Interesting. I had been looking forward to watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" about how the irrefutable truth about global warming has been suppressed for political purposes. Before I had a chance to watch it, I read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" (just last week). I was surprised that it was trying to refute the arguments of those who believe in global warming.
Normally, I would have concluded a political agenda, but Michael Crichton is known for doing a lot of research before writing his novels, and presenting an issue in the form of a story. So I paid more attention. Specifically, as another poster had said, what is called into question is whether there is a man-made cause of global warming, and specifically whether cardon dioxide emissions are the culprit.
Crichton invites us to take a look at the original sources from which we can draw our own conclusions about whether there really is global warming. He has a number of articles written by people who believe in man-made causes of global warming, who nevertheless have had to publish data showing otherwise.
I have to admit that most of my beliefs about global warming have come from Slashdot; I can't really cite any particular journal. So, I guess I'll have to decide for myself. Is there global warming? Is it man-made?
I anticipate some derisive comments about how Mantel is a bad guy, and Jeremy Allison is a good guy for quitting. If this does happen, it would start to become a mudslingfest like the name calling at the start of the Iraq war.
I had been hoping to hear Mantel's views on the MS/Novell deal, seeing what further insight he could provide. Disappointingly, he only points to the good side of the deal, and doesn't explain why this outweighs the bad side. We already know the good part: that MS has acknowledged the importance of Linux. No one is arguing with that. But the point is, MS is poisoning the waters, as pointed out by Allison's statement, and that is definitely a bad thing.
It's like some small Pacific island country who has just acquired nuclear weapons, and now the USA is going to come invade them with two navy fleets. The island country's president says: "I see this as a good thing: the USA is now taking us seriously." Yeah, right.
Maybe Mantel hasn't had time to formulate his thoughts and reactions to the negative aspects of the deal yet. But you can't make something good just by pointing out the positive aspects and ignoring the negative. You might try it on those populace of those states whose IQ's are in the lower half, but it's not going to work here on Slashdot.
Another example is esomeprazole (Nexium), the S-isomer of racemic omeprazole (Prilosec), hence the name. (The R-isomer is inactive.) So, basically Prilosec is a 2:1 dilution of Nexium (stomach medicine marketed as "The Purple Pill").
I remember when Astra-Zeneca sent some poor inexperienced sales schmuck, some biochem major, to promote Nexium, setting up a nice dinner for my colleagues and me at our clinic. They gave a PowerPoint(tm) presentation on how Nexium was found to be much more effective than Prilosec, complete with nice colour graphs and stuff. The kicker was, they were comparing 40mg of Nexium with 20mg of Prilosec.
Our ophthalmologist (the eye specialist, for crying out loud!) raised his hand for a question: "I'm an ophthalmologist and I don't prescribe stomach medicine," he apologized in advance, "but... isn't 40mg of Nexium the same as 80mg of Prilosec? So wouldn't you expect that more Nexium works better than less Prilosec?" The schmuck had no good answer for that. She knew as well as we that the "new improved" Nexium was just smoke and mirrors.
Not so incidentally, prior to Prilosec becoming non-prescription, AstraZeneca also sued some manufacturer of generic drugs (was it Andrax? Not sure...) who was about to bring out a cheaper form of generic Prilosec. The lawsuit halted the generic company's development of the generic drug for something like two years. In that time, AstraZeneca was able to make Prilosec a non-prescription drug, thus pulling the carpet out from under the generic manufacturer.
To this day, I really resist prescribing Nexium, just because I can't stand AstraZeneca for what they did. There are lots of alternatives like pantoprazole (Protonix), lansoprazole (Prevacid) or rabeprazole (AcipHex).
Even the medical school community poked holes in the Nexium hype, as shown in this article from the spoof newsletter Q Fever, which is sort of like The Onion for medical students.
So, yes, please topple some big pharma companies so that smaller companies can get some real work done.
* Microsoft says it will not file any lawsuits against developers over any patent issues
I don't know where you get that, especially since, two weeks after Novell shook hands with Microsoft over their deal, Steve Ballmer specifically said that non-Novell Linux was a target. In short, it is not good for Linux because it is not good for anyone outside of Novell. If Microsoft wanted interoperability, they didn't need Novell to do it. Why do you think they did need Novell?
Because Samba is distributed under the GPL, they won't be able to revoke the rights to Novell as long as Novell stays within the (letter of) the agreement.
Besides, in the past, the Samba team has demonstrated a professionalism that has put their detractors to shame, and I hope they can continue to uphold their standards. Witness what they said to SCO when SCO accused the evil Samba team of spreading the deadly plague of Open Source (all the while distributing Samba with their SCO Linux). Here's the letter from Samba to SCO:
Samba is developed and distributed under the GPL, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticising for its lack of care in ownership attribution. Because of this, we believe that Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of. Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Translation: "Up yours, SCO." But they say it in such a way that it will carry weight in business circles. In the same way, Allison's resignation makes a clear statement.
It would be a mistake to do otherwise; if the Samba team says, "Well, then I *un*-give you the code! Nyaah nyaah!", it would epitomise in the minds of executive decision-makers that Open Source is run by a bunch of immature J.Random Hackers From China who will revoke your license at the slightest provocation.
One only hopes that Novell will show some more understanding of how much turd they have now placed their foot in, and make some public gesture to show the IT world that OSS is alive and well. Sort of like what EV1 did. Novell's done a lot of good for OSS. I hope they continue.
Microsoft's software patents are only enforceable in the US. So no, I probably won't be affected and my PHB won't care since we're not part of the US.
Strider44, while I don't dispute that, technically, you are correct, I continue to be worried. I see too many people relying on their location outside the USA to protect them. Yes, we are grateful that the world, far from being just the USA, has a healthy number of countries who disagree with the US; but the USA just has way too much clout on this planet.
I envision the US government championing patent enforcement --their version of it-- to other countries, under the banner of IP protection, possibly rolling it into the same snowball as preventing DVD piracy. "Yes, Mr Prime Minister, as part of our trade agreement, you agree to the We-Will-To-Protect-IP clause. Just sign here on the dotted line..." And then suddenly one more country has agreed to crack down on Eric S. Raymond because he wrote that evil Fetchmail script that so egregiously violates Microsoft's patent of "doing things On A Computer".
Don't get too complacent about things happening with US law outside your jurisdiction. The OSS community needs to make a concerted push to get organizations and institutions, especially outside the US, using OSS. Once OSS is entrenched to some degree, it will be harder for Microsoft to impose its will outside the US, because there will be a tangible economic impact. From economic impact comes clout. For only when it hits the pocketbook will people and governments start feeling passionate about defending issues like freedom to process information.
Good luck trying to get pixel-perfect interoperability between MS Word and OOo. I can't even get OOo to interoperate with itself.
I was using OOo on my Linux (Kubuntu) system to make a Christmas card, embedding a picture and positioning the text so that I can print it out and then fold it into a Christmas card. But I don't have a printer hooked up, so I had to move it to OOo on my wife's Windows (2000) box to print it. But the text had mysteriously resized itself so that it no longer fit properly and spilled out off the page.
WTF!?? Both the Linux and the MS Win box use OOo v2, with the OpenDocument format. (I ended up having to export to PDF.)
This OOo is getting to be quite a kludge. I can't wait for them to go the Mozilla route and toss out the entire codebase, rewriting the whole thing from scratch.
Please quit trying to coverup the shocking truth with lies denying these truths. When I claimed the feds have databases of car movement on certain highway chokepoints (I-75 for example) that use soley tire RFID, I am not making it up.
But now expect me to end up with an inexplicable poisoning death/suicide for taking the time to point out these facts.
I was also the one to point out the forensic yellow dots in us printer firmware 5 years before the press learned about it.
I also exposed gasoline taggants first. (The gas taggants, NOT CAR TIRE TREADS, were used to back trace the purchase of the fuel used in the many georgia arsons a year back to catch the prankster-arsonists) The fbi falsely claimed tire tread and good hard work caught the arsonists... it was the chemical taggant forsed into all gasoline batches by secret federal laws. (a binary number based on trace non-volatile chemicals, semi unique per gas station delivery).
I don't know if what you claim is true or not. It sounds credible. For these and other statements posted as AC, it would be useful to establish a GPG-verifiable identity. I think this should go for all "whistleblower" type AC posts. That way someone else can't log in as AC and muddle the claim with some post like "Just kidding! I was messing with your mind!" or something.
The posting would need to be in plain text, with pre-defined line breaks (or else the GPG-signature wouldn't verify). It's a bit of a hassle --I tried to post with a GPG signature, but I couldn't let Slashdot wrap my lines for me. Hmm --oh, well.
Would it work if non-USA cell phones were used? I guess not British cell phones since the Brits seem to be vying for the title of Orwellian Big Brother, but suppose we went to Sweden or Japan or Venezuela and bought a cell phone there? I'm sure there would be GSM-type phones that would work within US borders when used with a US sim card.
Even if the vendor tries to lock the cell phone to a given service provider, there should be places that unlock cell phones. My brother-in-law travels to Hong Kong from time to time, and there's a street where these street vendors put up their stands. He brings them half a dozen cell phones and gives them money, and it takes about two minutes each to unlock each one.
This Big Brother stuff is getting scary. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I couldn't help laughing out loud at the concept of TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) being soundly slapped over the rump. The reason that "Neutral And Independent / May Bill Gates Live Forever" studies show Linux having a higher TCO is because of the up-front retraining investment needed. Microsoft portrays it as a steep, unworthwhile climb. But simply by doing the trial, Birmingham went over the hump already, and is already on the downhill slope where they can sit back and recoup their costs for years to come. Interviewer: So, Linux cost you more?
IT guy: Yeah, we had to learn stuff all over again and reconfigure everything. We blew so much money on that!
Interviewer: So, I guess it's a no-go for Linux, and you're going back to Microsoft?
IT guy: Are you kidding me? We already spent so much on Linux --why would we want to throw away everything we worked so hard for?
Bravo, Birmingham, for going through with the trial. I hope the word gets out --the bogeyman of TCO is what is keeping companies and institutions from taking the plunge.
1) appeared MS gave Novell money now, for Novell making payments later;
2) MS will help sell [Suse] Linux -- that means MS is distributing and bound by GPL2 code;
3) MS promised no patent attacks on Linux software used by Novell. This means the _SOFTWARE_ is free -- the promise wasn't protecting Novell users, per se, but the Linux software. Any other distro that uses the same software will find most of their software is covered by the MS-Novell deal.
What you fail to explain is why Microsoft specifically refers to Novell. If the software is free, as you say, then why not simply say that Microsoft won't sue anyone? You may answer that perhaps Microsoft simply happened to deal with Novell, and when they said "We won't sue Novell's customers", they really meant that they wouldn't be suing any customers. But that's patently false, since Steve Ballmer specifically said that the protection afforded Novell('s clients) is something that other distros wouldn't have. They even went out of their way to offer the same deal to Red Hat, so clearly Red Hat didn't have the same indemnity that you were suggesting would have applied to any user of the software.
You may say that that's a minor detail, with the important thing being that Microsoft is actually working with a Linux vendor! But keep in mind: Microsoft is not a technology company. Microsoft is a marketing company. As such, the perception of the marketplace is their lifeline and focus. You must admit that the outcome of the Microsoft-Novell pact is the perception of legitimacy in the vague threats about patents and intellectual property, similar to the SCO case.
Whether this is the deliberate intent of a conniving scheme, or simply a byproduct of Microsoft's genuine desire to support and promote Linux, is a matter of opinion. Given the past history of Microsoft with respect to software freedom, working with corporate partners, and throwing money around, I would side with the Slashdotters who are taking Microsoft's altruistic pronouncements with more than a grain of salt.
In the meantime, yes, some other nice things have resulted: Microsoft acknowledging the importance of Linux, the $380M to Novell, etc. Doesn't mean we stand by while the FUD is being spread about Software Freedom.
Mod parent insightful. I think we all agree that the GPL is pretty straightforward. However, judges have done stupid things in the past. Parent poster gives one possible way the (intent of the) GPL can be misinterpreted, and possibly still be within legal bounds. We Slashdotters should develop some debate about this so that we can collectively gain some insight into how to respond to the potential error in interpretation given above, in much the same way that we were able to brainstorm about the SCO fiasco. It might even help JMRI indirectly.
There's no need for further responses about how the parent poster (also the great-grandparent poster) should understand the GPL. I think he understands it perfectly, as do we all. But the judge... well, that's a different story.
Oh, and why isn't this on Groklaw already? This is a way more explosive issue than Java being open-sourced. This is the test of the GPL, for crying out loud.
I would like Linux to win the war. The reason is NOT so that Microsoft can go bankrupt (although that would be nice), or so that people can diss Windows (although that would be nice). It's not so that we can have a bigger market share than Redmond (although that would be nice).
To my mind, the war will be won when computer equipment manufacturers make their hardware available for Linux as much as they do for the market leader. I want to be able to buy the latest and greatest LCD projector mouse with built-in Wifi webcam, and not have to worry about whether some poor hacker in some corner of the world has worked all the bugs out of his loadable module. I want the manufacturer to provide the driver, and list requirements like: "Windows Vista, OS X v23.6, or Linux kernel 2.6.72" and have a CD that lets me use the thing.
All those people on either side of the debate, who say, "Why should we dumb down our geek OS for the average Joe?" or "Let's crush Microsoft under our heel!" --well, this is my goal for Linux winning. I don't care if Linux has 0.1% marketshare --if I can use it, and anyone else who wants to can use it, that's all I need.
As Linus says, we're not out to crush Microsoft. That's just a side effect.
Yes, vendors will try to lock you in, but when they can't, they'd rather have your business than not.
For example, I have a Treo 650. I could have gotten the newer Treo 700, but that only comes in Sprint and Verizon models, requiring that I choose which vendor into which I lock myself. The 650, on the other hand, has a "generic" version where I can choose my own vendor, so I chose T-mobile.
Now, T-mobile generally doesn't sell Treos. If you go to a T-mobile store and ask for one, they'll ask you to get a Windows-powered device, or at best Blackberry. But here I am with a Palm Treo, so, do they want my business? I asked them, and of course they said yes.
I am happily using my Treo, with the fairly inexpensive (+US$30) Unlimited Internet connection feature. Not only is it convenient to use the built-in browser to Google for nearby stores when I am travelling (Google: "barnes & noble [enter local zip code]"), but I can use Bluetooth dialup to connect my laptop to the Internet while I'm riding in the car, and never have to worry about finding a Wifi hotspot again.
If the makers of OpenMoko market the phone independently, I expect it to have appeal with Linux hackers at first. As the community develops and applications appear, it would have expanding appeal to borderline geeks, and then eventually to the population at large, although taking only a miniscule segment of the market. It would be similar to the Linksys WRT-54GL router, the improvements of which allow savvy IT staff to use it for their SOHO needs over a more expensive router.
What would be lacking would be the backing and marketing clout from a mainstream provider. Sure, they could sell a locked version to Verizon, who might promote the phones at their stores or sell at a subsidy, but then someone would crack it, and then we'd have cheap OpenMoki subsidized by Verizon being used on Cingular networks, or something like that.
Instead, perhaps the makers could partner with --oh, I don't know, some electronics retailers such as Best Buy, or computer makers such as Dell, to include the OpenMoko in some package. I haven't thought this through yet. But if they can get it out, then I'm sure the carriers would be happy to do business with them.
(Off-topic: one of the reasons I chose T-mobile over Verizon is that Verizon doesn't do GSM phones or SIM cards. How does Verizon expect their phones to work overseas if they don't use GSM? Or is it just that Verizon users never go anywhere?)
It seems to me that the fact that IE7 breaks things is good, and the fact that IE7 is automatically pushed is also good. Here's why --and, no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic.
We've long known that the dominant browser on people's desktops is a broken IE that is a nightmare for Web designers trying to be standards-compliant. IE7 is a lot more standards-compliant than IE6, to the point that it readily breaks web sites that were designed for IE6. Presumably it brings it much more in line with "real" browsers like, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, etc. [1]. I actually think it's a good thing that millions of web developers cried out in terror at the incompatible web sites, and were suddenly silenced by this realization: it was because they had been following the WRONG standard of IE6, and now they could finally start following some web standards.
Moreover, it's easy to lapse into a procrastinative denial, saying, "Yeah, I know this is incorrect web design, but --hey, everyone's using IE6." Well, now they're not. Thanks to the update, a substantial number of people will be using IE7, like it or not, so if you thought you could get away with cruddy web design because the market share of Firefox is only 0.01% --well, go have another think.
You know how certain web sites would say, "Best viewed with Internet Explorer 4 or above --go download yours here"? Well, now you can say, "Best viewed with IE7 --and if you don't have it, go download this."
Even though I hate Microsoft with a passion (been Linux user for over 3 years now), I think that following the WWW standard at the expense of compatibility is the first truly good thing that Microsoft has done in a long, long time. (Of course, since I don't actually use Microsoft, my info might be all wrong, so please disillusion me as appropriate.)
----- [1] listed in order of passing the ACID2 test, but I might have gotten the order wrong
I agree with the parent and sibling posters. An much-touted feature of Firefox is that it can be extended, but how do we know that the extensions are benign? Is there any way to guarantee / certify / vouch for the lack of subtle malware in the extensions that we so blithely download?
That last question is almost rhetorical; I would love to see anyone answer anything other than "NO". If you thought ActiveX had vulnerabilities where, under certain specific conditions, evil hackers can get you to execute arbitrary code, then what the heck would you say to some extension that said, "Hey! Download me! Install me! Run me!" And if, like me, you are a Linux fan who enjoys thumbing his nose at how vulnerable the MS Windows environment is, then wouldn't the cross-platform XUL base be even more of a security risk?
In fact, if I were an evil hacker, I would write this benign and cool extension --I dunno, makes it easy to download pr0n or something-- and get it really popular. Then once it becomes popular, I would add the new feature that it rootkits your computer or something --people with the auto-upgrade would never know, and even with manual upgrade, most people would answer the question "New version! Want to upgrade?" with "Yes".
Personally, I believe there should be a two approved classes of extensions.
Class 1: such extensions are just a way for the Mozilla developers to add functionality without applying a patch, and without adding it for people who don't need the function. Such extensions are written by the MozDev team themselves.
Class 2: the source code of the extensions have been reviewed and signed by the MozDev team. They weren't written by members of MozDev, but the code has been found to be trustworthy by at least two people. (Or, optionally, by 3 people who aren't part of MozDev.) And, by this, I don't mean that the extension is "cool" or "neat-o" --I mean some effort is made to see that it's not malware.
Everything else is unclassed, and is to be installed at your own risk, just like downloading arbitrary software off the Internet.
If Konqueror ever gets a decent and selective adblocking function, I am seriously thinking of switching back from Firefox to that overloaded piece of Krap, just for security.
[Okay, so Konq isn't really "Krap", but it sounded good, and I needed to fit a "K" in somewhere.]
Yes: I, a KDE fan, can't use KWord: no Word import
on
KOffice 1.6 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've been a KDE fan ever since Mandrake 8.1, and later Kubuntu 5.10. It would be very elegant to be able to use KWord and the KOffice suite, since it integrates so well, and I can use the KIOslaves and take advantage of all the KDE features, including my favourite, completely configurable key bindings.
Nevertheless, KWord's inability to export to MS Word format is a dealbreaker. Not only don't they have a working MS Word export function, they don't even have a non-working one. They haven't started. There are no plans to do any work at all on exporting to MS Word format in the near future.
I don't have any particular fondness for MS Word, but sometimes you just need to create one when, for example, working with some complete compu-noob who is already approaching the seizure threshold just from trying to understand what a computer is; trying to explain how to convert from ODF might just send him into a coma.
There are several other things that also make KWord hard to use. On my installation of Kubuntu, KWord seems to have a screen-refreshing problem: I page down, then page up, and it just shows a blank page. Scrolling around makes the edges refresh slightly, but otherwise the page stays blank, and I have to jump through hoops to make the words appear again. At first I thought that the words really were erased and I had started to re-type.
KWord has struck me as a "very good idea" with some way to go before the implementation reflects the reality. Unfortunately, "elegant" isn't enough to get my work done, so I reluctantly installed AbiWord --a well-done piece of work, and preferable over OpenOffice v2 simply because of its loading speed if nothing else. (Yes, I know about pre-loading, and I know about disabling Java to make it run faster.)
Some time ago, someone sent a letter to the Securities Exchange Commission and posted a copy on Slashdot. It pointed out irregularities in SCOX stock price, such as the artificially periodic transactions that maintained the price at $4 and didn't make sense in a free market environment.
Does anyone know where on Slashdot or on the Web we can find a copy of that letter? I don't remember enough specific keywords to narrow down my web search.
I think LGPL is not really practical in a truly hostile situation. Here's a scenario --and please correct me if I'm wrong.
You, the hard-working, altruistic FLOSS coder, produce SuperLibrary v1.0, and license it under LGPL.
Big Evil Corporation comes along, takes your LGPL, modifies and improves it, and makes SuperLibrary v2.0. They link it with TheirMoneyMakingSoftware, and sells their program. People buy it, they make a lot of money, take vacations in the South Pacific, etc.
You say to Big Evil Corporation, "Hey, let's see the source for your new improved SuperLibrary."
Big Evil Corporation just gives you the source for SuperLibrary v1.0 and says, "We never changed your library. We just added new functionality in our part of the program, the proprietary part, and you can't have it."
How are you going to prove them wrong? Is there a way to dissect a binary and see if the modules are intact?
With the GPL, you have everything. So, you can try compiling the complete source code and see if you get the same binary. If you don't, then there may be some hanky panky going around. But until you can get a complete binary and compare the two, you never know if there's some back door or hidden function in their binary that doesn't show up in the source code because they're not giving you the full source code.
Can someone tell me that I'm wrong? Is there in fact a way to look into the modules in a binary and do a binary comparison of just certain portions of the code? (And can Big Evil Corporation defeat this by linking in BOTH your SuperLibrary v1.0 AND their own SuperLibrary v2.0, so that you can see your own modules but you don't recognize that a different version of your modules is also contained in their supposedly proprietary version of their binary code?) Any insight here would be appreciated.
Is this meme still going around at Slashdot? This is unbelievable.
So let me get this straight: If someone produces some sort of product and puts a bunch of limitations on how I can or cannot use said product
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.
[I actually said this before, a few months ago. This is from my comment at http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188343&c id=15529362 --and I even reposted this as AC another time. If someone who's not new to Slashdot still thinks it's the GPL that's causing problems, I would have to consider the possibility that the "misunderstanding" was deliberate. Anyway, bleah. This is getting old.]
I don't know if the prolonged practice of law has turned Mr. Beckerman into a law-processing zombie, but the answers he gives are beyond simply uninformative, to the extent that he wants to be correct and at the same time cover his ass.
Look at the answer to Question 7, with the multi-part question about copying CD's. I'm sure all of us would have liked to know if we can legally copy a scratched CD, etc.
Instead of producing any useful information, Mr. Beckerman simply tells the questioner that he is wrong. Fancy that. You ask a question, hoping to get info which is right, but realizing that you have to judge for yourself whether the answer is right or wrong. Instead, he says that your question is wrong.
And that first sentence in Answer #7, "Isn't this a multiple question?" What the heck? First of all, are you charging by the question? Maybe you are. Maybe you set a limit of 10 questions and are annoyed that we're sneaking multiple questions in one.
But, more tellingly... he doesn't see the "multiple question" as a single question! Four_One_Nine was expanding on the question to clarify what he wanted to ask. Mr. Beckerman interpreted the questions literally and failed to see the meaning behind the questions.
In fact, it seems that for all of the questions and comments, Mr. Beckerman has processed the words and given some more words as output, which are all correct but fail to grasp the intent behind the words. Is he, as a law geek, outgeeking us, or is it just that I'm such a geek that I can see the various questions meanings which are not obvious to the lay person?
And then... this takes the cake:
You don't know what you are talking about.
Okay, so... any more info? Where is the questioner wrong? Can we inform him any further? Just saying "You don't know what you're talking about" doesn't make him know any more about what he's talking about.
I'm trying to imagine me treating my patients the same way:
"Doctor, I have this really bad chest pain when I try to breathe! Am I going to die?" "No." "What's causing the pain?" "Firing of receptors in the nerve endings."
If I ever talk that way to my patients, someone please fucking kill me with a flying chair or something.
Mr. Beckerman says: "They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers... And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process."
No, Mr. Beckerman: your apparently inability to look beyond the words that form our queries, and your obvious need to be correct at the expense of being helpful, is what is greatly helping that process of obliterating any respect I might have for you and your colleagues.
_____ Two people in a hot air balloon drifted into a thick fog and became hopelessly lost. Presently, they noticed that they were drifting next to a tall building looming out of the fog, and decided to ask the inhabitants for help. Spotting a man standing at one window gazing through the fog at them, one of the balloonists called out: "Excuse me! Where are we?" The man in the building stood in thought for a while, and then replied: "You're in a hot air balloon." The balloonist called back: "Ray Beckerman, is that you?"
Hey, looks like it works! I went to http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ and looked up the Irish artist Enya, and it pointed me to Celtic Woman and Méav. I haven't heard of them. I might just download a song or two, and if I like the style, I think I'm going to buy some CD's.
(Yeah, I know, the irony of downloading a copyrighted song to see if I'll buy the CD.)
Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents? Do they go to Amazon's site and scan the "People who bought this CD also bought ___" comments?
Somewhat OT, but: when I tried to RTFA (now you see why this is OT?), the site just showed a summary that ended with: "Click on the sponsor logo to read this article and all of Salon.com for FREE".
I don't see any sponsor logo. Maybe that's because I've got Adblock + Filterset.G Updater, or maybe the Javascript slammed into my NoScript extension.
Can someone confirm that surfing with IE would show some big flashy logo that you have to click on to see the article?
Anyway, if they make me choose between clicking on an ad and not reading the article, it's a pretty easy choice for me.
Similarly to you, I had made the switch from Mandrake to Kubuntu; for me, it was a year ago. I found that, unlike the k/Ubuntu distros, upgrading Mandrake didn't work, so I had to keep reinstalling from scratch, putting all my config tweaks into a script file so that I could easily reproduce them after I had made yet another clean install of the newest version. Urpmi was easy to use but would produce broken installations from time to time; I didn't realize what the problem was until I read about how other people had no problems with other package managers. (Example: I installed third-party packages, such as "Thac's RPMs", and urpmi happily installed them without telling me that the dependencies were messed up.) I got tired of reinstalling new versions every time a new version came out, so I stopped at v10.0-official (which is why I still call it Mandrake, since the silly "Mandriva" name change didn't come until later).
Like you, I found that Mandrake/Mandriva's printer config for my HP PSC-1210 worked smoothly whereas Kubuntu's doesn't. Where exactly did you find the printer config files (pathnames), and where did you insert them into Kubuntu to make it work? I would love to know details. If a reply to this posting is not appropriate, please email me at "kwtm-zrezwtid" under tamlylin stripe net, except replace "under" with "at" and "stripe" with "dot". Thanks.
I read with some skepticism the negative comments[1] regarding Roland Piquepaille, some postulating that some staff member of Slashdot has a secret agreement to accept his submissions.
Well, now, this takes the cake. Egyptians using nanoparticles? This is news?
Ahem, In Other News... When Gandhi incited civil disobedience against British rule by picking up a pinch of salt from the sea, those sodium chloride particles were less than one nanometre across![2] OMG! The Indians used nanotechnology to overthrow the British!!! WTF! Is this a harbinger of the war-like uses of nanotechnology??? BBQ!!!1!!11!one!1!
Can we have a topic devoted to Roland Piquepaille so that we can adjust our viewing preferences in accordance with the amount of adoration we feel for this Submitter of Many Slashdot Articles?
[2] (Yeah, I know the actual particles of salt he held were more than 1nm across, but then it dissolved into the sweat from his fingertips, and the salt regrouped into nanoparticles that spread out in a thin layer across his fingertips.)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I had been looking forward to watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" about how the irrefutable truth about global warming has been suppressed for political purposes. Before I had a chance to watch it, I read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" (just last week). I was surprised that it was trying to refute the arguments of those who believe in global warming.
Normally, I would have concluded a political agenda, but Michael Crichton is known for doing a lot of research before writing his novels, and presenting an issue in the form of a story. So I paid more attention. Specifically, as another poster had said, what is called into question is whether there is a man-made cause of global warming, and specifically whether cardon dioxide emissions are the culprit.
Crichton invites us to take a look at the original sources from which we can draw our own conclusions about whether there really is global warming. He has a number of articles written by people who believe in man-made causes of global warming, who nevertheless have had to publish data showing otherwise.
I have to admit that most of my beliefs about global warming have come from Slashdot; I can't really cite any particular journal. So, I guess I'll have to decide for myself. Is there global warming? Is it man-made?
Anyone else read "State of Fear"?
I anticipate some derisive comments about how Mantel is a bad guy, and Jeremy Allison is a good guy for quitting. If this does happen, it would start to become a mudslingfest like the name calling at the start of the Iraq war.
I had been hoping to hear Mantel's views on the MS/Novell deal, seeing what further insight he could provide. Disappointingly, he only points to the good side of the deal, and doesn't explain why this outweighs the bad side. We already know the good part: that MS has acknowledged the importance of Linux. No one is arguing with that. But the point is, MS is poisoning the waters, as pointed out by Allison's statement, and that is definitely a bad thing.
It's like some small Pacific island country who has just acquired nuclear weapons, and now the USA is going to come invade them with two navy fleets. The island country's president says: "I see this as a good thing: the USA is now taking us seriously." Yeah, right.
Maybe Mantel hasn't had time to formulate his thoughts and reactions to the negative aspects of the deal yet. But you can't make something good just by pointing out the positive aspects and ignoring the negative. You might try it on those populace of those states whose IQ's are in the lower half, but it's not going to work here on Slashdot.
Another example is esomeprazole (Nexium), the S-isomer of racemic omeprazole (Prilosec), hence the name. (The R-isomer is inactive.) So, basically Prilosec is a 2:1 dilution of Nexium (stomach medicine marketed as "The Purple Pill").
... isn't 40mg of Nexium the same as 80mg of Prilosec? So wouldn't you expect that more Nexium works better than less Prilosec?" The schmuck had no good answer for that. She knew as well as we that the "new improved" Nexium was just smoke and mirrors.
...) who was about to bring out a cheaper form of generic Prilosec. The lawsuit halted the generic company's development of the generic drug for something like two years. In that time, AstraZeneca was able to make Prilosec a non-prescription drug, thus pulling the carpet out from under the generic manufacturer.
I remember when Astra-Zeneca sent some poor inexperienced sales schmuck, some biochem major, to promote Nexium, setting up a nice dinner for my colleagues and me at our clinic. They gave a PowerPoint(tm) presentation on how Nexium was found to be much more effective than Prilosec, complete with nice colour graphs and stuff. The kicker was, they were comparing 40mg of Nexium with 20mg of Prilosec.
Our ophthalmologist (the eye specialist, for crying out loud!) raised his hand for a question: "I'm an ophthalmologist and I don't prescribe stomach medicine," he apologized in advance, "but
Not so incidentally, prior to Prilosec becoming non-prescription, AstraZeneca also sued some manufacturer of generic drugs (was it Andrax? Not sure
To this day, I really resist prescribing Nexium, just because I can't stand AstraZeneca for what they did. There are lots of alternatives like pantoprazole (Protonix), lansoprazole (Prevacid) or rabeprazole (AcipHex).
Even the medical school community poked holes in the Nexium hype, as shown in this article from the spoof newsletter Q Fever, which is sort of like The Onion for medical students.
So, yes, please topple some big pharma companies so that smaller companies can get some real work done.
I don't know where you get that, especially since, two weeks after Novell shook hands with Microsoft over their deal, Steve Ballmer specifically said that non-Novell Linux was a target.
In short, it is not good for Linux because it is not good for anyone outside of Novell. If Microsoft wanted interoperability, they didn't need Novell to do it. Why do you think they did need Novell?
Besides, in the past, the Samba team has demonstrated a professionalism that has put their detractors to shame, and I hope they can continue to uphold their standards. Witness what they said to SCO when SCO accused the evil Samba team of spreading the deadly plague of Open Source (all the while distributing Samba with their SCO Linux). Here's the letter from Samba to SCO:
Translation: "Up yours, SCO." But they say it in such a way that it will carry weight in business circles. In the same way, Allison's resignation makes a clear statement.
It would be a mistake to do otherwise; if the Samba team says, "Well, then I *un*-give you the code! Nyaah nyaah!", it would epitomise in the minds of executive decision-makers that Open Source is run by a bunch of immature J.Random Hackers From China who will revoke your license at the slightest provocation.
One only hopes that Novell will show some more understanding of how much turd they have now placed their foot in, and make some public gesture to show the IT world that OSS is alive and well. Sort of like what EV1 did. Novell's done a lot of good for OSS. I hope they continue.
Strider44, while I don't dispute that, technically, you are correct, I continue to be worried. I see too many people relying on their location outside the USA to protect them. Yes, we are grateful that the world, far from being just the USA, has a healthy number of countries who disagree with the US; but the USA just has way too much clout on this planet.
I envision the US government championing patent enforcement --their version of it-- to other countries, under the banner of IP protection, possibly rolling it into the same snowball as preventing DVD piracy. "Yes, Mr Prime Minister, as part of our trade agreement, you agree to the We-Will-To-Protect-IP clause. Just sign here on the dotted line
Don't get too complacent about things happening with US law outside your jurisdiction. The OSS community needs to make a concerted push to get organizations and institutions, especially outside the US, using OSS. Once OSS is entrenched to some degree, it will be harder for Microsoft to impose its will outside the US, because there will be a tangible economic impact. From economic impact comes clout. For only when it hits the pocketbook will people and governments start feeling passionate about defending issues like freedom to process information.
Good luck trying to get pixel-perfect interoperability between MS Word and OOo. I can't even get OOo to interoperate with itself.
I was using OOo on my Linux (Kubuntu) system to make a Christmas card, embedding a picture and positioning the text so that I can print it out and then fold it into a Christmas card. But I don't have a printer hooked up, so I had to move it to OOo on my wife's Windows (2000) box to print it. But the text had mysteriously resized itself so that it no longer fit properly and spilled out off the page.
WTF!?? Both the Linux and the MS Win box use OOo v2, with the OpenDocument format. (I ended up having to export to PDF.)
This OOo is getting to be quite a kludge. I can't wait for them to go the Mozilla route and toss out the entire codebase, rewriting the whole thing from scratch.
I don't know if what you claim is true or not. It sounds credible.
For these and other statements posted as AC, it would be useful to establish a GPG-verifiable identity. I think this should go for all "whistleblower" type AC posts. That way someone else can't log in as AC and muddle the claim with some post like "Just kidding! I was messing with your mind!" or something.
The posting would need to be in plain text, with pre-defined line breaks (or else the GPG-signature wouldn't verify). It's a bit of a hassle --I tried to post with a GPG signature, but I couldn't let Slashdot wrap my lines for me. Hmm --oh, well.
Would it work if non-USA cell phones were used? I guess not British cell phones since the Brits seem to be vying for the title of Orwellian Big Brother, but suppose we went to Sweden or Japan or Venezuela and bought a cell phone there? I'm sure there would be GSM-type phones that would work within US borders when used with a US sim card.
Even if the vendor tries to lock the cell phone to a given service provider, there should be places that unlock cell phones. My brother-in-law travels to Hong Kong from time to time, and there's a street where these street vendors put up their stands. He brings them half a dozen cell phones and gives them money, and it takes about two minutes each to unlock each one.
This Big Brother stuff is getting scary. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I couldn't help laughing out loud at the concept of TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) being soundly slapped over the rump. The reason that "Neutral And Independent / May Bill Gates Live Forever" studies show Linux having a higher TCO is because of the up-front retraining investment needed. Microsoft portrays it as a steep, unworthwhile climb. But simply by doing the trial, Birmingham went over the hump already, and is already on the downhill slope where they can sit back and recoup their costs for years to come.
Interviewer: So, Linux cost you more?
IT guy: Yeah, we had to learn stuff all over again and reconfigure everything. We blew so much money on that!
Interviewer: So, I guess it's a no-go for Linux, and you're going back to Microsoft?
IT guy: Are you kidding me? We already spent so much on Linux --why would we want to throw away everything we worked so hard for?
Bravo, Birmingham, for going through with the trial. I hope the word gets out --the bogeyman of TCO is what is keeping companies and institutions from taking the plunge.
What you fail to explain is why Microsoft specifically refers to Novell. If the software is free, as you say, then why not simply say that Microsoft won't sue anyone? You may answer that perhaps Microsoft simply happened to deal with Novell, and when they said "We won't sue Novell's customers", they really meant that they wouldn't be suing any customers. But that's patently false, since Steve Ballmer specifically said that the protection afforded Novell('s clients) is something that other distros wouldn't have. They even went out of their way to offer the same deal to Red Hat, so clearly Red Hat didn't have the same indemnity that you were suggesting would have applied to any user of the software.
You may say that that's a minor detail, with the important thing being that Microsoft is actually working with a Linux vendor! But keep in mind: Microsoft is not a technology company. Microsoft is a marketing company. As such, the perception of the marketplace is their lifeline and focus. You must admit that the outcome of the Microsoft-Novell pact is the perception of legitimacy in the vague threats about patents and intellectual property, similar to the SCO case.
Whether this is the deliberate intent of a conniving scheme, or simply a byproduct of Microsoft's genuine desire to support and promote Linux, is a matter of opinion. Given the past history of Microsoft with respect to software freedom, working with corporate partners, and throwing money around, I would side with the Slashdotters who are taking Microsoft's altruistic pronouncements with more than a grain of salt.
In the meantime, yes, some other nice things have resulted: Microsoft acknowledging the importance of Linux, the $380M to Novell, etc. Doesn't mean we stand by while the FUD is being spread about Software Freedom.
Mod parent insightful. I think we all agree that the GPL is pretty straightforward. However, judges have done stupid things in the past. Parent poster gives one possible way the (intent of the) GPL can be misinterpreted, and possibly still be within legal bounds. We Slashdotters should develop some debate about this so that we can collectively gain some insight into how to respond to the potential error in interpretation given above, in much the same way that we were able to brainstorm about the SCO fiasco. It might even help JMRI indirectly.
... well, that's a different story.
There's no need for further responses about how the parent poster (also the great-grandparent poster) should understand the GPL. I think he understands it perfectly, as do we all. But the judge
Oh, and why isn't this on Groklaw already? This is a way more explosive issue than Java being open-sourced. This is the test of the GPL, for crying out loud.
I would like Linux to win the war. The reason is NOT so that Microsoft can go bankrupt (although that would be nice), or so that people can diss Windows (although that would be nice). It's not so that we can have a bigger market share than Redmond (although that would be nice).
To my mind, the war will be won when computer equipment manufacturers make their hardware available for Linux as much as they do for the market leader. I want to be able to buy the latest and greatest LCD projector mouse with built-in Wifi webcam, and not have to worry about whether some poor hacker in some corner of the world has worked all the bugs out of his loadable module. I want the manufacturer to provide the driver, and list requirements like: "Windows Vista, OS X v23.6, or Linux kernel 2.6.72" and have a CD that lets me use the thing.
All those people on either side of the debate, who say, "Why should we dumb down our geek OS for the average Joe?" or "Let's crush Microsoft under our heel!" --well, this is my goal for Linux winning. I don't care if Linux has 0.1% marketshare --if I can use it, and anyone else who wants to can use it, that's all I need.
As Linus says, we're not out to crush Microsoft. That's just a side effect.
Yes, vendors will try to lock you in, but when they can't, they'd rather have your business than not.
For example, I have a Treo 650. I could have gotten the newer Treo 700, but that only comes in Sprint and Verizon models, requiring that I choose which vendor into which I lock myself. The 650, on the other hand, has a "generic" version where I can choose my own vendor, so I chose T-mobile.
Now, T-mobile generally doesn't sell Treos. If you go to a T-mobile store and ask for one, they'll ask you to get a Windows-powered device, or at best Blackberry. But here I am with a Palm Treo, so, do they want my business? I asked them, and of course they said yes.
I am happily using my Treo, with the fairly inexpensive (+US$30) Unlimited Internet connection feature. Not only is it convenient to use the built-in browser to Google for nearby stores when I am travelling (Google: "barnes & noble [enter local zip code]"), but I can use Bluetooth dialup to connect my laptop to the Internet while I'm riding in the car, and never have to worry about finding a Wifi hotspot again.
If the makers of OpenMoko market the phone independently, I expect it to have appeal with Linux hackers at first. As the community develops and applications appear, it would have expanding appeal to borderline geeks, and then eventually to the population at large, although taking only a miniscule segment of the market. It would be similar to the Linksys WRT-54GL router, the improvements of which allow savvy IT staff to use it for their SOHO needs over a more expensive router.
What would be lacking would be the backing and marketing clout from a mainstream provider. Sure, they could sell a locked version to Verizon, who might promote the phones at their stores or sell at a subsidy, but then someone would crack it, and then we'd have cheap OpenMoki subsidized by Verizon being used on Cingular networks, or something like that.
Instead, perhaps the makers could partner with --oh, I don't know, some electronics retailers such as Best Buy, or computer makers such as Dell, to include the OpenMoko in some package. I haven't thought this through yet. But if they can get it out, then I'm sure the carriers would be happy to do business with them.
(Off-topic: one of the reasons I chose T-mobile over Verizon is that Verizon doesn't do GSM phones or SIM cards. How does Verizon expect their phones to work overseas if they don't use GSM? Or is it just that Verizon users never go anywhere?)
It seems to me that the fact that IE7 breaks things is good, and the fact that IE7 is automatically pushed is also good. Here's why --and, no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic.
We've long known that the dominant browser on people's desktops is a broken IE that is a nightmare for Web designers trying to be standards-compliant. IE7 is a lot more standards-compliant than IE6, to the point that it readily breaks web sites that were designed for IE6. Presumably it brings it much more in line with "real" browsers like, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, etc. [1]. I actually think it's a good thing that millions of web developers cried out in terror at the incompatible web sites, and were suddenly silenced by this realization: it was because they had been following the WRONG standard of IE6, and now they could finally start following some web standards.
Moreover, it's easy to lapse into a procrastinative denial, saying, "Yeah, I know this is incorrect web design, but --hey, everyone's using IE6." Well, now they're not. Thanks to the update, a substantial number of people will be using IE7, like it or not, so if you thought you could get away with cruddy web design because the market share of Firefox is only 0.01% --well, go have another think.
You know how certain web sites would say, "Best viewed with Internet Explorer 4 or above --go download yours here"? Well, now you can say, "Best viewed with IE7 --and if you don't have it, go download this."
Even though I hate Microsoft with a passion (been Linux user for over 3 years now), I think that following the WWW standard at the expense of compatibility is the first truly good thing that Microsoft has done in a long, long time. (Of course, since I don't actually use Microsoft, my info might be all wrong, so please disillusion me as appropriate.)
-----
[1] listed in order of passing the ACID2 test, but I might have gotten the order wrong
I agree with the parent and sibling posters. An much-touted feature of Firefox is that it can be extended, but how do we know that the extensions are benign? Is there any way to guarantee / certify / vouch for the lack of subtle malware in the extensions that we so blithely download?
That last question is almost rhetorical; I would love to see anyone answer anything other than "NO". If you thought ActiveX had vulnerabilities where, under certain specific conditions, evil hackers can get you to execute arbitrary code, then what the heck would you say to some extension that said, "Hey! Download me! Install me! Run me!" And if, like me, you are a Linux fan who enjoys thumbing his nose at how vulnerable the MS Windows environment is, then wouldn't the cross-platform XUL base be even more of a security risk?
In fact, if I were an evil hacker, I would write this benign and cool extension --I dunno, makes it easy to download pr0n or something-- and get it really popular. Then once it becomes popular, I would add the new feature that it rootkits your computer or something --people with the auto-upgrade would never know, and even with manual upgrade, most people would answer the question "New version! Want to upgrade?" with "Yes".
Personally, I believe there should be a two approved classes of extensions.
Class 1: such extensions are just a way for the Mozilla developers to add functionality without applying a patch, and without adding it for people who don't need the function. Such extensions are written by the MozDev team themselves.
Class 2: the source code of the extensions have been reviewed and signed by the MozDev team. They weren't written by members of MozDev, but the code has been found to be trustworthy by at least two people. (Or, optionally, by 3 people who aren't part of MozDev.) And, by this, I don't mean that the extension is "cool" or "neat-o" --I mean some effort is made to see that it's not malware.
Everything else is unclassed, and is to be installed at your own risk, just like downloading arbitrary software off the Internet.
If Konqueror ever gets a decent and selective adblocking function, I am seriously thinking of switching back from Firefox to that overloaded piece of Krap, just for security.
[Okay, so Konq isn't really "Krap", but it sounded good, and I needed to fit a "K" in somewhere.]
I've been a KDE fan ever since Mandrake 8.1, and later Kubuntu 5.10. It would be very elegant to be able to use KWord and the KOffice suite, since it integrates so well, and I can use the KIOslaves and take advantage of all the KDE features, including my favourite, completely configurable key bindings.
Nevertheless, KWord's inability to export to MS Word format is a dealbreaker. Not only don't they have a working MS Word export function, they don't even have a non-working one. They haven't started. There are no plans to do any work at all on exporting to MS Word format in the near future.
I don't have any particular fondness for MS Word, but sometimes you just need to create one when, for example, working with some complete compu-noob who is already approaching the seizure threshold just from trying to understand what a computer is; trying to explain how to convert from ODF might just send him into a coma.
There are several other things that also make KWord hard to use. On my installation of Kubuntu, KWord seems to have a screen-refreshing problem: I page down, then page up, and it just shows a blank page. Scrolling around makes the edges refresh slightly, but otherwise the page stays blank, and I have to jump through hoops to make the words appear again. At first I thought that the words really were erased and I had started to re-type.
KWord has struck me as a "very good idea" with some way to go before the implementation reflects the reality. Unfortunately, "elegant" isn't enough to get my work done, so I reluctantly installed AbiWord --a well-done piece of work, and preferable over OpenOffice v2 simply because of its loading speed if nothing else. (Yes, I know about pre-loading, and I know about disabling Java to make it run faster.)
Some time ago, someone sent a letter to the Securities Exchange Commission and posted a copy on Slashdot. It pointed out irregularities in SCOX stock price, such as the artificially periodic transactions that maintained the price at $4 and didn't make sense in a free market environment.
Does anyone know where on Slashdot or on the Web we can find a copy of that letter? I don't remember enough specific keywords to narrow down my web search.
I think LGPL is not really practical in a truly hostile situation. Here's a scenario --and please correct me if I'm wrong.
You, the hard-working, altruistic FLOSS coder, produce SuperLibrary v1.0, and license it under LGPL.
Big Evil Corporation comes along, takes your LGPL, modifies and improves it, and makes SuperLibrary v2.0. They link it with TheirMoneyMakingSoftware, and sells their program. People buy it, they make a lot of money, take vacations in the South Pacific, etc.
You say to Big Evil Corporation, "Hey, let's see the source for your new improved SuperLibrary."
Big Evil Corporation just gives you the source for SuperLibrary v1.0 and says, "We never changed your library. We just added new functionality in our part of the program, the proprietary part, and you can't have it."
How are you going to prove them wrong? Is there a way to dissect a binary and see if the modules are intact?
With the GPL, you have everything. So, you can try compiling the complete source code and see if you get the same binary. If you don't, then there may be some hanky panky going around. But until you can get a complete binary and compare the two, you never know if there's some back door or hidden function in their binary that doesn't show up in the source code because they're not giving you the full source code.
Can someone tell me that I'm wrong? Is there in fact a way to look into the modules in a binary and do a binary comparison of just certain portions of the code? (And can Big Evil Corporation defeat this by linking in BOTH your SuperLibrary v1.0 AND their own SuperLibrary v2.0, so that you can see your own modules but you don't recognize that a different version of your modules is also contained in their supposedly proprietary version of their binary code?) Any insight here would be appreciated.
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.
[I actually said this before, a few months ago. This is from my comment at http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188343&
If someone who's not new to Slashdot still thinks it's the GPL that's causing problems, I would have to consider the possibility that the "misunderstanding" was deliberate.
Anyway, bleah. This is getting old.]
Look at the answer to Question 7, with the multi-part question about copying CD's. I'm sure all of us would have liked to know if we can legally copy a scratched CD, etc.
Instead of producing any useful information, Mr. Beckerman simply tells the questioner that he is wrong. Fancy that. You ask a question, hoping to get info which is right, but realizing that you have to judge for yourself whether the answer is right or wrong. Instead, he says that your question is wrong.
And that first sentence in Answer #7, "Isn't this a multiple question?" What the heck? First of all, are you charging by the question? Maybe you are. Maybe you set a limit of 10 questions and are annoyed that we're sneaking multiple questions in one.
But, more tellingly
In fact, it seems that for all of the questions and comments, Mr. Beckerman has processed the words and given some more words as output, which are all correct but fail to grasp the intent behind the words. Is he, as a law geek, outgeeking us, or is it just that I'm such a geek that I can see the various questions meanings which are not obvious to the lay person?
And then
Okay, so
I'm trying to imagine me treating my patients the same way:
"Doctor, I have this really bad chest pain when I try to breathe! Am I going to die?"
"No."
"What's causing the pain?"
"Firing of receptors in the nerve endings."
If I ever talk that way to my patients, someone please fucking kill me with a flying chair or something.
Mr. Beckerman says: "They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers
No, Mr. Beckerman: your apparently inability to look beyond the words that form our queries, and your obvious need to be correct at the expense of being helpful, is what is greatly helping that process of obliterating any respect I might have for you and your colleagues.
_____
Two people in a hot air balloon drifted into a thick fog and became hopelessly lost. Presently, they noticed that they were drifting next to a tall building looming out of the fog, and decided to ask the inhabitants for help. Spotting a man standing at one window gazing through the fog at them, one of the balloonists called out:
"Excuse me! Where are we?"
The man in the building stood in thought for a while, and then replied: "You're in a hot air balloon."
The balloonist called back: "Ray Beckerman, is that you?"
Hey, looks like it works! I went to http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ and looked up the Irish artist Enya, and it pointed me to Celtic Woman and Méav. I haven't heard of them. I might just download a song or two, and if I like the style, I think I'm going to buy some CD's.
(Yeah, I know, the irony of downloading a copyrighted song to see if I'll buy the CD.)
Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents? Do they go to Amazon's site and scan the "People who bought this CD also bought ___" comments?
Somewhat OT, but: when I tried to RTFA (now you see why this is OT?), the site just showed a summary that ended with: "Click on the sponsor logo to read this article and all of Salon.com for FREE".
I don't see any sponsor logo. Maybe that's because I've got Adblock + Filterset.G Updater, or maybe the Javascript slammed into my NoScript extension.
Can someone confirm that surfing with IE would show some big flashy logo that you have to click on to see the article?
Anyway, if they make me choose between clicking on an ad and not reading the article, it's a pretty easy choice for me.
Similarly to you, I had made the switch from Mandrake to Kubuntu; for me, it was a year ago. I found that, unlike the k/Ubuntu distros, upgrading Mandrake didn't work, so I had to keep reinstalling from scratch, putting all my config tweaks into a script file so that I could easily reproduce them after I had made yet another clean install of the newest version. Urpmi was easy to use but would produce broken installations from time to time; I didn't realize what the problem was until I read about how other people had no problems with other package managers. (Example: I installed third-party packages, such as "Thac's RPMs", and urpmi happily installed them without telling me that the dependencies were messed up.) I got tired of reinstalling new versions every time a new version came out, so I stopped at v10.0-official (which is why I still call it Mandrake, since the silly "Mandriva" name change didn't come until later).
Like you, I found that Mandrake/Mandriva's printer config for my HP PSC-1210 worked smoothly whereas Kubuntu's doesn't. Where exactly did you find the printer config files (pathnames), and where did you insert them into Kubuntu to make it work? I would love to know details. If a reply to this posting is not appropriate, please email me at "kwtm-zrezwtid" under tamlylin stripe net, except replace "under" with "at" and "stripe" with "dot". Thanks.
I read with some skepticism the negative comments[1] regarding Roland Piquepaille, some postulating that some staff member of Slashdot has a secret agreement to accept his submissions.
...
1 743091 735211 685241 579791 57186
Well, now, this takes the cake. Egyptians using nanoparticles? This is news?
Ahem, In Other News
When Gandhi incited civil disobedience against British rule by picking up a pinch of salt from the sea, those sodium chloride particles were less than one nanometre across![2] OMG! The Indians used nanotechnology to overthrow the British!!! WTF! Is this a harbinger of the war-like uses of nanotechnology??? BBQ!!!1!!11!one!1!
Can we have a topic devoted to Roland Piquepaille so that we can adjust our viewing preferences in accordance with the amount of adoration we feel for this Submitter of Many Slashdot Articles?
-----
Footnotes:
[1]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14501811&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14436063&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14049437&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13236725&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13188470&sid=
[2] (Yeah, I know the actual particles of salt he held were more than 1nm across, but then it dissolved into the sweat from his fingertips, and the salt regrouped into nanoparticles that spread out in a thin layer across his fingertips.)