DISTRO!!! It's Distro! "...stable and yet simple linux DISTRO!!!". Don't use "a linux" when you mean "a linux distro". Or at least use "a distro" in contexts where "Linux" is obvious.
I don't understand why American (and probably European) companies buy branded PCs. Most companies and people here, in India, just buy assembled PCs which are much cheaper. I'm not sure if you use the same terminologies over there so: A branded PC is a PC by some big company like Compaq (HP) or Dell. An assembled PC is one put together by a small shop owner or a small company. Assembled PCs are usually completely customisable. [Branded PCs here cost more or less the same as in the west.] Therefore, in most situations, PCs with Linux are much cheaper than PCs with Windows.
Know your history, bitch. OSI has been here for a long time, it was one the first ones, it's not "another" organisation. It's not new. It just changed the president.
A question from someone who doesnt use quicken: Can you please elaborate about the service that quicken 2002 used to provide? Is the service provided by Intuit's servers so that it costs Intuit? The article says "these transactions pass through my bank, not Intuit" so does it mean it doesn't have anything to do with Intuit and its servers? Then how can intuit "disable" this? Thank you.
No. Microsoft is and always was a company. It's only aim is and was to earn money -- like every company in the world. It's aim was not to stand up against anyone and it didn't do it. And this applies to all companies -- IBM, Redhat, Google -- all companies. The only people who stand up against anyone are... well... people. Oh, and BTW, you've got your facts wrong. That's not how it was.
Re:My contrarian view of the GPL license
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This looks so much like a troll because of so many errors, but I'll answer anyway.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either idiots or they royally screwed you. You do NOT have to release the source code of programs compiled with GCC. There are absolutely no restrictions on GCC compiled code and even the few (GCC and Libc) libraries your app might be linked to are released under the LGPL. If I'm not seriously mistaken, even the code produced by tools like bison are also restriction free since that is only *usage* of the software and the libraries needed are probably released under the LGPL.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
Now you're not being clear. You say " a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux." Was the software supposed to be sold/given away to the general public or only to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse? If it was supposed to be publically distributed, then yes, you have to release the source code to any modification you have done to the kernel. That's the cost of customisability of the Linux kernel. But if it was only supposed to be given to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse, then you don't have to distribute the source code to the public. You see, most part of the license applies to redistribution, not modification itself. If you distribute modification to a GPL'ed software to the public, then you have to release its source code. But if you only plan to use it inhouse, then you don't have to give the source code to the public. Or if you sell it to a private customer, then you only have to give the source code to the customer, NOT the public.
It's simple: If you don't like the license, then don't use code from the program in your software. Most developers (on slashdot) who hate the GPL do so because the source code is available and technically they can do everything with it and yet the license restricts them. It's like bringing a cake near your mouth but not letting you have it. But instead if the GPL had made the software closed source, they wouldn't have complained. Developers are pissed because they can't use code developed by someone else in their own software and yet not give the freedoms to others which were given to them by the original developers. They're pissed because they can't have a free ride. If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user. Really. BSD style licenses don't protect the user/people's right completely.
Actually the story doesn't link to the site. And it just mentions it AFTER the site has been (presumably) taken down. Even if it links, it's not directly linking to illegal stuff, it's only linking to a site that contains links. And in this case I don't think the companies will be stupid enough to sue/. and get bad PR.
Whoops, the post wasn't clear. What I mean is, if a site's content is not manually created/edited/controlled by the site operators and everything happens in an automatic process, then the site operators are not liable for any illegal content on that site. So, search engines and forums are protected. So google's robots autmatically index (a part of) the web and on slashdot the comments/links are posted by people who dont work for slashdot and/. doesnt do anything manually to selectively allow the posts. This is enforced in USA through DMCA. I don't know exactly what the law states but the effect is more or less what I said. I think this also exists is many european countries and countries where the Internet is used a lot. BTW, I'm not sure about forums (including/.) but I think I'm right. Does anyone know about this more accurately?
Slashdot is in USA. DMCA provides safe harbour (or whatever the word is) to automated sites like slashdot and google whose content isn't manually controlled. (No, the mod system doesn't count. It doesn't delete posts, any posts are allowed on slashdot.)
Of course Microsoft is raising. And it will continue to do so. And I'm still not sure about Linux (or other free os) defeating Windows. Linux might be more secure, free and free (in terms of cost) but it doesn't have the money or corporate might of Microsoft which is what is really needed to stand up against windows.
Many people infected with malware/virus don't even know it. Many malware/virus just consume your bandwidth. And not all malware can be detected by a single anti-spyware program... Maybe you've already been infected but just don't know it... Or maybe you dont use the Web as much as some of us and only visit popular websites...
They are very unlikely to do this to a foreign citizen unless what you are doing is or can be construed to be espionage or subversion. They are welcoming foreigners with open arms because they want your capital, skills, knowledge etc. so they are less likely to come down on you than one of their own citizens.
That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Slashdot Mirror
DISTRO!!! It's Distro! "...stable and yet simple linux DISTRO!!!". Don't use "a linux" when you mean "a linux distro". Or at least use "a distro" in contexts where "Linux" is obvious.
Finally an interviewer who has the balls to ask the right questions.
HDD? Hard Disk Drive? You mean HD-DVD?
I don't understand why American (and probably European) companies buy branded PCs. Most companies and people here, in India, just buy assembled PCs which are much cheaper. I'm not sure if you use the same terminologies over there so: A branded PC is a PC by some big company like Compaq (HP) or Dell. An assembled PC is one put together by a small shop owner or a small company. Assembled PCs are usually completely customisable. [Branded PCs here cost more or less the same as in the west.] Therefore, in most situations, PCs with Linux are much cheaper than PCs with Windows.
just a system of typing that makes it easy to introduce vulnerabilities, which last time I checked, all C programmers deal with.
The comma should be after "which", not after "vulnerabilities".
Know your history, bitch. OSI has been here for a long time, it was one the first ones, it's not "another" organisation. It's not new. It just changed the president.
A slashdot user becomes the head OSI. I think I'll burn down my computer now.
FUNNY?? Parent is funny?!? How delusional...
Which Linux? You mean Which Distro? I can understand when a Linux newbie says Linux when he means Linux Distribution but Slashdot...
A question from someone who doesnt use quicken: Can you please elaborate about the service that quicken 2002 used to provide? Is the service provided by Intuit's servers so that it costs Intuit? The article says "these transactions pass through my bank, not Intuit" so does it mean it doesn't have anything to do with Intuit and its servers? Then how can intuit "disable" this? Thank you.
No. Microsoft is and always was a company. It's only aim is and was to earn money -- like every company in the world. It's aim was not to stand up against anyone and it didn't do it. And this applies to all companies -- IBM, Redhat, Google -- all companies. The only people who stand up against anyone are... well... people. Oh, and BTW, you've got your facts wrong. That's not how it was.
This looks so much like a troll because of so many errors, but I'll answer anyway.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either idiots or they royally screwed you. You do NOT have to release the source code of programs compiled with GCC. There are absolutely no restrictions on GCC compiled code and even the few (GCC and Libc) libraries your app might be linked to are released under the LGPL. If I'm not seriously mistaken, even the code produced by tools like bison are also restriction free since that is only *usage* of the software and the libraries needed are probably released under the LGPL.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
Now you're not being clear. You say " a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux." Was the software supposed to be sold/given away to the general public or only to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse? If it was supposed to be publically distributed, then yes, you have to release the source code to any modification you have done to the kernel. That's the cost of customisability of the Linux kernel. But if it was only supposed to be given to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse, then you don't have to distribute the source code to the public. You see, most part of the license applies to redistribution, not modification itself. If you distribute modification to a GPL'ed software to the public, then you have to release its source code. But if you only plan to use it inhouse, then you don't have to give the source code to the public. Or if you sell it to a private customer, then you only have to give the source code to the customer, NOT the public.
OK, I'll change the wording. The author has the right to reasonably restrict its usage. Happy?
It's simple: If you don't like the license, then don't use code from the program in your software. Most developers (on slashdot) who hate the GPL do so because the source code is available and technically they can do everything with it and yet the license restricts them. It's like bringing a cake near your mouth but not letting you have it. But instead if the GPL had made the software closed source, they wouldn't have complained. Developers are pissed because they can't use code developed by someone else in their own software and yet not give the freedoms to others which were given to them by the original developers. They're pissed because they can't have a free ride. If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user. Really. BSD style licenses don't protect the user/people's right completely.
It's the GNU General Public License, not GNU Public License.
Care to elaborate? Just what part of the software stack is missing?
The GUI. It's outside the kernel. And rightfully so.
Yup. Hoping that something constructive comes out of this is offtopic. Can't anyone see the absurdity of this????
Can it get any more horny than this?
Actually the story doesn't link to the site. And it just mentions it AFTER the site has been (presumably) taken down. Even if it links, it's not directly linking to illegal stuff, it's only linking to a site that contains links. And in this case I don't think the companies will be stupid enough to sue /. and get bad PR.
Whoops, the post wasn't clear. What I mean is, if a site's content is not manually created/edited/controlled by the site operators and everything happens in an automatic process, then the site operators are not liable for any illegal content on that site. So, search engines and forums are protected. So google's robots autmatically index (a part of) the web and on slashdot the comments/links are posted by people who dont work for slashdot and /. doesnt do anything manually to selectively allow the posts. This is enforced in USA through DMCA. I don't know exactly what the law states but the effect is more or less what I said. I think this also exists is many european countries and countries where the Internet is used a lot. BTW, I'm not sure about forums (including /.) but I think I'm right. Does anyone know about this more accurately?
Slashdot is in USA. DMCA provides safe harbour (or whatever the word is) to automated sites like slashdot and google whose content isn't manually controlled. (No, the mod system doesn't count. It doesn't delete posts, any posts are allowed on slashdot.)
Of course Microsoft is raising. And it will continue to do so. And I'm still not sure about Linux (or other free os) defeating Windows. Linux might be more secure, free and free (in terms of cost) but it doesn't have the money or corporate might of Microsoft which is what is really needed to stand up against windows.
Many people infected with malware/virus don't even know it. Many malware/virus just consume your bandwidth. And not all malware can be detected by a single anti-spyware program... Maybe you've already been infected but just don't know it... Or maybe you dont use the Web as much as some of us and only visit popular websites...
They are very unlikely to do this to a foreign citizen unless what you are doing is or can be construed to be espionage or subversion. They are welcoming foreigners with open arms because they want your capital, skills, knowledge etc. so they are less likely to come down on you than one of their own citizens.
That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
How pretentious and hypocritical.