I was more complaining about asking for the term "nightly build" but anyway.
Ok smartass, please use search engines and wikipedia to give us a good definition of 'upstream build' and 'downstream build'. Make sure you filter out the non-programming usage of 'downstream build'. Pretend you're a second year college student trying to figure this stuff out. Given that I have no idea what the terms mean it's not hard to pretend.
There are a few other references to conflicts and angry rants.
Upstream seems to refer to the packaged release type builds, with all the README files and so on (what apt-get would give you say). Downstream refers to what developers do and code, new features and so on that isn't (yet) packaged and releasable.
That should have read: "there would simply not be a large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it."
In other words there is no government, you define theft however you want but it also falls on you to enforce your own definition. As I understand one way to think about it is if everything the government did (police, military, firefighting, printing money, legal system, etc.) was done by "private" companies/groups (of which there may be 0 or they may have a size of 1).
First of I never claimed to be an anarchist. In the current system the government decides how to protect people's property and defines what their property is. In anarchism each person does this themselves, possibly by forming or joining/paying larger groups to help them defend their definition. Essentially every person is their own country with all the fun that entails.
Or in other words right now you get no choice in what military or police protection you get (unless you move) while in anarchism you get a choice.
No, I don't believe it is a stable system in any traditional meaning of the word (ie: not counting sci-fi stories that require almost perpetually drugged alien "judges" to keep feudalism from forming).
You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."
Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?
Um, by definition if you eschew the concept of property, then there cannot be "theft."
An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.
Apple's goal is apparently 10 million phones sold globally in the first year or 1% of the GLOBAL market. 1% of the ATT market share comes out to roughly 0.35% of the US market. So no that is quite a bit off from Apple's stated goal in the US alone and they'll likely do even worse in other nations.
There is a big difference between sending a ship to some place and starting a colony somewhere. A ship is not that difficult, expensive and likely not all that safe sure but technically feasible. A colony is a whole other beast and so far we've failed to even get self sustaining things working on this planet much less another (*cough* biodome *cough*).
Tell me other industry where they would do that. CPU manufacturers do this routinely, the low end CPUs are the same as the high end ones but get factory set to a lower speed (yes, this isn't the case initially but once production is mature it often is the case). Many business hardware products as well, someone else mentioned IBM. Specifically these are software cripples so that unless you pay the software won't allow you to access all the hardware features you have. If I remember a number of low end hardware vendors do this as well. You get a full product that is crippled after production as it costs less to do this than have two production lines.
Likewise many low end products (say motherboards) are simply high end products with some components removed. The costs incurred by the missing components is likely far less than the increase in cost for having them.
Software manufacturers do not get yet the idea that they should charge for services, not features. No in the delusional minds of OSS people they should, in reality the big ones are doing perfectly well selling software.
Artificial segmentation is the dumbest idea, conceived most likely by people with no idea how software works and is distributed. No it is perfectly logical if you think from an ecomics point of view.
with the CPU example, someone would sell "Pentium" CPU's cheaper than Intel did because they aren't wasting production on erbranding as cheaper chips nor are they spending money on hobbling the product. For software, someone who built Windows Vista with all the bells and whistles has paid no more than MS did building MS Vista Home Edition, so they can sell their "Premium unrestricted Windows Vista" at the same price as MS sell their Home edition but who will buy "Home" when the "Premium" is available at the same price? That this newcomer cannot make an average profit per sale as high as MS does is offset by both the higher sales and the removal of expense in having five/seven different versions of "the same program". Uhhm, the newcomer won't make a profit period, assuming they had the same costs of production as MS. The point is that Home sells for less than it would be possible if there was only a single version. A single version at the price of home would LOSE money on every sale.
But with CPU's and software, this can't be done: you can't copy Intel's CPU design verbatim and you can't recompile MS's source. Because the government is preventing it and therefore you have no free market. Well if you can simply rip off any product on the market then the original producer will never make a profit. Of course even without government restrictions MS has no reason to give out the soruce code nor does Intel have a reason to give out its CPU design.
See cpus for example of this not being just a software thing. My point isn't if this is an artificial market segmentation but why do you find this a bad thing or why a company wouldn't logically do it? I don't see how something can be a free market if companies are required to act against their own maximum profits because something is "Artificial."
Also its natural market segmentation in that there it exploits the landscape of the market to maximize profits, not everyone is the same after all.
I don't see why this would not happen in a free market. By your logic any time a company uses research from a higher end product to make a lower end product it's "bad." So essentially you find that almsot every single company in existence is somehow not in a free market according to you.
A company in a free market wishes to maximize profits, thats all. Let's say that if they sold their full product it would get 1000 sales and have an optimal cost of $500 (ie: maximum profit, etc.) they would make $500,000. If on the other hand they also sold a second crippled version they may sell 500 of the low end version for say $300 and 700 of the high end version for $600. The total profit is $570,000. This is because more people can afford this lower end version and find no problems with the missing features while the higher end version is still desirable.
It may even be that with two version BOTH can now be sold for less than if only a single full version was sold.
What part of "Artificially introduced market segmentation" you don't understand? Uhhm, the part that you seem to find problematic? I mean please do tell us what your alternative is? After all I'm sure all the thousands of companies who do such things would love to know.
Uhhmmm, your point? This is done by almost every company out there, including hardware companies (no, once the yields are good that low end cpu is no different from a high end one except for being factory clocked lower).
What do you prefer, that every copy cost more than the medium priced version does now? That people who can't afford the product not be able to buy one with only the features they USE for less?
Besides, I wasn't trying to insinuate that THAAD would be used...merely that IR-sensors in high-speed interceptor missiles was possible and feasible (contrary to your assertion). No his assertion was that a high speed interceptor at 100k would have very large problems due to its own IR output. Removing the altitude restriction and then claiming you've disproved him is rather stupid. For example in a vacuum you could be at half light speed and still have IR function but that means jack shit in this situation.
NASA contracted them to make software that does X. They let CalTech retain ownership of said software. As a result they were able to pay less for the software than if they had gotten full ownership of it.
Since they also got the source code this is a perfectly logical way of doing things. Getting ownership would have cost taxpayers a lot more money without giving any benefit to NASA or the taxpayers likely.
Well it seems to be much less of a problem in states where "abstinence" isn't the only form of birth control taught it schools. Nothing wrong with sex at all and 100 people having safe sex is much better than 5 having unprotected sex.
They work fine unless you install an operating system ? According to your list Linux didn't work out of the box No, all I said was that all of the OSes I have used have had problems. That doesn't mean they didn't work most of the time. It doesn't mean the system was unusable. It means just what I said. They all had problems and were in one way or another not as user friendly as I'd have liked.
Ubuntu didn't install, Debian didn't do some thing I wanted, Gentoo had its own problems and SuSe had cursors and network driver bugs. Windows had problems with hibernation.
Hardware wise Ubuntu and Debian were run on the same system (via epia). Debian, Gentoo and SuSe were run on a different system (Athlon XP) before then. Windows was run on my laptop, a separate system, when the hibernation problems happened.
(could have worked with a kernel recompile which is an easy step but you didn't try it) Easy? Maybe if you spend half your time on linux but for the rest of us it's far from easy. If you count the value of my time I'd likely be cheaper for me to buy a full legal version of windows 2k3 server than to try and recompile the kernel.
(and Windows is flaky. So what do you run on them ? DOS ? CP/M ? OS/2 ?
If a piece of hardware "works fine" (possibly) but isn't supported by anybody (and not even MS apparently), I fail to see what use it can have except as a door stop. Let me rephrase this once again for the people who apparently can't fuckin' read:
All I said was that all of the OSes I have used have had problems across different os-hardware combinations. That doesn't mean they didn't work most of the time, except for ubuntu but that worked on other hardware. It doesn't mean the system was unusable. It means just what I said. They all had problems and were in one way or another not as user friendly as I'd have liked.
Why the FUCK is it so hard for people to understand that life is not black and white. Just because something has bugs doesn't mean the thing is unusable, it doesn't mean the complainer is a zealot of some kind, it means that the fucking thing has bugs that should be fixed, it means that it isn't user friendly if those bugs interfere with usability.
Population growth is only a problem if your basis vectors are skewed. I look at population growth as the goal, and the lack of place to put the people as a problem to overcome, such as by getting off this rock before the big one hits. Try thinking that way, and tell me where it hurts. In the utter inability baring magical technology of moving enough people off planet (even as in throwing them into low earth orbit) to even make a dent in the worlds increasing population? Thats not even adding in the costs of moving them somewhere other than orbit as the aren't any readily habitable areas in the solar system.
Let me put it bluntly: it'd be order of magnitude cheaper (now and in the future) to stuff people into cities floating on or udner the oceans than to move them off this rock.
Why don't you just go off on them? A combination of legal (not in the lawsuit sense as much as not in the 'I'll kill you sense') threats (ie: you will sue them, get them fired, what they're doing is illegal, against their own contract, etc.) combined with requests to ask for a supervisor (keep going up the chain) makes many stupid customer service people squirm. Don't forget to add in threats to never get Dells again, tell everyone you know not to get Dells, that this is the worst customer service you have ever had and so on. Also ask them for whatever employee id/name they have and for whatever internal dell complaint system there is as well as tell them that all future complaints will include their id/name (so that other people can avoid them for their stupidity). If that doesn't work make a form email then send it to everyone high up you can find at Dell, call those people if you get their number somehow and write your complaints to whatever blog/message boards dell has.
Also since you apparently have trouble reading let me repeat what the last item in the list says: WINDOWS. I mean I never even knew windows was a linux distro, thanks for enlightening me.
If your fanboy mind can't take criticism of your oh so precious linux then too bad for you.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that Debian people apparently use the terms upstream and downstream quite often. That leads to among other things this:
http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/200
There are a few other references to conflicts and angry rants.
Upstream seems to refer to the packaged release type builds, with all the README files and so on (what apt-get would give you say). Downstream refers to what developers do and code, new features and so on that isn't (yet) packaged and releasable.
Let me add that with search engines and wikipedia there is no excuse for not knowing the terminology except laziness.
If you can't be bothered to spend an hour reading up on things then please find another profession for everyone's sake.
Until they need to debug because their program seg faults (so printfs don't help) and promptly try to kill you.
That should have read:
"there would simply not be a large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it."
In other words there is no government, you define theft however you want but it also falls on you to enforce your own definition. As I understand one way to think about it is if everything the government did (police, military, firefighting, printing money, legal system, etc.) was done by "private" companies/groups (of which there may be 0 or they may have a size of 1).
First of I never claimed to be an anarchist. In the current system the government decides how to protect people's property and defines what their property is. In anarchism each person does this themselves, possibly by forming or joining/paying larger groups to help them defend their definition. Essentially every person is their own country with all the fun that entails.
Or in other words right now you get no choice in what military or police protection you get (unless you move) while in anarchism you get a choice.
No, I don't believe it is a stable system in any traditional meaning of the word (ie: not counting sci-fi stories that require almost perpetually drugged alien "judges" to keep feudalism from forming).
That should have read "there would simply not be a large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it."
You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."
Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?
Um, by definition if you eschew the concept of property, then there cannot be "theft."
An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.
Apple's goal is apparently 10 million phones sold globally in the first year or 1% of the GLOBAL market. 1% of the ATT market share comes out to roughly 0.35% of the US market. So no that is quite a bit off from Apple's stated goal in the US alone and they'll likely do even worse in other nations.
There is a big difference between sending a ship to some place and starting a colony somewhere. A ship is not that difficult, expensive and likely not all that safe sure but technically feasible. A colony is a whole other beast and so far we've failed to even get self sustaining things working on this planet much less another (*cough* biodome *cough*).
Likewise many low end products (say motherboards) are simply high end products with some components removed. The costs incurred by the missing components is likely far less than the increase in cost for having them. Software manufacturers do not get yet the idea that they should charge for services, not features. No in the delusional minds of OSS people they should, in reality the big ones are doing perfectly well selling software. Artificial segmentation is the dumbest idea, conceived most likely by people with no idea how software works and is distributed. No it is perfectly logical if you think from an ecomics point of view.
See cpus for example of this not being just a software thing. My point isn't if this is an artificial market segmentation but why do you find this a bad thing or why a company wouldn't logically do it? I don't see how something can be a free market if companies are required to act against their own maximum profits because something is "Artificial."
Also its natural market segmentation in that there it exploits the landscape of the market to maximize profits, not everyone is the same after all.
I don't see why this would not happen in a free market. By your logic any time a company uses research from a higher end product to make a lower end product it's "bad." So essentially you find that almsot every single company in existence is somehow not in a free market according to you.
A company in a free market wishes to maximize profits, thats all. Let's say that if they sold their full product it would get 1000 sales and have an optimal cost of $500 (ie: maximum profit, etc.) they would make $500,000. If on the other hand they also sold a second crippled version they may sell 500 of the low end version for say $300 and 700 of the high end version for $600. The total profit is $570,000. This is because more people can afford this lower end version and find no problems with the missing features while the higher end version is still desirable.
It may even be that with two version BOTH can now be sold for less than if only a single full version was sold.
Uhhmmm, your point? This is done by almost every company out there, including hardware companies (no, once the yields are good that low end cpu is no different from a high end one except for being factory clocked lower).
What do you prefer, that every copy cost more than the medium priced version does now? That people who can't afford the product not be able to buy one with only the features they USE for less?
NASA contracted them to make software that does X. They let CalTech retain ownership of said software. As a result they were able to pay less for the software than if they had gotten full ownership of it.
Since they also got the source code this is a perfectly logical way of doing things. Getting ownership would have cost taxpayers a lot more money without giving any benefit to NASA or the taxpayers likely.
Well I hope no one tells the rest of the world about all the spy sats taking pictures all the time.
Well it seems to be much less of a problem in states where "abstinence" isn't the only form of birth control taught it schools. Nothing wrong with sex at all and 100 people having safe sex is much better than 5 having unprotected sex.
It's irrational puritan views plain and simple.
Ubuntu didn't install, Debian didn't do some thing I wanted, Gentoo had its own problems and SuSe had cursors and network driver bugs. Windows had problems with hibernation.
Hardware wise Ubuntu and Debian were run on the same system (via epia). Debian, Gentoo and SuSe were run on a different system (Athlon XP) before then. Windows was run on my laptop, a separate system, when the hibernation problems happened. (could have worked with a kernel recompile which is an easy step but you didn't try it) Easy? Maybe if you spend half your time on linux but for the rest of us it's far from easy. If you count the value of my time I'd likely be cheaper for me to buy a full legal version of windows 2k3 server than to try and recompile the kernel. (and Windows is flaky. So what do you run on them ? DOS ? CP/M ? OS/2 ?
If a piece of hardware "works fine" (possibly) but isn't supported by anybody (and not even MS apparently), I fail to see what use it can have except as a door stop. Let me rephrase this once again for the people who apparently can't fuckin' read:
All I said was that all of the OSes I have used have had problems across different os-hardware combinations. That doesn't mean they didn't work most of the time, except for ubuntu but that worked on other hardware. It doesn't mean the system was unusable. It means just what I said. They all had problems and were in one way or another not as user friendly as I'd have liked.
Why the FUCK is it so hard for people to understand that life is not black and white. Just because something has bugs doesn't mean the thing is unusable, it doesn't mean the complainer is a zealot of some kind, it means that the fucking thing has bugs that should be fixed, it means that it isn't user friendly if those bugs interfere with usability.
Let me put it bluntly: it'd be order of magnitude cheaper (now and in the future) to stuff people into cities floating on or udner the oceans than to move them off this rock.
Why don't you just go off on them? A combination of legal (not in the lawsuit sense as much as not in the 'I'll kill you sense') threats (ie: you will sue them, get them fired, what they're doing is illegal, against their own contract, etc.) combined with requests to ask for a supervisor (keep going up the chain) makes many stupid customer service people squirm. Don't forget to add in threats to never get Dells again, tell everyone you know not to get Dells, that this is the worst customer service you have ever had and so on. Also ask them for whatever employee id/name they have and for whatever internal dell complaint system there is as well as tell them that all future complaints will include their id/name (so that other people can avoid them for their stupidity). If that doesn't work make a form email then send it to everyone high up you can find at Dell, call those people if you get their number somehow and write your complaints to whatever blog/message boards dell has.
You mean nvidia is a token supporter of linux, right? I wouldn't call a binary blob driver any more a support of open source than no driver.
Also since you apparently have trouble reading let me repeat what the last item in the list says: WINDOWS. I mean I never even knew windows was a linux distro, thanks for enlightening me.
If your fanboy mind can't take criticism of your oh so precious linux then too bad for you.