits everyone. Letting a corporation have equal acess to a resource is not the same as letting them exploit the creators of said resource.
You have the freedom to do anything except deny freedom to others. How is that not free?
There are still limits, they are just extended. Currently produced work will go into the public domain 75 years after the author dies. If the work was for a company (work for hire) then copyright is 95 years. So there are no infinite copyrights (which would be directly unconstitional) just frustratingly long ones.
What's wrong with giving the *users* of the system the easiest way of doing things and letting the Administrators or Developers, the people who KNOW computers, doing the troubleshooting? The users can't troubleshoot; Administrators and Developers can.
Because the users have to suffer though the slow, buggy, bloated result. There are no benefits to the user that a nice package manager can't solve. If you want to be really "user friendly" you can make an interface to the package manager be a "folder" called "programs" that has an icon for each installed app and gives nice list of options on right click (update, remove...).
That only applies in criminal cases. In civil cases the standard is the "preponderance of the evidence" and trade-secret litigation is all under civil law.
Read what you're replying to: the ggpp.
From a look at the CDC site, it seems some things are getting worse and others are getting better. And the downhill trends didn't sound like the sort of things that would be caused by people being slowly cooked.
Depends what you're serving; many hosting companies give hostees shell acounts. And my comment was more one of general principle than a remedy for this particular attack.
Care to lend a citation?