> When did Bush become hard-core republican? Bush is about as left-leaning as a republican can get. Other then the gay-marriage hangup, he seems to be pretty liveral (for a republican candidate) to me.
I have no doubt you can find peopel in the republican part who are on hsi right side..
> That said I believe the two-party system actually has a lot of benefits. First off it forces a candidate to have broad-base support, unlike run-off systems, where all the parties end up supporting some party's candidae who got a few more % then they did, and aren't as bad as the other party that got a few more then they did. The truth of the matter is part of democracy is compromise, and both Democrats and Republicans are finding a platform that large groups of people can agree is "good enough". When a party starts to lean too far away, they generally either lose enough votes to give it to the other guy or split into factions and lose horribly
I agree that democracy is also about compromise, but I do not see how a 2 party system serves that at all.
Lets see:
In a 2 party system, both parties need to compromise in the time directly leading to the elections in order to get as many people to vote for them as possible.
Once elections are passed, the winning party doesn't have to care about anythign untill the enxt elections are close.
In a multi party system, parties can say what they stand for and people can vot based on that. Then, based on the election results, some parties get together and create a majority government. That government will have to make the appropriate compromises in order to maintain the majority support, and as a result has to make 'democratic compromises' regardless of when the elections are.
It really seems to me that the later is much more democratic.
It is too bad that part of the American population lets emotions instead of reason guide them. As logn as that is the case, the candidate calling on those fears and suggesting he can address them better also has the better chance.
I'm not claiming the Bush government caused things like 9/11, that would be bullshit anyway. But what they did do is make very good use of the fear it caused to further their owbn political agenda (as opposed to tryign to address the cause of the problem)
It is a well known 'trick'. "make people feel so they don't think" is a well known quote from a past German leader (of Austrian origin) who made very good use of it, but didn't think it up himself either. (name not mentioned to stay away from Godwin's observation (it is not a law!))
> In a hypothetical world, there would be more than two candidates/viewpoints and voting for a third one would have some effect. We don't live in that world, so you can quit dreaming and act under the system we've got. There are ways to change the system, but playing make-believe is not among them.
If you change 'world' to 'USA' your statement may be a lot more true.
There are definitely places on this world where there are more then 3 parties and where it does matter who you vote on.
Such a system can work and can be stable, so it is not hypothetical. That you do not have it in the USA is simpl;y a result of a flawed system and should be fixed instead of accepted.
> *I* can play songs and sing with my friends, and I can eat. We sing, and we are joyous.
Good for you but completely irrelevant for the discussion. I do hope you enjoy doing it tho.
> I can do that because first I do the work I must to contribute my share.
People consider some artistic work of such importance to society that creating such a work is considered a big contribution. The problem is about compensating artists for that.
> These artists signed a contract. That contract said they would receive marketing and production assistance in exchange for the redistribution rights of their recordings. Why did they sign? They signed because they wanted to be "rockstars", wanted to have that money, and wanted to live that life.
> They wanted this for themselves more than they wanted the freedom of their works.
All fine, but tell me, why should we accept this as a society?
> They SOLD OUT. There is no kinder way to put it. They valued the possibility of money and a flashy lifestyle over the music.
> It is NOT "about the music." Nothing can be plainer.
I guess that unless an artist lives on the street by begging, it is not about the music eh?
> They already owned instruments. They could have saved their money as I have, working a fulltime job, to put aside enough money to pursue my artistic interests.
When you are working fulltime, you don't have time to persue your artistic interests in any serious way.
> They could have done this. In this digital age, now more than ever, they could have done this.
But they did not. They did not, because they were greedy, because they favored themselves over others.
Saying things twice doesn't make them more true really.
> Just a> s I will not use software which is not Free, just as I will not consume media which is not Free, so also I will look up to no man whose pursuit is not the Freedom of his brot
And this all has nothing whatsopever to do with the issues being raised in this discussion.
The issues are: 1. Satire vs parody 2. When this song was written and released, copyright had a different term, The work comes with an explicit statement concernign copyright, which must have been known to the initial buyer of those rights.
I agree that you should honor copyright on works, and as a result not use those works unless you have permission to do so one way or another.
The original aythor in this case gave such permission when writing it, and that was way before it was ever sold, so the buyer really could have known that, and no, the buyer can't change that.
> I for one read AM's post to be warning to artists in general, not a slam of Woody
I bet it is, but I seriously don't like the reasoning behind it. If I sell you something, that doesn't allow you to behave like an utter moron, and that is the implication of what AM is saying.
Also, when you buy something from me which has conditions attached to it like in this specific case, then you know what you buy and what you can't do as a result of the conditions.
So no, the artist cannot be blamed for the actions of the current right holders.
> That doesn't matter. Sold out means sold out. The value of selling at the time was measured, not the future...... (more blahblah removed)....
> The world is NOT fair, never was, never will be. Quit trying to make it fair, because you only make it worse.
Trying to make the world more fair is oen of the things that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Stop it and you lose your humanity alltogether.
Bottomline, when I sell somethign to you its yours, sure, but that is still no excuse whatsoever for you to behave like an utter moron afterward, and if you do, you will still find that people will not like it and may even do somethign about it.
> I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong:(
Ok, then that is cleared and appologies accepted.
Let me add that I quite understand why people who feel strong about the GPL will also strongly dislike the use of the word viral, and rightly so. But either insisting on using it, or insisting on not using it has to do with what you could call an agenda.
> My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference.
Ok, all clear then.
> Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
Definitely, and I have no respect for doing that.
One reason which makes me a feeling rather strongly about this subject is that many people on Slashdot seem to be of the opinion that when that is done with BSD/MIT/X11 licensed code, that it also makes for 'stealing' while in many cases the authors of such code explicitly decided to allow that. Do this with GPLed code however and I inmediately agree that it makes for 'stealing'. (stealing quoted because it is strictly spoken not stealing but copyright infringement, but that one has been beaten to death on here;)
Reading your response now, I do not think you deserved such a strong response, my excuses for that.
> I remain astonished that RealPlayer is still an internet standard. It's no easier to install than Divx or Xvid, requires you to have that stupid 24 gig player, and the quality is easily a step down from the big two. For god's sake, put Real out of its misery !
WHen talking about this trailer, I completely agree with you, no reason to use real format at all.
When talking about streaming video, the AVI file format is serious not suited for it (for once because of having the index at the end of the file and needing that index to navigate through the file, somethign which is not needed for either mpg or real formats.
I do not know about ogg, it might support this correctly and that'd allow using xvid for streaming.
> I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno.;)
Ok. the thread started out with a comment that included claiming that journaling filesystems is a must for 'enterprise systems'. Looking back you didn't make that claim indeed.
> ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
Yep, that is also the thing that makes that it feels somewhat 'hacky' to me.. but it has its advantages definitely.
> I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
While I understand what you say, realize that what you make will be used by real people, reality is relevant if only to learn how to not do things.
> Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before.
Softupdates and async mount are two seperate things. Combining both is possible (and I do so for some filesystems that contain scratch data anyway) but makes you lose most of the data integrity of sync mounts. Only using softupdates gives you a much better performance, and it is at times claimed to be even safer, tho in my experience (and from the theory, how to get things safer then using sync writes and writing data and metadata in one atomic operation?) it is slightly less safe. A lot safer then traditional UFS in async mode tho.
> If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
Hmm, atomic writes of data + metadata do help a bit in case of ffs.. but good point there.
> I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull.
And yet this is the thing that matters when implementing a practical system today, which was what this discussion was about I thought?
I agree that the theory is more interesting technically, and it may also be more important depending on what you are doing. For me, implementing reliable server systems today is an important part of my job hence reality is of direct interest;)
> Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates.
Yep. I'll keep watching reiser closely tho, it is a very interesting filesystem that offers some real benefits as soon as those issues are gone. Also ext3fs seems very interesting (alltho initially it feels rather hacky)
> All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
I've lost data on different filesystems over time, including reiser, xfs, ext3fs, ffs, ntfs, hpfs and fat (heh.. big surprise there) on a lot of different operating systems. In my case XFS and FFS have shown by far the lowest number of failures, both in total and in relation to usage. I didn't really lose the data tho, I am one of those insane people who makes backups;)
> So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems.
Thanks for the explanation, it is appreciated. My understanding was and is that a journalling filesystem has the better theory behind it, but that there are filesystems out there that come extremely close in reliability.
> FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
*grin*
It just reminds me of a discussion with our local Linux 'guru' about power loss (yeah, we didn't have a ups back then) and if we'd have to goto the server room when power would come up again to ensure the servers would be starting ok.
He insisted on going there because of not trusting ext2fs on the linux servers to come up correctly. I felt it wasn't needed for our FreeBSD servers. Of course when we did experience power loss a few times, we ended up there (what is there to do without power anyway). It turned out we were both right. (now before someone goes off about it being possible that an automatic check of ffs fails, yeah, I know, and have had it happen, it is just extremely rare)
Of course this all has nothing to do with data loss as such.
> I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency.
Please, before arguing about the GNU GPL, read what the peopel from GNU have to say about it, they are quite clear about what ideal they are aiming at, which is for all software to be free of copyright (hence the term copy-left). That would be the ideal situation and in that case they do not believe this measure is needed anymore.
It is not about giving back but about you being able to use someone elses work on the same terms as them using yours.
> No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
If you'd care to read back the discussion, you'd see I was not the person making the GPL is viral claim, I responded to someone saying it wasn't with explaining while people see it as such.
Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for. Because the word is used anyway, and was used wayy before Microsoft and friends got involved, the GPL was already described in that way. It is being used, and we better explain why people call it that way then acting as if the 'issue' does not exist. That may also give you a good chance of explaining why it is actually not an issue but a tool that protects their investment as much as yours.
> Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
I don't know, but I do know that you are making a huge issue over the use of a word, a word that I didn't coin, that I wasn't the first one to mention in the discussion here either, and go as far as trying to say that the effect intended by the word viral with regards to the GPL is not there at all.
> Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
When stating opinions as fact, you may get people wondering about who you think you are.. Anyway.. who you are doesn't matter for your point being valid, but with some 5 bilion people out there saying things, I care more about those who I know, or who provide reasoning or verfiable facts. It simply makes that you are being heard with your valid opinion.
At any rate, I should probably have asked if you have code out there because that was what I was interested in.
> I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
It may not be right in your opinion, it is in the opinion of others including me. Untill you provide actual reasoning beyond "I don't like it because it is a negative sounding word" I'll take note, but so far you didn't.
> personal, pointless insults deleted.
Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL and call them "pissed off jerks" when you really don't know? Typical case of pot and kettle I'd say.
> It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow).
And at least FreeBSD mounts ffs in synchronous mode by default (and has a strong warning about doing otherwise) so that IS the default you get (and if you read back my previous post, I mentiopned the performance hit already).
softupdates makes the performance hit a lot less problematic, tho at loss of a slight level of integrity.
At any rate, the theory is interesting, but reality is more interesting. I have experienced multiple cases of corruption of data and data loss on reiserfs as well as ext3fs (won't even talk about ext2fs), on multiple machines with different linux versions (tho did not try with 2.6 kernels), on systems configured by myself as well as by others. This for me means that I can be pretty sure that this is not caused by either some hardware defect or a specific configuration issue (either introduced by the distribution or by my particular way of configuring it)
I also experienced data corruption and data loss problems with ffs... ONCE.
Now, I use ffs a lot more then either ext2fs, ext3fs or reiser, and have been using it for a lot longer also.
Annecdotal evidence? definitely, but I know very few peopel who used all of those intensively who do not share this experience. For me this means that while in theory less good, its implementation is still better in real world situations.
> If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
Re:That's exactly the quote I remembered
on
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
·
· Score: 1
And I have scsi. No matter how fast your disks, more memory will still make a dump take longer.
> People call the GPL viral to discurage its usage. A common smokescreen tactic -- you associate whatever you don't like with something negative, make some swallow arguments to make the connection appear strong and hope that people won't look deeper into it.
Or to provoke a response and hope people do look deeper into it. Ar any rate, it is used in this way not just by people opposing the GPL for the simple reason that it makes the effect pretty clear. I'm rather sure the only people who will never use it in such a way are peopel who are fanatical about the GPL.
Viral may be a negative word, untill a marketing person discovers that it also applies to what they release, and protects them from competitors running off with it, all of the sudden it will be an 'advanced way of protection'.
> Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
Just for the record, I am not a GPL sceptic, rather, I am aware of one important consequence of using GPLed code, and may decide to use alternatives when appropriate.
I have a little bit of GPLed code around, a bit more code with a BSD style license, I'll use what I find appropriate.
> I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words.
Indeed they aren't. I am aware of it being a desirable side effect of the GPL, but what you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
Also, it is a very good way to make clear to the marketing people out there that they cannot take GPL code and put it into their own product without consequences. You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
> Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
It has been called viral by many people before Linux had any relevance to Microsoft, yeah, they use it as well.
> Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
Why pissed? I explained something, and you do not like it, for all I can tell you are the one acting like a pissed jerk here.
> 1. Nick GPL:ed code 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!!!
*lol*
No, I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I do not know who you are, but I do know I am mentioned in the credits of Free/Open/NetBSD, I bet that is because I like to steal someoen elses code and keep it for myself eh? ANd no, it is not GPLed, so I allow others
My intention was to explain to you why people call it viral, if you can't understand that simple thing and have to go into paranoid mode, well, be my guest, but I'd suggest to go find some treatment for it, it doesn't make life fun at all.
I am very aware of the difference and that a journallign filesystem is a better solution, but really, read up on ffs, unless you specifically configure it otherwise, it won't allow for the situation you describe and hence at the price of performance, gives virtually the same level of data integrity.
At any rate, as said, journalling filesystems provide a better solution, but are not needed for enterprice systems unless what you compare it with is a lot less reliable then ffs.
> You were making a statement, that much I'll give you. Fact it is not.
I suggest you go read the GPL, it quite clearly states the conditions for usage in derived works, what I said is part of that, so unless you want to dispute the GPL, it is fact that the GPL behaves as described.
It seems your problem is that you do not like the usage of the word viral here, well, that is fine. You may want to keep in mind that people use the word that way and why they do so, regardless of if you agree personally. Alternatively, you can insist on misunderstanding people on purpose, whatever you like.
> The kind of freedom RMS is referring to can't be taken away or used to discriminate between users
What I find interestign about this is that as soon as we talk about 'non discrimination' related laws in EUrope, that is called 'lack of freedom' by many from the USA.. as soon as it comes to GPL freedom, enforcing anti discriminative rules is 'protecting freedom'.
I know, off topic, but I just found it an interesting observation.
> Personally, I release stuff under GPL because I already wrote it, don't plan to sell it and want it to be of maximum use to other people.
THen use a BSD/X11 style license. the GPL specifically adds a bit of protection to those, takign away one specific (and by many people undesired) use, that of including your code in a program that is not licensed under the GPL.
This might be a desirable effect for many, and it is definitely one of the arguments for using the GPL instead of another license in many cases (not all, TCP/IP is a good example of why BSD/X11 style licenses work very well)
> So far, nobody sent me any code.
Why should they? the GPL does not require that unless people happen to be sending you modified versions of the binaries also.
If you want peopel to send their patches to you, go for something similar to the Apple Public License.
It is a bit of a problem that many people use the GPL ebcause they are told it is 'good' while not havign a clue as to why it is good and what the consequences are.
Following your logic, noone would be interested in buyign the works of old writers or something like the bible..
Of course you cannot make money by trying to sell the exact same thign that peopel can get for free next door, so you'll have to do something to make peopel willing to buy, being it a nice leather binding and quality of print for a book and things like included hardcopy documentation and support for software.
So.. if your business model is to sell junk to people and never look at them again then Free software won't work for you..
> USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC.
Thats interesting, tho I heard a similar experience from someone with a pen drive.
> UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
Hmm, I don't use maildir based programs, but that factor 6 in interesting.. it is the same factor as mentioned years ago in benchmarks between ext2fs and ffs..
At any rate, did you turn on softupdates? I do have a 30.7MB large inbox with 1641 mails in there. Scanning it takes my mailer less then 2 secs.
> BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
Everyone his own opinion of course, but I think you should consider that *BSD is more server oriented then desktop oriented.
Also, if you think Apple is dead (has been proclaimed dead quite often) then fine, but so far it seems they are doing fine with their BSD derived OS..
I'd reconsider proclaiming something dead that quite consistently supports new hardware and is quite actively being developed and used.
If I'd follow your reasoning, we could as well proclaim Windows dead.
AH, so viruses have a property that is different from the GPL? well.. good.. doesn't change in any way that the GPL has virulant behavior with regards to other licenses in the context of derived works.
> Also it isn't automaticly GPLed, you can reject the GPL by not distributing the derived work.
You don't get the point, do you? I was not endorcing the GPL or objecting to it, I was STATING A FACT about its behavior in relation to other licenses. Of course I can reject it, or I can use it, that is simply completely besides the point here.
> Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
If your anoymnous shithead would bother to read, you'd see that I don't object to this property of the GPL, I state it as fact that the GPL has this property, and that as a result it 'infects' derived works. That is a statement of fact, and has nothign whatsoever to do with if that is desirable or not.
Slashdot Mirror
> When did Bush become hard-core republican? Bush is about as left-leaning as a republican can get. Other then the gay-marriage hangup, he seems to be pretty liveral (for a republican candidate) to me.
I have no doubt you can find peopel in the republican part who are on hsi right side..
> That said I believe the two-party system actually has a lot of benefits. First off it forces a candidate to have broad-base support, unlike run-off systems, where all the parties end up supporting some party's candidae who got a few more % then they did, and aren't as bad as the other party that got a few more then they did. The truth of the matter is part of democracy is compromise, and both Democrats and Republicans are finding a platform that large groups of people can agree is "good enough". When a party starts to lean too far away, they generally either lose enough votes to give it to the other guy or split into factions and lose horribly
I agree that democracy is also about compromise, but I do not see how a 2 party system serves that at all.
Lets see:
In a 2 party system, both parties need to compromise in the time directly leading to the elections in order to get as many people to vote for them as possible.
Once elections are passed, the winning party doesn't have to care about anythign untill the enxt elections are close.
In a multi party system, parties can say what they stand for and people can vot based on that. Then, based on the election results, some parties get together and create a majority government. That government will have to make the appropriate compromises in order to maintain the majority support, and as a result has to make 'democratic compromises' regardless of when the elections are.
It really seems to me that the later is much more democratic.
It is too bad that part of the American population lets emotions instead of reason guide them. As logn as that is the case, the candidate calling on those fears and suggesting he can address them better also has the better chance.
I'm not claiming the Bush government caused things like 9/11, that would be bullshit anyway. But what they did do is make very good use of the fear it caused to further their owbn political agenda (as opposed to tryign to address the cause of the problem)
It is a well known 'trick'. "make people feel so they don't think" is a well known quote from a past German leader (of Austrian origin) who made very good use of it, but didn't think it up himself either. (name not mentioned to stay away from Godwin's observation (it is not a law!))
> In a hypothetical world, there would be more than two candidates/viewpoints and voting for a third one would have some effect. We don't live in that world, so you can quit dreaming and act under the system we've got. There are ways to change the system, but playing make-believe is not among them.
If you change 'world' to 'USA' your statement may be a lot more true.
There are definitely places on this world where there are more then 3 parties and where it does matter who you vote on.
Such a system can work and can be stable, so it is not hypothetical. That you do not have it in the USA is simpl;y a result of a flawed system and should be fixed instead of accepted.
> *I* can play songs and sing with my friends, and I can eat. We sing, and we are joyous.
Good for you but completely irrelevant for the discussion. I do hope you enjoy doing it tho.
> I can do that because first I do the work I must to contribute my share.
People consider some artistic work of such importance to society that creating such a work is considered a big contribution. The problem is about compensating artists for that.
> These artists signed a contract. That contract said they would receive marketing and production assistance in exchange for the redistribution rights of their recordings. Why did they sign? They signed because they wanted to be "rockstars", wanted to have that money, and wanted to live that life.
> They wanted this for themselves more than they wanted the freedom of their works.
All fine, but tell me, why should we accept this as a society?
> They SOLD OUT. There is no kinder way to put it. They valued the possibility of money and a flashy lifestyle over the music.
> It is NOT "about the music." Nothing can be plainer.
I guess that unless an artist lives on the street by begging, it is not about the music eh?
> They already owned instruments. They could have saved their money as I have, working a fulltime job, to put aside enough money to pursue my artistic interests.
When you are working fulltime, you don't have time to persue your artistic interests in any serious way.
> They could have done this. In this digital age, now more than ever, they could have done this.
But they did not. They did not, because they were greedy, because they favored themselves over others.
Saying things twice doesn't make them more true really.
> Just a> s I will not use software which is not Free, just as I will not consume media which is not Free, so also I will look up to no man whose pursuit is not the Freedom of his brot
And this all has nothing whatsopever to do with the issues being raised in this discussion.
The issues are:
1. Satire vs parody
2. When this song was written and released, copyright had a different term, The work comes with an explicit statement concernign copyright, which must have been known to the initial buyer of those rights.
I agree that you should honor copyright on works, and as a result not use those works unless you have permission to do so one way or another.
The original aythor in this case gave such permission when writing it, and that was way before it was ever sold, so the buyer really could have known that, and no, the buyer can't change that.
> I for one read AM's post to be warning to artists in general, not a slam of Woody
I bet it is, but I seriously don't like the reasoning behind it. If I sell you something, that doesn't allow you to behave like an utter moron, and that is the implication of what AM is saying.
Also, when you buy something from me which has conditions attached to it like in this specific case, then you know what you buy and what you can't do as a result of the conditions.
So no, the artist cannot be blamed for the actions of the current right holders.
> That doesn't matter. Sold out means sold out. The value of selling at the time was measured, not the future. ..... (more blahblah removed) ....
> The world is NOT fair, never was, never will be. Quit trying to make it fair, because you only make it worse.
Trying to make the world more fair is oen of the things that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Stop it and you lose your humanity alltogether.
Bottomline, when I sell somethign to you its yours, sure, but that is still no excuse whatsoever for you to behave like an utter moron afterward, and if you do, you will still find that people will not like it and may even do somethign about it.
mplayer with realplayer codecs here.. or at times realplayer 8 for linux.
> I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong :(
;)
Ok, then that is cleared and appologies accepted.
Let me add that I quite understand why people who feel strong about the GPL will also strongly dislike the use of the word viral, and rightly so. But either insisting on using it, or insisting on not using it has to do with what you could call an agenda.
> My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference.
Ok, all clear then.
> Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
Definitely, and I have no respect for doing that.
One reason which makes me a feeling rather strongly about this subject is that many people on Slashdot seem to be of the opinion that when that is done with BSD/MIT/X11 licensed code, that it also makes for 'stealing' while in many cases the authors of such code explicitly decided to allow that. Do this with GPLed code however and I inmediately agree that it makes for 'stealing'. (stealing quoted because it is strictly spoken not stealing but copyright infringement, but that one has been beaten to death on here
Reading your response now, I do not think you deserved such a strong response, my excuses for that.
> I remain astonished that RealPlayer is still an internet standard. It's no easier to install than Divx or Xvid, requires you to have that stupid 24 gig player, and the quality is easily a step down from the big two. For god's sake, put Real out of its misery !
WHen talking about this trailer, I completely agree with you, no reason to use real format at all.
When talking about streaming video, the AVI file format is serious not suited for it (for once because of having the index at the end of the file and needing that index to navigate through the file, somethign which is not needed for either mpg or real formats.
I do not know about ogg, it might support this correctly and that'd allow using xvid for streaming.
> I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno. ;)
Ok. the thread started out with a comment that included claiming that journaling filesystems is a must for 'enterprise systems'. Looking back you didn't make that claim indeed.
> ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
Yep, that is also the thing that makes that it feels somewhat 'hacky' to me.. but it has its advantages definitely.
> I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
While I understand what you say, realize that what you make will be used by real people, reality is relevant if only to learn how to not do things.
> Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before.
;)
;)
Softupdates and async mount are two seperate things. Combining both is possible (and I do so for some filesystems that contain scratch data anyway) but makes you lose most of the data integrity of sync mounts. Only using softupdates gives you a much better performance, and it is at times claimed to be even safer, tho in my experience (and from the theory, how to get things safer then using sync writes and writing data and metadata in one atomic operation?) it is slightly less safe. A lot safer then traditional UFS in async mode tho.
> If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
Hmm, atomic writes of data + metadata do help a bit in case of ffs.. but good point there.
> I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull.
And yet this is the thing that matters when implementing a practical system today, which was what this discussion was about I thought?
I agree that the theory is more interesting technically, and it may also be more important depending on what you are doing. For me, implementing reliable server systems today is an important part of my job hence reality is of direct interest
> Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates.
Yep. I'll keep watching reiser closely tho, it is a very interesting filesystem that offers some real benefits as soon as those issues are gone. Also ext3fs seems very interesting (alltho initially it feels rather hacky)
> All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
I've lost data on different filesystems over time, including reiser, xfs, ext3fs, ffs, ntfs, hpfs and fat (heh.. big surprise there) on a lot of different operating systems. In my case XFS and FFS have shown by far the lowest number of failures, both in total and in relation to usage. I didn't really lose the data tho, I am one of those insane people who makes backups
> So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems.
Thanks for the explanation, it is appreciated.
My understanding was and is that a journalling filesystem has the better theory behind it, but that there are filesystems out there that come extremely close in reliability.
> FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
*grin*
It just reminds me of a discussion with our local Linux 'guru' about power loss (yeah, we didn't have a ups back then) and if we'd have to goto the server room when power would come up again to ensure the servers would be starting ok.
He insisted on going there because of not trusting ext2fs on the linux servers to come up correctly. I felt it wasn't needed for our FreeBSD servers. Of course when we did experience power loss a few times, we ended up there (what is there to do without power anyway). It turned out we were both right. (now before someone goes off about it being possible that an automatic check of ffs fails, yeah, I know, and have had it happen, it is just extremely rare)
Of course this all has nothing to do with data loss as such.
> I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency.
Please, before arguing about the GNU GPL, read what the peopel from GNU have to say about it, they are quite clear about what ideal they are aiming at, which is for all software to be free of copyright (hence the term copy-left). That would be the ideal situation and in that case they do not believe this measure is needed anymore.
It is not about giving back but about you being able to use someone elses work on the same terms as them using yours.
> No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
If you'd care to read back the discussion, you'd see I was not the person making the GPL is viral claim, I responded to someone saying it wasn't with explaining while people see it as such.
Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for. Because the word is used anyway, and was used wayy before Microsoft and friends got involved, the GPL was already described in that way. It is being used, and we better explain why people call it that way then acting as if the 'issue' does not exist. That may also give you a good chance of explaining why it is actually not an issue but a tool that protects their investment as much as yours.
> Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
I don't know, but I do know that you are making a huge issue over the use of a word, a word that I didn't coin, that I wasn't the first one to mention in the discussion here either, and go as far as trying to say that the effect intended by the word viral with regards to the GPL is not there at all.
> Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
When stating opinions as fact, you may get people wondering about who you think you are..
Anyway.. who you are doesn't matter for your point being valid, but with some 5 bilion people out there saying things, I care more about those who I know, or who provide reasoning or verfiable facts. It simply makes that you are being heard with your valid opinion.
At any rate, I should probably have asked if you have code out there because that was what I was interested in.
> I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
It may not be right in your opinion, it is in the opinion of others including me. Untill you provide actual reasoning beyond "I don't like it because it is a negative sounding word" I'll take note, but so far you didn't.
> personal, pointless insults deleted.
Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL and call them "pissed off jerks" when you really don't know? Typical case of pot and kettle I'd say.
> It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow).
And at least FreeBSD mounts ffs in synchronous mode by default (and has a strong warning about doing otherwise) so that IS the default you get (and if you read back my previous post, I mentiopned the performance hit already).
softupdates makes the performance hit a lot less problematic, tho at loss of a slight level of integrity.
At any rate, the theory is interesting, but reality is more interesting. I have experienced multiple cases of corruption of data and data loss on reiserfs as well as ext3fs (won't even talk about ext2fs), on multiple machines with different linux versions (tho did not try with 2.6 kernels), on systems configured by myself as well as by others. This for me means that I can be pretty sure that this is not caused by either some hardware defect or a specific configuration issue (either introduced by the distribution or by my particular way of configuring it)
I also experienced data corruption and data loss problems with ffs... ONCE.
Now, I use ffs a lot more then either ext2fs, ext3fs or reiser, and have been using it for a lot longer also.
Annecdotal evidence? definitely, but I know very few peopel who used all of those intensively who do not share this experience. For me this means that while in theory less good, its implementation is still better in real world situations.
> If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
And I have scsi. No matter how fast your disks, more memory will still make a dump take longer.
> People call the GPL viral to discurage its usage. A common smokescreen tactic -- you associate whatever you don't like with something negative, make some swallow arguments to make the connection appear strong and hope that people won't look deeper into it.
Or to provoke a response and hope people do look deeper into it. Ar any rate, it is used in this way not just by people opposing the GPL for the simple reason that it makes the effect pretty clear. I'm rather sure the only people who will never use it in such a way are peopel who are fanatical about the GPL.
Viral may be a negative word, untill a marketing person discovers that it also applies to what they release, and protects them from competitors running off with it, all of the sudden it will be an 'advanced way of protection'.
> Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
Just for the record, I am not a GPL sceptic, rather, I am aware of one important consequence of using GPLed code, and may decide to use alternatives when appropriate.
I have a little bit of GPLed code around, a bit more code with a BSD style license, I'll use what I find appropriate.
> I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words.
Indeed they aren't. I am aware of it being a desirable side effect of the GPL, but what you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
Also, it is a very good way to make clear to the marketing people out there that they cannot take GPL code and put it into their own product without consequences. You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
> Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
It has been called viral by many people before Linux had any relevance to Microsoft, yeah, they use it as well.
> Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
Why pissed? I explained something, and you do not like it, for all I can tell you are the one acting like a pissed jerk here.
> 1. Nick GPL:ed code
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!!
*lol*
No, I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I do not know who you are, but I do know I am mentioned in the credits of Free/Open/NetBSD, I bet that is because I like to steal someoen elses code and keep it for myself eh? ANd no, it is not GPLed, so I allow others
My intention was to explain to you why people call it viral, if you can't understand that simple thing and have to go into paranoid mode, well, be my guest, but I'd suggest to go find some treatment for it, it doesn't make life fun at all.
I am very aware of the difference and that a journallign filesystem is a better solution, but really, read up on ffs, unless you specifically configure it otherwise, it won't allow for the situation you describe and hence at the price of performance, gives virtually the same level of data integrity.
At any rate, as said, journalling filesystems provide a better solution, but are not needed for enterprice systems unless what you compare it with is a lot less reliable then ffs.
> You were making a statement, that much I'll give you. Fact it is not.
I suggest you go read the GPL, it quite clearly states the conditions for usage in derived works, what I said is part of that, so unless you want to dispute the GPL, it is fact that the GPL behaves as described.
It seems your problem is that you do not like the usage of the word viral here, well, that is fine. You may want to keep in mind that people use the word that way and why they do so, regardless of if you agree personally. Alternatively, you can insist on misunderstanding people on purpose, whatever you like.
> The kind of freedom RMS is referring to can't be taken away or used to discriminate between users
What I find interestign about this is that as soon as we talk about 'non discrimination' related laws in EUrope, that is called 'lack of freedom' by many from the USA.. as soon as it comes to GPL freedom, enforcing anti discriminative rules is 'protecting freedom'.
I know, off topic, but I just found it an interesting observation.
> Personally, I release stuff under GPL because I already wrote it, don't plan to sell it and want it to be of maximum use to other people.
THen use a BSD/X11 style license. the GPL specifically adds a bit of protection to those, takign away one specific (and by many people undesired) use, that of including your code in a program that is not licensed under the GPL.
This might be a desirable effect for many, and it is definitely one of the arguments for using the GPL instead of another license in many cases (not all, TCP/IP is a good example of why BSD/X11 style licenses work very well)
> So far, nobody sent me any code.
Why should they? the GPL does not require that unless people happen to be sending you modified versions of the binaries also.
If you want peopel to send their patches to you, go for something similar to the Apple Public License.
It is a bit of a problem that many people use the GPL ebcause they are told it is 'good' while not havign a clue as to why it is good and what the consequences are.
Following your logic, noone would be interested in buyign the works of old writers or something like the bible..
Of course you cannot make money by trying to sell the exact same thign that peopel can get for free next door, so you'll have to do something to make peopel willing to buy, being it a nice leather binding and quality of print for a book and things like included hardcopy documentation and support for software.
So.. if your business model is to sell junk to people and never look at them again then Free software won't work for you..
> USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC.
Thats interesting, tho I heard a similar experience from someone with a pen drive.
> UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
Hmm, I don't use maildir based programs, but that factor 6 in interesting.. it is the same factor as mentioned years ago in benchmarks between ext2fs and ffs..
At any rate, did you turn on softupdates? I do have a 30.7MB large inbox with 1641 mails in there. Scanning it takes my mailer less then 2 secs.
> BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
Everyone his own opinion of course, but I think you should consider that *BSD is more server oriented then desktop oriented.
Also, if you think Apple is dead (has been proclaimed dead quite often) then fine, but so far it seems they are doing fine with their BSD derived OS..
I'd reconsider proclaiming something dead that quite consistently supports new hardware and is quite actively being developed and used.
If I'd follow your reasoning, we could as well proclaim Windows dead.
> Viruses don't ask for permission.
AH, so viruses have a property that is different from the GPL? well.. good.. doesn't change in any way that the GPL has virulant behavior with regards to other licenses in the context of derived works.
> Also it isn't automaticly GPLed, you can reject the GPL by not distributing the derived work.
You don't get the point, do you? I was not endorcing the GPL or objecting to it, I was STATING A FACT about its behavior in relation to other licenses. Of course I can reject it, or I can use it, that is simply completely besides the point here.
> Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
If your anoymnous shithead would bother to read, you'd see that I don't object to this property of the GPL, I state it as fact that the GPL has this property, and that as a result it 'infects' derived works. That is a statement of fact, and has nothign whatsoever to do with if that is desirable or not.