"That is most definately the WRONG way to go about it.
The RIGHT way is to push content providers to use technologies that we don't have to license, such as Vorbis, Theora, MPEG-1, Dirac, etc."
Sure, that's all fine but customers who use Linux on the desktop want to see the content *right now* and the alternatives aren't getting ground. Some Linux distributors already got a license from Microsoft, such as TurboLinux and Lindows.
Does anyone know if this will be legal in conjunction with Microsoft being convicted a felon in the EU in the Real vs Microsoft case in the EC? They are related.
Novell is pretty much active in advertising on the radio here (Netherlands). Its only a 5-second ad though, but it gets advertized a lot.
The ad is a woman saying: "Opensource. Novell. Jij wel." The latter means something in the sense of 'you would'.
While its short, i think its a pretty good ad for its shortness. Also, it binds the term 'open source' to 'Novell' and it makes use of the 'current situation' in which it says 'dare to use something different'. However its by far not informative and its more of a Novell ad than an open source one.
That, and no Unix desktop uses a "start" menu to shut down the machine. That is just plain stupid.
It makes sense to me: an application is started to shut down the system (e.g. halt, reboot). I must admit, i find GNOME's solution much more cleaner and obvious though. GNOME calls that an 'action'.
Re:We should add "Go" to the start menus for newbi
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
(eg novell's liitle java desktop on X)
Not to nitpick, but i think you meant Sun's JDS (Java Desktop System).
Another thing is that MS is really has not doing anything yet, anything publicly, so assuming there will be a responce from MS then we will see how FF withstands on MS's direct line of sight.
Really? There's been a lot of responses from Microsoft regarding this very issue. Who was claiming that if competitors had the same market share, they'd be just as insecure, and prime target?
Well, copyright is by default standard and you can specify a license by default.
IMO, it would be better if standard the behaviour of robots.txt counts, and if it doesn't then the owner can specify different behaviour elsewhere (e.g. robots.txt).
Sun has yet to announce a license for Solaris, it is very doubtful it will be actual Open Source and almost certainly not Free Software in the FSF sense of the term.
Actually, with respect to this point, yes it will 100% definitely be an Open Source license, as in one of "approved" ones that is generally accepted as one. Probably it won't be "free", as that would mean BSD (and relatives, MIT, other laissez-faire ones) or (L)GPL.
Sun said it'll be OSI-compatible ('open source'), not FSF-compatible ('free software').
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/serpents-wall/_images/p 8-image1.jpg !!! (on page7)
Re:What day of the week is it?
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's attitudes like this that make me want to see SCO sue the crap out of the Linux community, and win, one machine at a time. Mandatory $500 license fees, where advocacy constitutes as probable cause and results in automatic warrants for the cops to come in and search your residence and business.
And that's $500 per COPY, installed or installation media.
[...]
Five times the RAM than my Amiga 1000
Its not as if i haven't heard utter arrogance regarding all other desktop systems than the Amiga from SOME Amiga freaks. Zealots are everywhere. I find it best to ignore them and keep them dreaming in their own fantasy-world.
From where I'm sitting, there's more bull coming out of the Linux community than out of Sun.
Apples to apples, please. 'Sun' is a corporation. Corporations have a strict hierarchy; 'Linux community' is anyone who feels identified with that. IOW anyone can say anything and you see them as part of the 'Linux community', but you only identify one from 'Sun' when they work over there. That is to say, they can still be member of whatever community they wist, post anonymous, etc.
You get what you pay for- if you get into the habit of taking advantage of art students, don't be surprised if the talent pool suddenly dries up on you.
Goes for non-artist students, too. It goes for consultancy or basically a one-time deal in general, too. In general it comes down to making a good deal before the work is done so no side will get a disavantage because of the deal.
When making a deal both sides want to know, in this example: * Details about the artwork (so the first version is as near to good enough.) This could go in-depth if both sides want. If the demander knows some stuff about graphic artism then it speaks in his/her advantage. * Copyright assignment. * How long it is gonna take. * How much is paid.
By doing so, the student artist -in this example- knows what (s)he'll have to do for how much money. The person who wants the art knows what'll be spend and has an approx. view of what it'll be. If the student already has a portfolio that speaks in their advantage because the demander can use that as reference.
In other words: make clear appointments! If both parties are honest when making the deal then in theory chances are higher the results of the deal will be honest too.
Ah, yes. Point taken. Eben Moglen's zero-marginal cost theory (explained on his website and in the Harvard speech). I agree with him and you i just couldn't find the correct words to describe it.
When you patent an idea, you are not doing the same thing as planting a flag in the ground and building a house for yourself. You are taking a piece of "society" and claiming it for yourself.
Mother Earth is the property of every single organism on it, but humanity claimed control of nature till some degree. From there, its easy to argue You are taking a piece of "society" and claiming it for yourself.
The difference is rather that a piece of science (e.g. mathematics) is owned by the inventor or whoever the inventor sells it to which others may license (for $money) instead of a vast substance (something you can touch; e.g. a house, ground, a computer) owned by one from who you'll have to get permission to to make use of (e.g. enter, sell).
Locking up your car, via various ways* is basic usage. Keeping your computer secure in a minimum effort is basic usage. Hence i'd argue not patching is dumb because thats basic usage.
Problem is, the designers/builders of the 'car' argue its secure, and theres nothing wrong with it! People who have 'researched' this know thats untrue and they're using an alternative 'car'.
(*theres advancements in this sector past years, such as a start-disruptor)
Slashdot Mirror
"That is most definately the WRONG way to go about it.
The RIGHT way is to push content providers to use technologies that we don't have to license, such as Vorbis, Theora, MPEG-1, Dirac, etc."
Sure, that's all fine but customers who use Linux on the desktop want to see the content *right now* and the alternatives aren't getting ground. Some Linux distributors already got a license from Microsoft, such as TurboLinux and Lindows.
Does anyone know if this will be legal in conjunction with Microsoft being convicted a felon in the EU in the Real vs Microsoft case in the EC? They are related.
Its possible to IRC semi-anonymous. Its possible to use encryption between IRC clients. Real Criminals know this ;)
That's one reason why i don't eat meat. Not that all soy is great though (child labor anybody?)
Novell is pretty much active in advertising on the radio here (Netherlands). Its only a 5-second ad though, but it gets advertized a lot.
The ad is a woman saying: "Opensource. Novell. Jij wel." The latter means something in the sense of 'you would'.
While its short, i think its a pretty good ad for its shortness. Also, it binds the term 'open source' to 'Novell' and it makes use of the 'current situation' in which it says 'dare to use something different'. However its by far not informative and its more of a Novell ad than an open source one.
The GPL was 'made' by Eben Moglen, not by Richard Stallman.
Afaik he has a nice sportcar (BMW?) and a villa in California. I don't think he's a poor fellow according to my definiton of rich.
It makes sense to me: an application is started to shut down the system (e.g. halt, reboot). I must admit, i find GNOME's solution much more cleaner and obvious though. GNOME calls that an 'action'.
Not to nitpick, but i think you meant Sun's JDS (Java Desktop System).
Er... The ways of Slashdot moderators are mysterious.
Really? There's been a lot of responses from Microsoft regarding this very issue. Who was claiming that if competitors had the same market share, they'd be just as insecure, and prime target?
Well, copyright is by default standard and you can specify a license by default.
IMO, it would be better if standard the behaviour of robots.txt counts, and if it doesn't then the owner can specify different behaviour elsewhere (e.g. robots.txt).
Sun said it'll be OSI-compatible ('open source'), not FSF-compatible ('free software').
Yes such as for example """terrorism""", the buzzword of the 21st century.
Activists do a lot more than that about which you can read on e.g. an action mag or on an online website.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/serpents-wall/_images/p 8-image1.jpg !!! (on page7)
Its not as if i haven't heard utter arrogance regarding all other desktop systems than the Amiga from SOME Amiga freaks. Zealots are everywhere. I find it best to ignore them and keep them dreaming in their own fantasy-world.
Apples to apples, please. 'Sun' is a corporation. Corporations have a strict hierarchy; 'Linux community' is anyone who feels identified with that. IOW anyone can say anything and you see them as part of the 'Linux community', but you only identify one from 'Sun' when they work over there. That is to say, they can still be member of whatever community they wist, post anonymous, etc.
Goes for non-artist students, too. It goes for consultancy or basically a one-time deal in general, too. In general it comes down to making a good deal before the work is done so no side will get a disavantage because of the deal.
When making a deal both sides want to know, in this example:
* Details about the artwork (so the first version is as near to good enough.) This could go in-depth if both sides want. If the demander knows some stuff about graphic artism then it speaks in his/her advantage.
* Copyright assignment.
* How long it is gonna take.
* How much is paid.
By doing so, the student artist -in this example- knows what (s)he'll have to do for how much money. The person who wants the art knows what'll be spend and has an approx. view of what it'll be. If the student already has a portfolio that speaks in their advantage because the demander can use that as reference.
In other words: make clear appointments! If both parties are honest when making the deal then in theory chances are higher the results of the deal will be honest too.
Ah, yes. Point taken. Eben Moglen's zero-marginal cost theory (explained on his website and in the Harvard speech). I agree with him and you i just couldn't find the correct words to describe it.
Call me nuts, but the title is suggestive; there's no proven correlation between these 2 numbers.
One meant for overal media production is Dyne:Bolic. Also see http://www.dyne.org
How does this relate to media corporations? I know about Fox and their agenda, but when they report news they participate in politics as corporation.
Aka Plutocracy or Crony capitalism
Mother Earth is the property of every single organism on it, but humanity claimed control of nature till some degree. From there, its easy to argue You are taking a piece of "society" and claiming it for yourself.
The difference is rather that a piece of science (e.g. mathematics) is owned by the inventor or whoever the inventor sells it to which others may license (for $money) instead of a vast substance (something you can touch; e.g. a house, ground, a computer) owned by one from who you'll have to get permission to to make use of (e.g. enter, sell).
Locking up your car, via various ways* is basic usage. Keeping your computer secure in a minimum effort is basic usage. Hence i'd argue not patching is dumb because thats basic usage.
Problem is, the designers/builders of the 'car' argue its secure, and theres nothing wrong with it! People who have 'researched' this know thats untrue and they're using an alternative 'car'.
(*theres advancements in this sector past years, such as a start-disruptor)