Take a look at sharks: they got massive brains, comparable to mammals of similar sizes, and were able to survive mostly unchanged for 450 million years. That's older than land animals exist.
Gnome 3 is the worst thing that could have happened to the Free Software world. Just as Microsoft shoots themselves in the foot, providing a huge opportunity, most distributions get the main and default desktop environment pulled out from under them, replaced with a monstrosity mostly based on the same ideas as Windows 8.
According to Wikimedia stats, it's 71%. And unlike all other stats on that page, they're the only ones not depending on not blocking ads/trackers. Suffering ads is a tax one pays for poor technical skills, so it makes sense less mainstream OSes have a massively larger percentage of ad blockers.
A phone in a bag gets tossed around a lot, especially when you're dropping the bag to open it and pluck the phone out. It is likely it will go face down at least for a moment.
The only way to actually solve the issues with monopoly rights like patents is to turn them into non-confrontational compensation rights where a third party (such as the patent office) provides compensation due based on usage.
No, there is a third way: drop patents completely. Like copyright, they began as ways for a king to get additional funds: by legalizing bribes, so someone could pay to have his competition declared illegal. And like copyright, they never has any purpose that's beneficial to the society at large (despite what their proponents say).
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that patents promote innovation.
While N900 is the best smartphone currently existing, it is a terrible phone exactly due to the telephony interface. If it rings while in a bag, there's a ~50% chance some random button on the touchscreen will press itself (and an incoming call unlocks the screen!). It can drop calls entirely due to a "turn the phone face down" gesture which must have taken some serious drugs to invent. The interface for calling someone is not any better.
So really, if there's a way to initiate (and perhaps even receive!) calls from the command line, it would actually be better than current shit. After beating some sense into the keyboard code, the terminal is more convenient to use than most laptops, I'd sure take having to type "accept" or an alias over randomly rejecting calls.
With the right libraries, it ALWAYS is both realistic and practical.
Of course, you'd need really good libraries to overcome malbolge or brainfuck, but hey, no one says the underlying language has to be visible from behind them...
Depending on what kind of twitter utility, either put the link in the bio or put it into the response to a help comman.
How do you put that in 140 character messages? (Sorry, I give Twitter the same respect as Facebook, so I'm not going to remove my blocks just to check newer features. Let's say we use a pure text messaging service, without extra out-of-band options. Like, say, something SMS-based.)
What about RSS?
XML comment.
The AGPL requires a "prominent" offer, reading the source is certainly not one.
What about a programmable light switch?
You don't have to offer the source code to anyone who physically uses the switch, AGPL only covers interactions via a computer network.
Let's put it this way: an idea can be owned as much as a person can.
For both, there are/were laws that declared them property, allowed to buy and sell them, and so on. And both kinds of laws worked by draconian restrictions on personal freedoms.
That depends on what you call the user: In a way, it's who runs the server that a cloud application runs on. But for me, the actual user is the person who actually uses the software.
In that particular installation, maybe. Yet the license restricts everyone who runs the software elsewhere, including taking a single function from the code base.
Does the AGPL require a way to download the source code from within the software? I would have assumed that presenting a notice like "This is AGPL software, the source is at http://example.com/foo-source" would be perfectly fine.
Which is not doable, or doable with a massive inconvenience, when the interaction is something else than a webpage. What about IRC bots? What about twitter utilities? What about RSS? What about a programmable light switch?
Most hardened Free Software advocates consider Affero to be non-free. It introduces usage restrictions, which go against Freedom 0 ("the right to use the software for any purpose"). It also prevents most code reuse: you can't take a part and put it inside your program if it interacts with users in a way that doesn't provide means of file transfers.
Sadly, RMS has brain farts sometimes. The GFDL, for example, with a literal reading prevents locking the door to a room you have your computer in: keys and door locks might be 14th century technology, but are still a technology. Or, you can attach an "Ode to Hitler" to the work and have it immutable and unremovable.
Of course, erring the other way is wrong too. Some folks says it's good that clang is BSD-licensed. Wrong: that allows Apple to take your contributions and close the whole rest of the toolchain. I can't cross-compile for Mac, can't test build without being a Mac user, etc. With Windows there are no such problems: I run daily test builds for Windows from the comfort of my Debian box, can test any version of Windows in a virtual machine, etc. But on Mac? I have to beg someone to run a Mac build, and if there's a toolchain-related problem, there is nothing that can be done. Can't build stuff for OS X 10.4 because the compiler crashes (bug long fixed upstream...), can't build for PPC-based Mac, and so on. This is why freedoms ensured by the GPL are so important.
Not sure if you're trolling or indeed buy that "piracy=theft" argument. Let me explain it to you again: for theft to happen, the original owner would need to be deprived of the object stolen.
It's like in that "would you download a loaf of bread" argument. Of course I would, and if replicating bread would be cheaper than baking it (and kept the quality, like copying does), the society as a whole wins big time. Arguing that "but the bakers lose" is precisely glasser's fallacy.
You don't need to use x32 for this. It works fine with the usual i386/i686 ABI.
Except that the i386/i686 ABI is ridiculously crippled. For example, it is register-starved (EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, EBP... and that's it) -- while the processor has plenty more you can't use. Or, you can't use SSE math. Or, you can't have PIC code without a significant penalty. Or,...
There is no such thing as an x32 kernel -- it's merely an extension to the amd64 one. Thus, the same kernel can run amd64, i386 and x32 code.
If all of your userland uses x32, the kernel still uses full 64 bits. Thus, as long as no single process uses more than 2 (3?) GB of address space, you can have as much physical and virtual memory as you want with no loss.
This said, except for some artificial edge cases, the gains don't outweigh extra complexity of having two incompatible architectures running together.
The amd64 ABI requires this. Currently, only 48 bits are used, which makes it tempting to use the rest for some flags, etc. Back in the days, this was a problem on Amiga (forgot which models): old programs suddenly stopped working when newer CPUs stopped ignoring higher bits of the address. Thus, to make sure no one will have bad ideas like this, amd64 CPUs actually check if the unused bits are sign-extended, and smite offenders with an exception.
And why are addresses signed? So there's a clear distinction between the address space of the user-mode program and the operating system.
Now microsoft is requiring an option for secure boot to be disabled in order for the hardware get a shiny new "Windows compatible" sticker
You get this outright wrong: it is Microsoft who's pushing for "secure boot", and in newer iterations of the standard added a small loophole that on x86 (only), a hardware vendor may add the possibility of disabling "secure boot" and still get the "Windows compatible" sticker (and OEM discounts). They are free to not add that possibility or make it as hard to use as possible, possibly making you lose the warranty as well.
Yes, UEFI Secure Boot means precisely that: you can't use any Linux but Red Hat and Ubuntu, official kernels only. Microsoft agreed to sign their official kernels to have more ammunition in the inevitable antitrust suit. A pox on Ubuntu for cooperating here!
GPL3 on Grub works as designed here: it stops any DRM, disallowing unmodifiable bootloaders and kernels.
That's because of the VeriSign/Thawte racket. They charge money for no work. According to SSL design, any certificate is supposed to undergo more checking that they currently do for EV certs. Since the CAs are not going to actually do the checking, it is time to move to DNSSEC-based signatures, which are strictly better than the present state. Even if the CAs themselves would be perfectly secure, they sell certificates to anyone who can read mail sent to the given domain, and if you can set DNSSEC, you can set a MX just as well.
So the current state of SSL is nothing but a money grab.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at sharks: they got massive brains, comparable to mammals of similar sizes, and were able to survive mostly unchanged for 450 million years. That's older than land animals exist.
Your code produces a massive number of false negatives (although it at least has no false positives).
Flat-lining means exactly a graph becoming flat, no matter if it's a sale chart or EKG.
Even with the best equipment available, the main contest is still one of skill.
Skill in hiding doping, to be exact.
Gnome 3 is the worst thing that could have happened to the Free Software world. Just as Microsoft shoots themselves in the foot, providing a huge opportunity, most distributions get the main and default desktop environment pulled out from under them, replaced with a monstrosity mostly based on the same ideas as Windows 8.
Microsoft is down to 85% OS market share.
According to Wikimedia stats, it's 71%. And unlike all other stats on that page, they're the only ones not depending on not blocking ads/trackers. Suffering ads is a tax one pays for poor technical skills, so it makes sense less mainstream OSes have a massively larger percentage of ad blockers.
Screw Usain Bolt, make a fancy custom shoe for Oscar Pistorius!
A phone in a bag gets tossed around a lot, especially when you're dropping the bag to open it and pluck the phone out. It is likely it will go face down at least for a moment.
The only way to actually solve the issues with monopoly rights like patents is to turn them into non-confrontational compensation rights where a third party (such as the patent office) provides compensation due based on usage.
No, there is a third way: drop patents completely. Like copyright, they began as ways for a king to get additional funds: by legalizing bribes, so someone could pay to have his competition declared illegal. And like copyright, they never has any purpose that's beneficial to the society at large (despite what their proponents say).
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that patents promote innovation.
While N900 is the best smartphone currently existing, it is a terrible phone exactly due to the telephony interface. If it rings while in a bag, there's a ~50% chance some random button on the touchscreen will press itself (and an incoming call unlocks the screen!). It can drop calls entirely due to a "turn the phone face down" gesture which must have taken some serious drugs to invent. The interface for calling someone is not any better.
So really, if there's a way to initiate (and perhaps even receive!) calls from the command line, it would actually be better than current shit. After beating some sense into the keyboard code, the terminal is more convenient to use than most laptops, I'd sure take having to type "accept" or an alias over randomly rejecting calls.
With the right libraries, it ALWAYS is both realistic and practical.
Of course, you'd need really good libraries to overcome malbolge or brainfuck, but hey, no one says the underlying language has to be visible from behind them...
What about twitter utilities?
Depending on what kind of twitter utility, either put the link in the bio or put it into the response to a help comman.
How do you put that in 140 character messages? (Sorry, I give Twitter the same respect as Facebook, so I'm not going to remove my blocks just to check newer features. Let's say we use a pure text messaging service, without extra out-of-band options. Like, say, something SMS-based.)
What about RSS?
XML comment.
The AGPL requires a "prominent" offer, reading the source is certainly not one.
What about a programmable light switch?
You don't have to offer the source code to anyone who physically uses the switch, AGPL only covers interactions via a computer network.
The switch in question is connected via network.
So you cannot steal ideas?
Let's put it this way: an idea can be owned as much as a person can.
For both, there are/were laws that declared them property, allowed to buy and sell them, and so on. And both kinds of laws worked by draconian restrictions on personal freedoms.
Affero
That depends on what you call the user: In a way, it's who runs the server that a cloud application runs on. But for me, the actual user is the person who actually uses the software.
In that particular installation, maybe. Yet the license restricts everyone who runs the software elsewhere, including taking a single function from the code base.
Does the AGPL require a way to download the source code from within the software? I would have assumed that presenting a notice like "This is AGPL software, the source is at http://example.com/foo-source" would be perfectly fine.
Which is not doable, or doable with a massive inconvenience, when the interaction is something else than a webpage. What about IRC bots? What about twitter utilities? What about RSS? What about a programmable light switch?
Most hardened Free Software advocates consider Affero to be non-free. It introduces usage restrictions, which go against Freedom 0 ("the right to use the software for any purpose"). It also prevents most code reuse: you can't take a part and put it inside your program if it interacts with users in a way that doesn't provide means of file transfers.
Sadly, RMS has brain farts sometimes. The GFDL, for example, with a literal reading prevents locking the door to a room you have your computer in: keys and door locks might be 14th century technology, but are still a technology. Or, you can attach an "Ode to Hitler" to the work and have it immutable and unremovable.
Of course, erring the other way is wrong too. Some folks says it's good that clang is BSD-licensed. Wrong: that allows Apple to take your contributions and close the whole rest of the toolchain. I can't cross-compile for Mac, can't test build without being a Mac user, etc. With Windows there are no such problems: I run daily test builds for Windows from the comfort of my Debian box, can test any version of Windows in a virtual machine, etc. But on Mac? I have to beg someone to run a Mac build, and if there's a toolchain-related problem, there is nothing that can be done. Can't build stuff for OS X 10.4 because the compiler crashes (bug long fixed upstream...), can't build for PPC-based Mac, and so on. This is why freedoms ensured by the GPL are so important.
Not sure if you're trolling or indeed buy that "piracy=theft" argument. Let me explain it to you again: for theft to happen, the original owner would need to be deprived of the object stolen.
It's like in that "would you download a loaf of bread" argument. Of course I would, and if replicating bread would be cheaper than baking it (and kept the quality, like copying does), the society as a whole wins big time. Arguing that "but the bakers lose" is precisely glasser's fallacy.
Or more relevant, how Win2K and higher are emulators since they emulate the win32 API on top of NT.
You don't need to use x32 for this. It works fine with the usual i386/i686 ABI.
Except that the i386/i686 ABI is ridiculously crippled. For example, it is register-starved (EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, EBP... and that's it) -- while the processor has plenty more you can't use. Or, you can't use SSE math. Or, you can't have PIC code without a significant penalty. Or, ...
There is no such thing as an x32 kernel -- it's merely an extension to the amd64 one. Thus, the same kernel can run amd64, i386 and x32 code.
If all of your userland uses x32, the kernel still uses full 64 bits. Thus, as long as no single process uses more than 2 (3?) GB of address space, you can have as much physical and virtual memory as you want with no loss.
This said, except for some artificial edge cases, the gains don't outweigh extra complexity of having two incompatible architectures running together.
Who the fuck would sign-extend a pointer?
The amd64 ABI requires this. Currently, only 48 bits are used, which makes it tempting to use the rest for some flags, etc. Back in the days, this was a problem on Amiga (forgot which models): old programs suddenly stopped working when newer CPUs stopped ignoring higher bits of the address. Thus, to make sure no one will have bad ideas like this, amd64 CPUs actually check if the unused bits are sign-extended, and smite offenders with an exception.
And why are addresses signed? So there's a clear distinction between the address space of the user-mode program and the operating system.
Now microsoft is requiring an option for secure boot to be disabled in order for the hardware get a shiny new "Windows compatible" sticker
You get this outright wrong: it is Microsoft who's pushing for "secure boot", and in newer iterations of the standard added a small loophole that on x86 (only), a hardware vendor may add the possibility of disabling "secure boot" and still get the "Windows compatible" sticker (and OEM discounts). They are free to not add that possibility or make it as hard to use as possible, possibly making you lose the warranty as well.
Yes, UEFI Secure Boot means precisely that: you can't use any Linux but Red Hat and Ubuntu, official kernels only. Microsoft agreed to sign their official kernels to have more ammunition in the inevitable antitrust suit. A pox on Ubuntu for cooperating here!
GPL3 on Grub works as designed here: it stops any DRM, disallowing unmodifiable bootloaders and kernels.
That's because of the VeriSign/Thawte racket. They charge money for no work. According to SSL design, any certificate is supposed to undergo more checking that they currently do for EV certs. Since the CAs are not going to actually do the checking, it is time to move to DNSSEC-based signatures, which are strictly better than the present state. Even if the CAs themselves would be perfectly secure, they sell certificates to anyone who can read mail sent to the given domain, and if you can set DNSSEC, you can set a MX just as well. So the current state of SSL is nothing but a money grab.
There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains.
And what if, beside a doctor, engineer and geologist, they'll send in a cop?
34, no wife, no kids, count me in. Too bad, software engineer is one of least needed backgrounds for this kind of a trip.
Seriously, if you don't have any commitments, and wouldn't want to go, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?