'Pidgin' refers to a language arising from contact between several languages rather than branching nicely off a single language. Usually after a few generations they start calling it a creole, though the distinction is rather nebulous.
'Inhuman' hardly describes being open about copyright violation. Michael was polite in his initial message; the immediate responses were to flame him. It's hard to accidentally include someone else's driver code in yours; Theo still kept saying that it was clearly an accident.
As for leaving GPL stub code...it would have been difficult to fully audit the driver code to see how much needed to be rewritten. Probably some GPL code would have stayed in the driver through release.
But since Michael was able to discover his code in the bcw driver, it was being distributed. *That's* clearly illegal. If only a few people had CVS access and nobody was actively distributing the bcw driver, then Michael wouldn't have had a case, or even known about it. They didn't even take that step with a non-working driver. I have no sympathy for the bcw maintainers.
You can't burn a bootable ISO... http://instlux.sourceforge.net/ might work. Then you'll have Linux (Ubuntu or SUSE), from which you can burn an XP cd. And it won't cost you the CD.
Ya know how CurrentControlSet is so thorough, and how it's off on it's own branch of HKLM? Yeah, if you were to replace all of those values with the correct values for the machine that you were moving to (primarily system driver and hardware reference information) then you could in theory just boot windows back up without ever having a glitch. Theory though, not practice. In practice, you can boot up to a different machine with Linux if you just replace/lib/modules and the kernel. Hell, if you had the hardware for it, you could use the same drive to boot to two different machines and share the root directory, if they have compatible processor architectures. This was true with BSD when Win95 came out.
There would be some minor issues if you had heavily customized udev scripts, and you'd have to be careful with soundcards if either of the machines had multiple, but it'd be reasonable to do.
the registry didn't have anything to do with limiting piracy, if anything, it's the reason why so many people want to run Windows, Most users don't care whether it's a registry or a set of plain text files. They won't want to interact with it either way. Power users don't really care, I think, as long as they can understand it (and they'd probably have to learn fewer things to deal with the text files).
Developers, though, like having library calls to handle config parsing for them, and the registry provides that.
You can prevent WGA from being installed. If you have Automatic Updates set to download automatically and prompt you to install, if you just unselect WGA, it will ask you if you should be prompted later to install it. Otherwise, if you use Windows Update, you can choose to hide an update when you unselect it.
Also, Win2000 and prior have algorithmic keys, so if you have no explicit need for WinXP, you can use your one copy and license key for that on all the computers you own (provided you have enough licenses for Win2k or XP).
Stack protection? That has to be compiled into each application, and you can enable stack protection in an application regardless of the OS. So stack protection might be a feature of MSVC, but not Vista. Or do you mean that Vista was compiled with stack protection?
And actually, I know someone who is switching from XP to 98 right now.
Hardly -- you generally have to look for porn to find it. You'll get some incidental exposure, but it's probably no worse than the magazines you'll find in your grocery store.
Recalcitrance? I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think few people would accept a collaborative filtering system if it meant they had to give away their personal information. But regardless, this is far too large a project for blacklisting or for whitelisting. You could have genetic algorithms evaluated via this sort of system, though.
If you insisted on having a distributed blacklisting system, you'd want to rate your contributors on accuracy (how often other people agree with them) and severity (how strongly they object to something compared to other people). That would give you an adjusted aggregate score for each site, and users could select a threshold for blocking.
Still, you'd need a massive user base in order to be effective. And to what end? Children who have trouble getting access to sexual material will be that much more eager to get to it, and that much more thoughtless and careless when they have an opportunity to have sex.
With Linux, you generally don't need such techniques. It's rare to be able to alter the boot partition and not have access to the rest of the drive, except with drive encryption. In that case, you can replace the user's kernel with one that will record the drive's password. This still requires physical access to the computer, though.
Can't I, oh, just run another operating system that I have control over and rewrite the boot sector with that? Pop in a specialized Linux cd and in ten minutes, I've rooted my Vista box.
That doesn't allow for convenient remote exploits, but it does make it reasonably easy for end users.
It's slightly more complex than that. The system assigns tasks to multiple people and gives them an accuracy rating (either with a similar system or mathematically). They're paid according to accuracy, and the most accurate result (or some subset of results) is returned.
Still, that isn't groundbreaking; it's a simple arrangement of existing methods.
Perhaps a minor copyright tax could be levied to offset the cost, as well as to limit the duration of copyright for works that do not need it and stop orphaning works so they cannot be licensed.
An article on electricity, unless it's some novel use or implementation, will not gain interest here because people here take electricity for granted. An article on Linux will generate interest and therefore ad revenue because there are a lot of Linux fans here, or Windows fans who are wondering why Linux is doing well, or trolls who want to complain about this whole situation.
A webapp like that, they code for particular browsers. It's more likely that they haven't removed special code for IE6's idiosyncrasies yet, or that they have code for IE6, Firefox, and Opera, but IE7 doesn't work with the default.
There hasn't been a good reason so far to provide a consistent ABI for Linux kernel drivers. But the nVidia installer automatically recompiles the shim when necessary, so it doesn't make a real difference.
He's a Solaris developer. The software he wants is Solaris, as closely configured to his servers as possible. The servers are 64-bit SPARC machines? He needs to develop on a 64-bit SPARC machine. They're using Solaris 9.2? He wants Solaris 9.2.
Yes, he could use ssh for all that, but in most cases, it is much more convenient to work locally than remotely.
At my job, I do C# development. I could use Mono on Linux for that, and I would prefer to have a solid OS like Linux, but it's being deployed on Windows. Therefore I use Windows to develop it. It's a matter of using the appropriate tools for the task at hand.
Still, someone could have used nLiteOS or something similar to create a new Windows distribution. Maybe one that comes with ext3 support and a set of open source applications. The issue is copyright -- I can't legally redistribute Windows without paying for it. The workaround would be sending people a script that would apply the patches, drivers, and whatnot to a new Windows installation or slipstream them into an installer, but both are cumbersome enough that it's not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the vendor lock-in for Google and Apple? Which of them are convicted monopolists? What major court rulings are they flagrantly disregarding?
If Apple and Google are evil, they are evil in private, not in public. That's the difference.
'Pidgin' refers to a language arising from contact between several languages rather than branching nicely off a single language. Usually after a few generations they start calling it a creole, though the distinction is rather nebulous.
'Inhuman' hardly describes being open about copyright violation. Michael was polite in his initial message; the immediate responses were to flame him. It's hard to accidentally include someone else's driver code in yours; Theo still kept saying that it was clearly an accident.
As for leaving GPL stub code...it would have been difficult to fully audit the driver code to see how much needed to be rewritten. Probably some GPL code would have stayed in the driver through release.
But since Michael was able to discover his code in the bcw driver, it was being distributed. *That's* clearly illegal. If only a few people had CVS access and nobody was actively distributing the bcw driver, then Michael wouldn't have had a case, or even known about it. They didn't even take that step with a non-working driver. I have no sympathy for the bcw maintainers.
Damn straight -- it should be -1, Sadly Mistaken.
No, the parent of my previous post was unable to burn a bootable ISO. 'You' referred to that poster, not people in general.
What I sometimes do is have focus on click but raise windows only on titlebar click. That way I can scroll with the mouse wheel without losing focus.
Windows is annoying about the scroll wheel -- it always affects the focussed application, not the one the mouse is over.
You can't burn a bootable ISO... http://instlux.sourceforge.net/ might work. Then you'll have Linux (Ubuntu or SUSE), from which you can burn an XP cd. And it won't cost you the CD.
There would be some minor issues if you had heavily customized udev scripts, and you'd have to be careful with soundcards if either of the machines had multiple, but it'd be reasonable to do. the registry didn't have anything to do with limiting piracy, if anything, it's the reason why so many people want to run Windows, Most users don't care whether it's a registry or a set of plain text files. They won't want to interact with it either way. Power users don't really care, I think, as long as they can understand it (and they'd probably have to learn fewer things to deal with the text files).
Developers, though, like having library calls to handle config parsing for them, and the registry provides that.
You can prevent WGA from being installed. If you have Automatic Updates set to download automatically and prompt you to install, if you just unselect WGA, it will ask you if you should be prompted later to install it. Otherwise, if you use Windows Update, you can choose to hide an update when you unselect it.
Also, Win2000 and prior have algorithmic keys, so if you have no explicit need for WinXP, you can use your one copy and license key for that on all the computers you own (provided you have enough licenses for Win2k or XP).
Stack protection? That has to be compiled into each application, and you can enable stack protection in an application regardless of the OS. So stack protection might be a feature of MSVC, but not Vista. Or do you mean that Vista was compiled with stack protection?
And actually, I know someone who is switching from XP to 98 right now.
You make good points, but it'd be creepy to sit down and watch porn with your kid.
Hardly -- you generally have to look for porn to find it. You'll get some incidental exposure, but it's probably no worse than the magazines you'll find in your grocery store.
Recalcitrance? I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think few people would accept a collaborative filtering system if it meant they had to give away their personal information. But regardless, this is far too large a project for blacklisting or for whitelisting. You could have genetic algorithms evaluated via this sort of system, though.
If you insisted on having a distributed blacklisting system, you'd want to rate your contributors on accuracy (how often other people agree with them) and severity (how strongly they object to something compared to other people). That would give you an adjusted aggregate score for each site, and users could select a threshold for blocking.
Still, you'd need a massive user base in order to be effective. And to what end? Children who have trouble getting access to sexual material will be that much more eager to get to it, and that much more thoughtless and careless when they have an opportunity to have sex.
If I had a kid that smart, I'd be damn proud of her.
Not that any children in my care could survive long enough to open a computer case and remove a CMOS battery...
With Linux, you generally don't need such techniques. It's rare to be able to alter the boot partition and not have access to the rest of the drive, except with drive encryption. In that case, you can replace the user's kernel with one that will record the drive's password. This still requires physical access to the computer, though.
Can't I, oh, just run another operating system that I have control over and rewrite the boot sector with that? Pop in a specialized Linux cd and in ten minutes, I've rooted my Vista box.
That doesn't allow for convenient remote exploits, but it does make it reasonably easy for end users.
It's slightly more complex than that. The system assigns tasks to multiple people and gives them an accuracy rating (either with a similar system or mathematically). They're paid according to accuracy, and the most accurate result (or some subset of results) is returned.
Still, that isn't groundbreaking; it's a simple arrangement of existing methods.
The Beatles' discography isn't part of the deal. That takes care of that part.
For the rest, albums are supposedly available at $10 regardless of DRM status.
Perhaps a minor copyright tax could be levied to offset the cost, as well as to limit the duration of copyright for works that do not need it and stop orphaning works so they cannot be licensed.
An article on electricity, unless it's some novel use or implementation, will not gain interest here because people here take electricity for granted. An article on Linux will generate interest and therefore ad revenue because there are a lot of Linux fans here, or Windows fans who are wondering why Linux is doing well, or trolls who want to complain about this whole situation.
A webapp like that, they code for particular browsers. It's more likely that they haven't removed special code for IE6's idiosyncrasies yet, or that they have code for IE6, Firefox, and Opera, but IE7 doesn't work with the default.
There hasn't been a good reason so far to provide a consistent ABI for Linux kernel drivers. But the nVidia installer automatically recompiles the shim when necessary, so it doesn't make a real difference.
He's a Solaris developer. The software he wants is Solaris, as closely configured to his servers as possible. The servers are 64-bit SPARC machines? He needs to develop on a 64-bit SPARC machine. They're using Solaris 9.2? He wants Solaris 9.2.
Yes, he could use ssh for all that, but in most cases, it is much more convenient to work locally than remotely.
At my job, I do C# development. I could use Mono on Linux for that, and I would prefer to have a solid OS like Linux, but it's being deployed on Windows. Therefore I use Windows to develop it. It's a matter of using the appropriate tools for the task at hand.
Yeah, Knoppix will work wonderfully to test Solaris applications.
Little enough access.
Still, someone could have used nLiteOS or something similar to create a new Windows distribution. Maybe one that comes with ext3 support and a set of open source applications. The issue is copyright -- I can't legally redistribute Windows without paying for it. The workaround would be sending people a script that would apply the patches, drivers, and whatnot to a new Windows installation or slipstream them into an installer, but both are cumbersome enough that it's not worth it.