The problem here seems to be that the article here is saying that the event is "nationwide", whereas the site defines said nation as "North America and around the world". The submitter was probably a Utopian world-state dreamer, though.
Well, I live in Canada, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway. There should be an effort to turn this into an international event, rather that just an American one...
It is. There are participating stores worldwide, it's just more prolific and the states and Canada (the site mentions "North America and around the world"). Their store locator even works with Canadian addresses (whereas I had to go through a couple of menus to find out I need to sit on a bus for 3 hours to get a free comic...).
I was discussing why that argument wasn't really applicable to its parent. I know what you're arguing about, I've just been trying to say that a lot of people immediately assume that companies misunderstand the GPL when they disallow inclusion of code. Their rationale isn't "if we get caught, we'll need to open our source", it's "we need to open our source now, or we could get caught and face worse consequences". It's a silly debate anyway, a technicality!
Well, yes. But to stay within the law and avoid prosecution altogether, they must open their source. That's them being "forced". We're arguing semantics though, and I suspect we're talking about exactly the same thing.
What WON'T happen is that a judge will step in and force you to publish your source code because you included GPL'ed code. THIS is the fallacious argument.
That's what I said, yeah. Well, it's what I meant!
That's a fair enough argument -- but it always seems that people's queries are formed in the way "My company would like to (purposefully) use GPLed code, but we can't because we'd need to open ours" and people jump all over it as a fallacious argument, which it's not.
Well when people say they're "forced" to open their source, I'd expect they're forced by their adherence to legal working practices, rather than the interpretation that leads to this argument, that they'd be forced at some point "down the line". The argument that companies have isn't that they will need to open their source later when legislated, it's that they'd need to open their source now to avoid legislation altogether.
I hear this argument a lot, and it's got one fatal flaw -- you cannot use GPL code legally without opening your source. This line of argument seems to be along the lines of "of course you can use GPLed code - just don't get caught", and it's always worried me. Correct me if I'm wrong, I frequently am!
Is there not the argument that if they want to have truly up-to-date packages, it's difficult not to break Debian compatibility? In some ways, this could be an incentive for Debian to pick up the pace in some areas, I'm sure the Ubuntu crew would justify their decisions and most likely help out where they could.
Upgrade costs. These thin-clients should never need to be upgraded -- the entire raw screen display is streamed over the network, and only the server does any actual computing. Coupling this with the "plug and play" clustering they mention in their presentation for servers, the costs of upgrades are greatly, greatly reduced.
If you don't need protection, don't turn it on. I assume that the kernel segments that deal with trusted computing will be able to be compiled out, and you'll be fine. As for the fact that it'll probably be included by default on many systems, I have to say that I don't consider "safe by default" a fallacy in any way.
Strange, I find the opposite! Most cases I've seen crashes are down to lack of updates (the usual worm suspects). Post-SP2 boxes I've never see go down other than hardware or bugged system software. Anecdotal, I know!
There's no way that said binary runtime libraries could be made to work in WINE? The GIMP team (for example) should probably at least try to get a copy of the SDK.
I suppose licencing precludes actually using the SDK in the project anyway.:(
I was counting reboots like that as occurences of the blue screen (this is very much a "friends begging you to fix their computer" issue here) since you can still see it for a second, and I usually disable the automatic reboot.
Seriously still never seen it outside of the conditions I noted. I've had XP boxes run for 4 or 5 months (rebooting for updates kills windows uptime though) without problems. I've certainly never seen a "slow approach" bluescreen like you describe, and as were so common on previous versions of the OS. Admittedly though, most XP installs I've seen were post-SP1 (until about that time, most people I knew were either using a 9x system or 2k...).
Almost definately an issue with a driver, or some software which plays with lower level things (CD burners and firewalls are common things here).
I've never seen an XP box bluescreen for any reason other than bad/out-of-date drivers (or sometimes the aforementioned software), or genuine hardware failure.
They meant that if you wanted to use the code legally. The fact that you can use it until the author of the GPLed code finds out is something of a loophole, nothing more. If you want to link to/etc. GPL code, you need to GPL your code or face litigation, as you said.
At this point the tld does not make any sense anymore. Sites are (were) classified in 2 big categories:
- By language (.it,.de,.au,.uk, etc..)
- By kind (and assumed language was english (.org,.com,.net,.edu)
The first category are countries, rather than languages, and the second were all supposed to be associated with the US at first, but have been used more and more by just anyone.
I notice a number of the affected software inlcude anti-virus and firewall. Granted, some of these are probably out of date, but then again most home users are going to be the ones using these packages.
Not really some, I don't think I know of a single piece of incompatible software which hasn't been updated (for free) by the company. In the case of AV and firewall softwares, most automatically update themselves.
Assuming you download SP2, inavertently because you allow auto-update, will it install with the Windows firewall defaulting to On?
Yes, but all third-party firewall software that I know of works with it, if you want that extra layer of protection.
The update does help with a lot of problems in Windows, and complaining that you don't want to download because of incompatible firewall software seems a bit backwards, since if you were as security-concious as that, you'd've installed the patch for SP2 compatibility already.
Yes, both cases are copyright infringement, but I guess "it's worse" when you take code, repackage it, call it your own, deny you stole it, and try to sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here seems to be that the article here is saying that the event is "nationwide", whereas the site defines said nation as "North America and around the world". The submitter was probably a Utopian world-state dreamer, though.
I was discussing why that argument wasn't really applicable to its parent. I know what you're arguing about, I've just been trying to say that a lot of people immediately assume that companies misunderstand the GPL when they disallow inclusion of code. Their rationale isn't "if we get caught, we'll need to open our source", it's "we need to open our source now, or we could get caught and face worse consequences". It's a silly debate anyway, a technicality!
Well, yes. But to stay within the law and avoid prosecution altogether, they must open their source. That's them being "forced". We're arguing semantics though, and I suspect we're talking about exactly the same thing.
What WON'T happen is that a judge will step in and force you to publish your source code because you included GPL'ed code. THIS is the fallacious argument.
That's what I said, yeah. Well, it's what I meant!
That's a fair enough argument -- but it always seems that people's queries are formed in the way "My company would like to (purposefully) use GPLed code, but we can't because we'd need to open ours" and people jump all over it as a fallacious argument, which it's not.
Well when people say they're "forced" to open their source, I'd expect they're forced by their adherence to legal working practices, rather than the interpretation that leads to this argument, that they'd be forced at some point "down the line". The argument that companies have isn't that they will need to open their source later when legislated, it's that they'd need to open their source now to avoid legislation altogether.
I hear this argument a lot, and it's got one fatal flaw -- you cannot use GPL code legally without opening your source. This line of argument seems to be along the lines of "of course you can use GPLed code - just don't get caught", and it's always worried me. Correct me if I'm wrong, I frequently am!
Is there not the argument that if they want to have truly up-to-date packages, it's difficult not to break Debian compatibility? In some ways, this could be an incentive for Debian to pick up the pace in some areas, I'm sure the Ubuntu crew would justify their decisions and most likely help out where they could.
Upgrade costs. These thin-clients should never need to be upgraded -- the entire raw screen display is streamed over the network, and only the server does any actual computing. Coupling this with the "plug and play" clustering they mention in their presentation for servers, the costs of upgrades are greatly, greatly reduced.
Isn't that categorically not what the trusted computing platform is for?
If you don't need protection, don't turn it on. I assume that the kernel segments that deal with trusted computing will be able to be compiled out, and you'll be fine. As for the fact that it'll probably be included by default on many systems, I have to say that I don't consider "safe by default" a fallacy in any way.
Strange, I find the opposite! Most cases I've seen crashes are down to lack of updates (the usual worm suspects). Post-SP2 boxes I've never see go down other than hardware or bugged system software. Anecdotal, I know!
There's no way that said binary runtime libraries could be made to work in WINE? The GIMP team (for example) should probably at least try to get a copy of the SDK.
:(
I suppose licencing precludes actually using the SDK in the project anyway.
Sounds like a case of YMMV to me. I can assure you that it's certainly not common, in any case.
I was counting reboots like that as occurences of the blue screen (this is very much a "friends begging you to fix their computer" issue here) since you can still see it for a second, and I usually disable the automatic reboot.
Seriously still never seen it outside of the conditions I noted. I've had XP boxes run for 4 or 5 months (rebooting for updates kills windows uptime though) without problems. I've certainly never seen a "slow approach" bluescreen like you describe, and as were so common on previous versions of the OS. Admittedly though, most XP installs I've seen were post-SP1 (until about that time, most people I knew were either using a 9x system or 2k...).
Almost definately an issue with a driver, or some software which plays with lower level things (CD burners and firewalls are common things here).
I've never seen an XP box bluescreen for any reason other than bad/out-of-date drivers (or sometimes the aforementioned software), or genuine hardware failure.
They meant that if you wanted to use the code legally. The fact that you can use it until the author of the GPLed code finds out is something of a loophole, nothing more. If you want to link to/etc. GPL code, you need to GPL your code or face litigation, as you said.
The first category are countries, rather than languages, and the second were all supposed to be associated with the US at first, but have been used more and more by just anyone.
I guess you can do that when you have a choke-hold on the niche. Dreadful.
That really, really sucks. Why did they choose to do that?
The update does help with a lot of problems in Windows, and complaining that you don't want to download because of incompatible firewall software seems a bit backwards, since if you were as security-concious as that, you'd've installed the patch for SP2 compatibility already.
That's what I meant, apologies if my wording was ambiguous.
Nothing quite like borrowing :)
That's what I thought, but it's not a good thing to assert on /. when you're not sure!