But what about ADDING them? I'm not worried about rearranging my menus, but if I can't put an app I installed into the menuing system, then the WM is worse than useless. Really.
Yes, CC attribution-sharealike is I think the preferred license. Personally I go for a little gem called the Design Science License that's hidden away on the GNU website.
In the meantime, they treat GFDL docs the same way they treat propriety software. Which is the only thing they can do. Although IMO something with no invariants is currently free, just could become non-free, and should be treated like BSD-licensed software.
I have to disagree with you on the UI. It looks really ugly. Like, motif-level ugly. I'm sure it's all just themes, but open one of those apps and open a default kde app along side it and tell me the user is going to choose that one. If they want this to be a serious choice for end users, they're going to have to stick some sheen on it.
Having code and data stored the same way was the great advance that made modern computers possible. It has to be doable so you can have self modifying code. This isn't needed most of the time, but there are times when it is, and it is worth it for those cases.
And of course far more work needs to be done on the interpreter than on programs which run in it.
You can't escape using low level languages entirely, but you should avoid them whenever you can. It's like if you're an electrician, you have to work on a live circuit sometimes, but you avoid it whenever possible.
Because I'm right. Don't believe it just because I've said it, but look at my arguments. Look at the kerfuffle in the layers I've mentioned, and see if you think it's real. See if you think it matters. See if you think it's symptomatic of a problem with Linux. I think it is, and I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see that it is. But by all means don't just take my word for it.
I've written some. Not many, but some short ones have been perfect. And I'm not really worried about other people fixing bugs, if it's my code I can probably fix the bug better than them and in a way that makes more sense to me. If the bug is enough of a problem, then people will report it to me and I can fix it.
I don't know any better than you, but I know that my government (UK) took us to war on some grounds which, at the lower levels at least, were known to be simply untrue. (I think it's incredibly unlikely that the lower levels passed on the intel but not the warnings about its reliability, but that's what Blair claims and in the absence of other evidence we have to give him the benefit of the doubt). Which to my mind implies that the government thought there was no good reason to go to war; otherwise they would have used the real justifications. And I'm lucky enough to have the BBC, which for all its faults does its very best to present the truth as it sees it, and will not shy from criticising the government if it needs to. I certainly think the BBC's version is likely to be closer to the truth than any politician's.
Linux doesn't work that well. No, hear me out. The design isn't very good, and it's starting to show. The fact that you need to be root to mount things, and the trouble with reiser4, are showing the flaws in the VFS layer. The confusion over what belongs in the SCSI subsystem, with atapi cd drives being moved out of it because linus doesn't like them there but everything else being rapidly moved in there, betrays deeper problems - I have been told that the scsi subsystem should be used for everything, but since the IDE one was put together first for linus' cheap hardware, ide uses that. And yet some things are being moved into the ide subsystem, and the scsi one is not as nice as it could be if it was moved up a layer where it seems to belong. This is because linux wasn't properly designed. It was always meant to be a temporary kludge, something to work until a proper replacement came along. So some design decisions were badly made from a long term point of view, and some weren't made at all, just sort of emerged as an imperfect compromise. The problems are becoming more and more evident, and it's getting to the stage where we need a replacement.
You're right on the name. The FSF should have gone for alix, just for the coolness factor. Just compare "Hey, I run linux, you? Alix myself" with "Hey, I run linux, you? Hurd myself". Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Depends what you call plenty of time. Running on my computer, it would be warned when the intruder didn't immediately run kopete, and prolly lock him out when he didn't open/. within 20 seconds of logon.
Read it more carefully. It says "The GPL v2 or, at your option, any later version published by the free software foundation". The FSF is a charity so unlikely to be brought out. But if not, there is the bit in the license that says "future versions will be similar in spirit". With luck, this invalidates any future version which is not similar in spirit to the gpl v2, so the evil company will not be able to do anything they can't already do to the program as they have no license (remember, the GPL only grants rights, it does not take any away).
Bluntly, yes. I want to make my program free, but I want everyone who uses it to have that freedom. And unfortunately that means restricting some freedoms by using a strong copyleft license, i.e. GPL. But I think that's worth it.
The GPL doesn't worry about things like that though. It just says "If it's legally a derivative work, it must be GPLed". Take it up with the lawmakers rather than those writing the GPL, since if you feel your app is not derived then you should be able to use a propriety library in the same situation.
No, but the FSF claims to have repeatedly threatened companies, and claims that the fact it has never gone to court is a sign of the GPL's strength - no-one, after having looked through it with an attorney, thought they could make a case against the GPL. There are documented cases where companies did not want to open-source software, but did before it went to court, such as the objective c frontend for gcc, where the lawyers discussed it with the FSF before deciding they had no choice but to go open-source, and an unnamed program using readline, which was open-sourced after Stallman wrote to the author.
I don't like it being unmodifiable either, but legally that's probably the best thing, as I wouldn't want the license for my program being modified. And the lock to GPL3 is deliberate, based on the idea that the FSF only publishes new versions of the GPL when a bug is found in the old version that would allow propriety software to use gpl code, or something equally nasty. So you don't want it reverting to the old license because that is a flawed one.
Then make that the last time. But he hadn't kicked them out again. The US had given him an ultimatum: let the inspectors back in or else. So he let them back in. And then, for no apparent reason, the US invaded a couple of weeks later. If he had kicked them out again and then the US had invaded, that would have made sense, but as long as he was co-operating there was no excuse for an invasion.
Because we need different things, as someone else said. At the moment if you want to call your app LSB certified, you have to pretty much statically compile everything, which is a bad thing. If there were a "LSB gui" addon mandating X, gtk and qt in a particular place, a "LSB server" addon mandating perhaps a sendmail-compatiable mta and a webserver and database accessible through some standard interface, you could make any kind of app for the particular LSB. This is ultimately about expanding the LSB, but they don't want to make the additions mandantory or distros which inplement the full LSB will become incredibly bloated.
Presumably, if red hat certifies too many applications as LSB when they won't run on Debian, their license to certify gets revoked. Maybe they could say 3 separate distros have to certify an app for it to get full certification
No, it's not wrong for MS to do that. I don't mind giving up copyright on Linux etc provided it works both ways. Really, I don't. I don't mind them copying linux if they'll let me copy windows. And I don't mind if you ignore the copyrights on the code I've written, as long as you don't complain when I do the same to you.
Slashdot Mirror
But what about ADDING them? I'm not worried about rearranging my menus, but if I can't put an app I installed into the menuing system, then the WM is worse than useless. Really.
In the meantime, they treat GFDL docs the same way they treat propriety software. Which is the only thing they can do. Although IMO something with no invariants is currently free, just could become non-free, and should be treated like BSD-licensed software.
What if his bank will only let him access their website with IE?
I have to disagree with you on the UI. It looks really ugly. Like, motif-level ugly. I'm sure it's all just themes, but open one of those apps and open a default kde app along side it and tell me the user is going to choose that one. If they want this to be a serious choice for end users, they're going to have to stick some sheen on it.
Having code and data stored the same way was the great advance that made modern computers possible. It has to be doable so you can have self modifying code. This isn't needed most of the time, but there are times when it is, and it is worth it for those cases.
You can't escape using low level languages entirely, but you should avoid them whenever you can. It's like if you're an electrician, you have to work on a live circuit sometimes, but you avoid it whenever possible.
It's worse than that. Over half of Mars missions have failed (20 of 36). And that's counting the Beagle mission as a success.
Because I'm right. Don't believe it just because I've said it, but look at my arguments. Look at the kerfuffle in the layers I've mentioned, and see if you think it's real. See if you think it matters. See if you think it's symptomatic of a problem with Linux. I think it is, and I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see that it is. But by all means don't just take my word for it.
I've written some. Not many, but some short ones have been perfect. And I'm not really worried about other people fixing bugs, if it's my code I can probably fix the bug better than them and in a way that makes more sense to me. If the bug is enough of a problem, then people will report it to me and I can fix it.
I don't know any better than you, but I know that my government (UK) took us to war on some grounds which, at the lower levels at least, were known to be simply untrue. (I think it's incredibly unlikely that the lower levels passed on the intel but not the warnings about its reliability, but that's what Blair claims and in the absence of other evidence we have to give him the benefit of the doubt). Which to my mind implies that the government thought there was no good reason to go to war; otherwise they would have used the real justifications. And I'm lucky enough to have the BBC, which for all its faults does its very best to present the truth as it sees it, and will not shy from criticising the government if it needs to. I certainly think the BBC's version is likely to be closer to the truth than any politician's.
Two would be enough for me. But then I'm very much a creature of habit, I know other people would be more random in what they do.
Linux doesn't work that well. No, hear me out. The design isn't very good, and it's starting to show. The fact that you need to be root to mount things, and the trouble with reiser4, are showing the flaws in the VFS layer. The confusion over what belongs in the SCSI subsystem, with atapi cd drives being moved out of it because linus doesn't like them there but everything else being rapidly moved in there, betrays deeper problems - I have been told that the scsi subsystem should be used for everything, but since the IDE one was put together first for linus' cheap hardware, ide uses that. And yet some things are being moved into the ide subsystem, and the scsi one is not as nice as it could be if it was moved up a layer where it seems to belong. This is because linux wasn't properly designed. It was always meant to be a temporary kludge, something to work until a proper replacement came along. So some design decisions were badly made from a long term point of view, and some weren't made at all, just sort of emerged as an imperfect compromise. The problems are becoming more and more evident, and it's getting to the stage where we need a replacement.
You're right on the name. The FSF should have gone for alix, just for the coolness factor. Just compare "Hey, I run linux, you? Alix myself" with "Hey, I run linux, you? Hurd myself". Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Surely in that case it will run fine on DOS?
Depends what you call plenty of time. Running on my computer, it would be warned when the intruder didn't immediately run kopete, and prolly lock him out when he didn't open /. within 20 seconds of logon.
Read it more carefully. It says "The GPL v2 or, at your option, any later version published by the free software foundation". The FSF is a charity so unlikely to be brought out. But if not, there is the bit in the license that says "future versions will be similar in spirit". With luck, this invalidates any future version which is not similar in spirit to the gpl v2, so the evil company will not be able to do anything they can't already do to the program as they have no license (remember, the GPL only grants rights, it does not take any away).
Bluntly, yes. I want to make my program free, but I want everyone who uses it to have that freedom. And unfortunately that means restricting some freedoms by using a strong copyleft license, i.e. GPL. But I think that's worth it.
The GPL doesn't worry about things like that though. It just says "If it's legally a derivative work, it must be GPLed". Take it up with the lawmakers rather than those writing the GPL, since if you feel your app is not derived then you should be able to use a propriety library in the same situation.
No, but the FSF claims to have repeatedly threatened companies, and claims that the fact it has never gone to court is a sign of the GPL's strength - no-one, after having looked through it with an attorney, thought they could make a case against the GPL. There are documented cases where companies did not want to open-source software, but did before it went to court, such as the objective c frontend for gcc, where the lawyers discussed it with the FSF before deciding they had no choice but to go open-source, and an unnamed program using readline, which was open-sourced after Stallman wrote to the author.
I don't like it being unmodifiable either, but legally that's probably the best thing, as I wouldn't want the license for my program being modified. And the lock to GPL3 is deliberate, based on the idea that the FSF only publishes new versions of the GPL when a bug is found in the old version that would allow propriety software to use gpl code, or something equally nasty. So you don't want it reverting to the old license because that is a flawed one.
Completely different. Safari is built on KHTML, used in konqueror. Which, IME, is a much nicer browser than firefox, at least if you're using kde.
Then make that the last time. But he hadn't kicked them out again. The US had given him an ultimatum: let the inspectors back in or else. So he let them back in. And then, for no apparent reason, the US invaded a couple of weeks later. If he had kicked them out again and then the US had invaded, that would have made sense, but as long as he was co-operating there was no excuse for an invasion.
Because we need different things, as someone else said. At the moment if you want to call your app LSB certified, you have to pretty much statically compile everything, which is a bad thing. If there were a "LSB gui" addon mandating X, gtk and qt in a particular place, a "LSB server" addon mandating perhaps a sendmail-compatiable mta and a webserver and database accessible through some standard interface, you could make any kind of app for the particular LSB. This is ultimately about expanding the LSB, but they don't want to make the additions mandantory or distros which inplement the full LSB will become incredibly bloated.
Presumably, if red hat certifies too many applications as LSB when they won't run on Debian, their license to certify gets revoked. Maybe they could say 3 separate distros have to certify an app for it to get full certification
No, it's not wrong for MS to do that. I don't mind giving up copyright on Linux etc provided it works both ways. Really, I don't. I don't mind them copying linux if they'll let me copy windows. And I don't mind if you ignore the copyrights on the code I've written, as long as you don't complain when I do the same to you.