Just buy my new anti-Google-Mapping device. For just three easy payments of $19.95 you too can block out Google's evil lasers and brain readers. Act now and I'll throw in a free t-shirt!
That probably means that modern OSes are pretty much "done", the interesting fields are apps, not the kernel. Kernel stopped being the reason why you use an OS long time ago.
Replace "modern" with "mainstream" and you'd be right.
And the PS3 will be able to play off-the-shelf Windows games? I think not.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
The same holds true for GPL software.
True but only if I license my code under the GPL. With private code, this is not so. When Microsoft partners, they don't say "You must use our EULA". They may not permit them to redistribute their code but that is not the same.
The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
The issue was never about separate permissions.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
What other licenses do the same thing? The GPL is the only license which requires the use of the GPL when redistributing. Other licenses, including those not under OSI, do not.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
As stated, if I were to partner with a company and share could, I wouldn't be forced into their licensing.
As for how is the GPL narrower, if you're unable to see this, I truly feel sorry for you.
The C64 had advanced graphics and sound. It was more than just a computer - it was a computer designed to play games.
There's still a key difference: The PS3 was designed for gaming, whereas the C64 was designed for general use. This doesn't mean one cannot use it for the other purprose, just that there are better options.
Also, price isn't a consideration. After a couple of years, it should be selling in the $200 range. The C64 sold for $595 and that was 1980s money.
That's foolish. Price is always a consideration for the consumer. A couple years from now, a PC could be selling for $200 and still be doing a lot more than a PS3.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software.
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
I respect the right of the copyright holder. If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
but are stripped by a greedy company who 'forgets' to contribute the sources of their released (sold) binaries back to the community.
I think Wasabi Systems, a company who develops on NetBSD full-time for clients, would disagree. Clients have let them donate code they've worked on back to the community. (Source: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3187)
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Salesman: Have you seen PS3 with Linux? Customer: Does it have any good games? Salesman: Well, no bu... Cusomter: Not interested. Salesman: *sigh* But... Customer: I said not interested! Salesman: But it has Li... Customer: Let me speak with your manager.
And that was the day Schestowitz got fired from GameStop.
Why do you want to run Linux on a next-gen console? I have a handful of machines right now capable of running Linux. From a gaming console, I want one thing: GOOD GAMES!
But now a-days, you can get a good PC -- an actual PC capable of running all your off-the-shelf software -- for sub-$500. With rumored PS3 prices and the ability to run Linux, not Windows (e.g. not grandma friendly and lacking big-name software), I doubt it.
Further, Commodore was a computer. The PS3 is mainly designed for gaming.
I work at an almost-all-Microsoft shop that develops, uses, and supports a custom application running on Windows. My comment about hype not living up to reality is from experience.
What have they really claimed thus far? That they'll be better than UNIX shell scripting? It's not that's a challenge considering how basic UNIX shell scripting is.
No, I have used it and am keeping an open mind. I'm not jumping to the "Oh, it's from Microsoft and it must be stopped!" conclusion that most of Slashdot seems to jump to anytime Microsoft does anything.
right now, from what I've seen, they would have been far better served to go with bash.
What makes you say that? My (limited) understanding of Monad is that it can do UNIX-style text piping and regular expressions and awk and all that candy in addition to the object-oriented stuff.
And the object-oriented stuff shows some potential. Being able to pull data from a pipe much more easily (e.g. without a regular expression). Much saner sorting. Blah blah blah.
This is what the impression the Channel 9 demo video gave me, at least.
His domain, acme.com, would be at the start of a spamming run if they addresses were done in alphabetical order.
That would be an interesting test. Register one domain, like asdfghjkl.com, and another, like zxcvbnm.com. Setup an email account on each. Publish the email addresses on all the same websites, then see which gets more spam
Slashdot Mirror
Just buy my new anti-Google-Mapping device. For just three easy payments of $19.95 you too can block out Google's evil lasers and brain readers. Act now and I'll throw in a free t-shirt!
Hmm... It does look like that. Either that or that thing Stephen Hawking said on the Simspons about mini-blackholes.
Mmhmm... And who is this "we" you speak of?
*dials 9-1 and waits for your reply*
I think so they knew the US had more than one. Seriously.
A Slashdot story mentioning the US. I knew I should have prepared for the fallout by avoiding the comments altogether.
Logical, thoughtful discussion of the actual article? Never. Not here.
That sounds like a wager.
What does this mean for Fry and his past-nastification?
That probably means that modern OSes are pretty much "done", the interesting fields are apps, not the kernel. Kernel stopped being the reason why you use an OS long time ago.
Replace "modern" with "mainstream" and you'd be right.
Even some open source software runs so poorly on BSD that it's not worth using -- like MySQL.
I think Yahoo! would strongly disagree.
And the PS3 will be able to play off-the-shelf Windows games? I think not.
The same holds true for GPL software.
True but only if I license my code under the GPL. With private code, this is not so. When Microsoft partners, they don't say "You must use our EULA". They may not permit them to redistribute their code but that is not the same.
The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
The issue was never about separate permissions.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
What other licenses do the same thing? The GPL is the only license which requires the use of the GPL when redistributing. Other licenses, including those not under OSI, do not.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
As stated, if I were to partner with a company and share could, I wouldn't be forced into their licensing.
As for how is the GPL narrower, if you're unable to see this, I truly feel sorry for you.
The C64 had advanced graphics and sound. It was more than just a computer - it was a computer designed to play games.
There's still a key difference: The PS3 was designed for gaming, whereas the C64 was designed for general use. This doesn't mean one cannot use it for the other purprose, just that there are better options.
Also, price isn't a consideration. After a couple of years, it should be selling in the $200 range. The C64 sold for $595 and that was 1980s money.
That's foolish. Price is always a consideration for the consumer. A couple years from now, a PC could be selling for $200 and still be doing a lot more than a PS3.
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software.
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
I respect the right of the copyright holder. If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
but are stripped by a greedy company who 'forgets' to contribute the sources of their released (sold) binaries back to the community.
I think Wasabi Systems, a company who develops on NetBSD full-time for clients, would disagree. Clients have let them donate code they've worked on back to the community. (Source: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3187)
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Salesman: Have you seen PS3 with Linux?
Customer: Does it have any good games?
Salesman: Well, no bu...
Cusomter: Not interested.
Salesman: *sigh* But...
Customer: I said not interested!
Salesman: But it has Li...
Customer: Let me speak with your manager.
And that was the day Schestowitz got fired from GameStop.
Why do you want to run Linux on a next-gen console? I have a handful of machines right now capable of running Linux. From a gaming console, I want one thing: GOOD GAMES!
If I wanted a PC, I know where to find it.
But now a-days, you can get a good PC -- an actual PC capable of running all your off-the-shelf software -- for sub-$500. With rumored PS3 prices and the ability to run Linux, not Windows (e.g. not grandma friendly and lacking big-name software), I doubt it.
Further, Commodore was a computer. The PS3 is mainly designed for gaming.
I work at an almost-all-Microsoft shop that develops, uses, and supports a custom application running on Windows. My comment about hype not living up to reality is from experience.
What have they really claimed thus far? That they'll be better than UNIX shell scripting? It's not that's a challenge considering how basic UNIX shell scripting is.
No, I have used it and am keeping an open mind. I'm not jumping to the "Oh, it's from Microsoft and it must be stopped!" conclusion that most of Slashdot seems to jump to anytime Microsoft does anything.
right now, from what I've seen, they would have been far better served to go with bash.
What makes you say that? My (limited) understanding of Monad is that it can do UNIX-style text piping and regular expressions and awk and all that candy in addition to the object-oriented stuff.
And the object-oriented stuff shows some potential. Being able to pull data from a pipe much more easily (e.g. without a regular expression). Much saner sorting. Blah blah blah.
This is what the impression the Channel 9 demo video gave me, at least.
Because progress takes time? Stop shooting the messenger. *straps on kevlar*
It's not "vaporware"; It actually exists. You can get in on the beta for free.
l 9.MSHWiki - How to sign up
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channe
His domain, acme.com, would be at the start of a spamming run if they addresses were done in alphabetical order.
That would be an interesting test. Register one domain, like asdfghjkl.com, and another, like zxcvbnm.com. Setup an email account on each. Publish the email addresses on all the same websites, then see which gets more spam
Oh no... I didn't click the anonymous box... My secret identity is out. BLAST!