Yes. But the fact is that having never got as far as the court shows the strength of the GPL rather than its weakness. Think about it: you go to court because both sides think they can win. Everyone who has been about to challenge the GPL has realised they had lost before it got that far. Plenty of licenses have never been tested in court; a well worded license that any lawyer can tell you is valid doesn't need to.
An ID is harder to forge than a signature. No it's not impossible, but you can teach yourself to write a signature that matches the one on the card faster and cheaper than getting a fake ID.
No, there's a difference, porting themselves would be a lot of work, wheras releasing the docs costs them nothing. They ought to give the customers as much help as they can without too much effort, and releasing their docs certainly comes in that category.
People's pain thresholds vary enormously, and mine's really pathetic. I've had sub-Q shots with the smallest standard needle (the green one, at least in my local surgery) with my eyes closed and I certainly felt it and at least flinched. So I could certainly hurt a lot less than that and still notice it.
Yes I have. And it's perfectly possible to see an improvement like that when it's not there if you're looking for it. The only difference I notice compared to the good local cinema (at the other one you can see scratches) is the hole in the top right that they used to use to know when to change reels or something, and my family don't even see that.
Yes, I notice it. And then I mention it to my family and they say they didn't. Some people can tell, and probably many slashdotters, but the average moviegoer really doesn't care. I remember someone posting here about how when they went to see IIRC Gladiator at an IMAX cinema the person next to them raved about how much better the picture quality was. Except it wasn't any better, it was just a 35mm film on an imax screen, because there is no imax version of Gladiator.
Yep. But to get the digital one you have to be in the booth, in which case you could already get a near-enough-perfect copy anyway. Odds are it's going to be divxed down to 700mb for distribution anyway, so above a certain point it doesn't matter how good the copy you get is.
Yes you are. Anyone with access to the booth was able to make near-enough perfect rips anyway. The average person can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital projection. And camcorder-between-the-seats is not going to be any better just because the projection is digital. Piracy might get easier, but the quality won't be any better.
Even just reading it would be good. I could send people documents without having to worry about them so much. (I use KOffice and there's no.doc export capability, so I have to do rtf and avoid using anything too complicated)
I have hard data on commercial users. You have a webpoll that, even if you take it at face value (a ridiculous notion given how hopelessly unreliable they are), shows KDE just a little bit ahead. Christ you're a pathetic zealot.
Not just a little bit, quite a way ahead. 181-70 in fact.
Not met a lot of real users then, have you? You do realise that you're talking a complete load of bollocks -- as anyone familiar with Microsoft's near-total dominance of the desktop will testify.
Yes I have. Sure many home users don't fiddle that much. But they will try different types of software, they will at least look at some alternatives for some things they do. I defy you to find a home machine where the user hasn't installed at least one piece of software since it was set up for them. Yet I can show you plenty of corporate machines where that's the case.
You aren't making an argument. You are stating that you believe KDE is more popular... based entirely on FAITH. You have nothing to back up your statements of faith other than assertations that fly in the face of fact. It's rather pathetic really.
I have webpolls and lists of distros. Yes, not the most reliable of data, but it's some. You claim you have solid evidence for commercial users, which I haven't seen, and are claiming that this better reflects user preferences than what people vote for and what distributions ship.
Since Competitor B started growing pretty fast at the direct expense of Competitor A. You see this quite a lot in monopoly situations. If anyone implements something else and starts growing, the monopolist will immediately implement it for fear of losing its monopoly.
I am. On dialup one iso takes 30 hours. It doesn't take me that long to be messing around with it a bit, especially with a live cd. However, I do think people use it to cover their other downloading habits, yes.
Nope. You can get tcp/ip stacks for it, you can get web browsers, run webservers on it, I have done all of these, so I'm sure there will be remote exploits for it.
Are you sure you haven't got it backwards? I'm sure $ or C$ was listed as a hidden share available under 9X, though I didn't set that system up. But I can't believe even MS would have gone backwards in security like that. Having C remotely accessible by default makes sense in a corporate lan environment which is what they were used to from 3.1, but by the NT series they would surely have realised the internet changed things, no?
It's theoretically going to be much better. Revolutionarily so in fact. This is a deliberate design decision since the rise of linux: loads of experimental, potential "next big thing" ideas are going into hurd. Linux works, so hurd is trying to make something that's much better, rather than slapping together a working kernel and worrying about the architecture later which is what linux does.
You're kidding, right? I see around 2 attacks every second that would work against win95. I think some of the "friendlier" ISPs block them, but if you give it a raw internet connection a win95 box will be compromised in seconds, IME.
Use FreeDOS. Free, kept updated wrt security, and IME fully compatible, with the added bonus of being able to access fat32 partitions with no difficulty.
Because they were crap when they were released. OK maybe not 95, but 3.11 certainly was. You can get things which are so much better looking under raw DOS it seemed ridiculous how horrible 3.1 was. Oh wait, that's because 3.1 is really really horribly. I stayed out of it and used raw dos whenever I could.
I don't think so. The average time between attempts to access \C$ on my SMB server is 0.5 seconds. So that's about how long it would take an unprotected win98 box to get compromised, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. But the fact is that having never got as far as the court shows the strength of the GPL rather than its weakness. Think about it: you go to court because both sides think they can win. Everyone who has been about to challenge the GPL has realised they had lost before it got that far. Plenty of licenses have never been tested in court; a well worded license that any lawyer can tell you is valid doesn't need to.
An ID is harder to forge than a signature. No it's not impossible, but you can teach yourself to write a signature that matches the one on the card faster and cheaper than getting a fake ID.
No, there's a difference, porting themselves would be a lot of work, wheras releasing the docs costs them nothing. They ought to give the customers as much help as they can without too much effort, and releasing their docs certainly comes in that category.
People's pain thresholds vary enormously, and mine's really pathetic. I've had sub-Q shots with the smallest standard needle (the green one, at least in my local surgery) with my eyes closed and I certainly felt it and at least flinched. So I could certainly hurt a lot less than that and still notice it.
I can, and you can, but the average person can't. Try a double-blind test with some non-technical people. Really, they don't notice.
Yes I have. And it's perfectly possible to see an improvement like that when it's not there if you're looking for it. The only difference I notice compared to the good local cinema (at the other one you can see scratches) is the hole in the top right that they used to use to know when to change reels or something, and my family don't even see that.
Yes, I notice it. And then I mention it to my family and they say they didn't. Some people can tell, and probably many slashdotters, but the average moviegoer really doesn't care. I remember someone posting here about how when they went to see IIRC Gladiator at an IMAX cinema the person next to them raved about how much better the picture quality was. Except it wasn't any better, it was just a 35mm film on an imax screen, because there is no imax version of Gladiator.
Yep. But to get the digital one you have to be in the booth, in which case you could already get a near-enough-perfect copy anyway. Odds are it's going to be divxed down to 700mb for distribution anyway, so above a certain point it doesn't matter how good the copy you get is.
A moral obligation to the users they sold the hardware to. Yes, they're not legally obliged to, but it's common decency.
So it's still going to hurt? (Yes I'm a wimp)
Yes you are. Anyone with access to the booth was able to make near-enough perfect rips anyway. The average person can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital projection. And camcorder-between-the-seats is not going to be any better just because the projection is digital. Piracy might get easier, but the quality won't be any better.
Even just reading it would be good. I could send people documents without having to worry about them so much. (I use KOffice and there's no .doc export capability, so I have to do rtf and avoid using anything too complicated)
Not just a little bit, quite a way ahead. 181-70 in fact.
Not met a lot of real users then, have you? You do realise that you're talking a complete load of bollocks -- as anyone familiar with Microsoft's near-total dominance of the desktop will testify.
Yes I have. Sure many home users don't fiddle that much. But they will try different types of software, they will at least look at some alternatives for some things they do. I defy you to find a home machine where the user hasn't installed at least one piece of software since it was set up for them. Yet I can show you plenty of corporate machines where that's the case.
You aren't making an argument. You are stating that you believe KDE is more popular... based entirely on FAITH. You have nothing to back up your statements of faith other than assertations that fly in the face of fact. It's rather pathetic really.
I have webpolls and lists of distros. Yes, not the most reliable of data, but it's some. You claim you have solid evidence for commercial users, which I haven't seen, and are claiming that this better reflects user preferences than what people vote for and what distributions ship.
Since Competitor B started growing pretty fast at the direct expense of Competitor A. You see this quite a lot in monopoly situations. If anyone implements something else and starts growing, the monopolist will immediately implement it for fear of losing its monopoly.
It's deja vu all over again. You'd think that when it's not just the same story but the same headline...
Because there are all sorts of encyclopaedic things about them. I would be dissapointed by any encyclopaedia which didn't have an entry on cow.
I am. On dialup one iso takes 30 hours. It doesn't take me that long to be messing around with it a bit, especially with a live cd. However, I do think people use it to cover their other downloading habits, yes.
Nope. You can get tcp/ip stacks for it, you can get web browsers, run webservers on it, I have done all of these, so I'm sure there will be remote exploits for it.
Are you sure you haven't got it backwards? I'm sure $ or C$ was listed as a hidden share available under 9X, though I didn't set that system up. But I can't believe even MS would have gone backwards in security like that. Having C remotely accessible by default makes sense in a corporate lan environment which is what they were used to from 3.1, but by the NT series they would surely have realised the internet changed things, no?
It's theoretically going to be much better. Revolutionarily so in fact. This is a deliberate design decision since the rise of linux: loads of experimental, potential "next big thing" ideas are going into hurd. Linux works, so hurd is trying to make something that's much better, rather than slapping together a working kernel and worrying about the architecture later which is what linux does.
You're kidding, right? I see around 2 attacks every second that would work against win95. I think some of the "friendlier" ISPs block them, but if you give it a raw internet connection a win95 box will be compromised in seconds, IME.
If you're relying on donations, why are you running apples only? Seems to me you could have a lot more computers if you accepted any architecture.
Use FreeDOS. Free, kept updated wrt security, and IME fully compatible, with the added bonus of being able to access fat32 partitions with no difficulty.
Because they were crap when they were released. OK maybe not 95, but 3.11 certainly was. You can get things which are so much better looking under raw DOS it seemed ridiculous how horrible 3.1 was. Oh wait, that's because 3.1 is really really horribly. I stayed out of it and used raw dos whenever I could.
I don't think so. The average time between attempts to access \C$ on my SMB server is 0.5 seconds. So that's about how long it would take an unprotected win98 box to get compromised, no?