Sure you are, since most Spam and Scams are sent fro the US. And in most cases for Spam have US backing, even if they offshore the actual sending. Looks like it will ^improve^ for all then. The rest of the world gets less crap, any you may enjoy only your own homegrown.
SCO gonna get the punished all right, IBM only dropped one of their counterclaims. As they have several more, and since SCO tried to use this one to delay even more, IBM simply dropped it counting on the others to be more than eunuch to do SCO in.
Perhaps I should have spelled it out more clearly in my above post. The fact is C#/Java will not give any, or minimal reduction of development time compared to C++ with Qt(It's with Qt, not pure C++). The difference in lines of code will be minimal, the biggest difference will most possibly be reduction of compiletimes(aka very little real world gain). And use of the Qt memory model helps reduce the problem of memory bugs too.
If you are interested in reducing development time with KDE/Qt use Ruby or Python where you get real measureable reductions. And in most cases not any significant performance hit either. As most of the heavy lifting are done by the C++ libs.
Switching to C# or Java makes nearly as little sense as switching to C. When you combine C++ with Qt the difference to C# or Java become minimal, and the most noticeable thing you gain are the need of a VM. A telling sign are the Java bindings for KDE/Qt, they have been actively maintained and considered stable since something like KDE 2.2. And nearly no one are using them. On the other hand even more high level language bindings are much more popular, like Ruby and Python.
The end result is that the average user won't get the information that tells them why
It's a beta and it really tells it all. If you are not interested in helping finding bugs to make the 3.5 release better, this release is not for you. That's essentially what betas are for, not the average user.
I guess it's meant the beta version. KDE versions are always tagged a week or more before the release are announced, making the time of the Qt 3.3.5 release too close.
Because it runs on commodity hardware, available from several vendors offering a stunning range of options both on hardware types and prices. While OS X only runs on hardware from Apple, usually slightly more expensive than the similar hardware for XP.
Ok, perhaps the AC had misunderstood, as sometimes you see rants against the QPL and that Luke fellow may have been one. Mostly from clueless people who never have read or understood the QPL, so I misunderstood and thought you was of them(Sorry).
On the other hand I think the AC got it right, I think Luke Psywalker tries to uses the "Qt are not pure GPL" or "not really GPL" troll argument:-) Which is even more silly, but hey they usuall get used by anti TrollTech/Qt/KDE trolls.:-)
Re:biggest producer of Linux software for mobile d
on
TrollTech to IPO?
·
· Score: 1
"biggest producer of Linux software for mobile devices"
This isn't meant as a flamebait, but where are these mobile devices with linux on it? br>
In China, where the world biggest producers of smartphones are. Easiest way to find them, try TT customers page.
Oh yes brilliant move, remove the OPEN SOURCE license making it possible to use other OSS licenses than the GPL when using Qt. The QPL you know are the license letting you use ANY open source license you want when using Qt. It makes it possible to use BSD, MIT, X11, APL, Artistic and all other open source licenses with Qt for free. That must be bad in some way, but I can't see why so feel free to explain?
add a "Frivolous patent deposit" to the cost of filing.
Not a bad idea, but I would chose a sightly different path. Having a "Frivolous patent clause" in the patent application, where the patentee argues why it is not frivolous and should be granted. With a automatic cancellation clause when someone(anyone) gives a valid argument against it.
No, it's not like that. That falls under fair use, same as writing articles about Linux. You can sell Linux all you want whitout any changes. What you can't do, is things like using the Linux name as part of you company name. So if you want to call your company The Linux Company, you have to pay for using the trademark. The same if you want to call your publication LinuxInsider etc.
Exactly. But not if you call it Red Hat 9.0, and advertise something like this: Red Hat 9.0 a Linux for the futere. Or different variants of this. Basically the same thing as you do for MS Windows, except you have the opportunity to pay for using Linux as part of your own brand name. You can sell your product as Foo for MS Windows, but MS will never allow you to call it MS Windows Foo. Basic fair use.
Well, Linux is still free apparently, just not calling it that
Wrong, you can call it Linux as much as you want for free, as you always have done. It's nice if you acknowledge the trademark with a "Linux is trademark of Linus etc." as you would any other trademark, but that's nothing new either. What you cannot do is calling your company/publication/product "Super Linux" or something like it.
Because setting up, administrating and defending a trademark are not free. You have to cover the actual cost. Or are you suggesting that Linus should pay out of his own pocket the expenses involved for dealing with commercial entities using his trademark.
So you have no graphics, sound and networking, but other than that it runs just fine? I'd guess that's taking the famous mac usability one step further.
No, since none or nearly none BIOS versions can boot from a USB storage device. It's used to boot a PC in server configuration, using the Debian on the USB device. No OS are needed on the machine which it is plugged in, so there is no OS suposed to be running an able to mount it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you are, since most Spam and Scams are sent fro the US. And in most cases for Spam have US backing, even if they offshore the actual sending. Looks like it will ^improve^ for all then. The rest of the world gets less crap, any you may enjoy only your own homegrown.
SCO gonna get the punished all right, IBM only dropped one of their counterclaims. As they have several more, and since SCO tried to use this one to delay even more, IBM simply dropped it counting on the others to be more than eunuch to do SCO in.
Seems to me God was being a bit two-faced there, and I've never understood why more Christians and Jews don't notice it...
It's not like they don't notice, but more the case of having made hypocrisy an art form...
Perhaps I should have spelled it out more clearly in my above post. The fact is C#/Java will not give any, or minimal reduction of development time compared to C++ with Qt(It's with Qt, not pure C++). The difference in lines of code will be minimal, the biggest difference will most possibly be reduction of compiletimes(aka very little real world gain). And use of the Qt memory model helps reduce the problem of memory bugs too. If you are interested in reducing development time with KDE/Qt use Ruby or Python where you get real measureable reductions. And in most cases not any significant performance hit either. As most of the heavy lifting are done by the C++ libs.
Switching to C# or Java makes nearly as little sense as switching to C. When you combine C++ with Qt the difference to C# or Java become minimal, and the most noticeable thing you gain are the need of a VM. A telling sign are the Java bindings for KDE/Qt, they have been actively maintained and considered stable since something like KDE 2.2. And nearly no one are using them. On the other hand even more high level language bindings are much more popular, like Ruby and Python.
Totally agree, Farscape are a definite top ten. The list is plainly flawed, lacking both Farscape and Red Dwarf.
The end result is that the average user won't get the information that tells them why
It's a beta and it really tells it all. If you are not interested in helping finding bugs to make the 3.5 release better, this release is not for you. That's essentially what betas are for, not the average user.
I guess it's meant the beta version. KDE versions are always tagged a week or more before the release are announced, making the time of the Qt 3.3.5 release too close.
8 835&w=2
I think most modules in SVN 3.5 branch already have got the fixes, like kdebase http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-commits&m=11269923832
is it even possible to somehow filter the crap from the atmosphere? What would it entail?
I'd guess starting to plant more rain forrest insted of cutting it down would help some.
I'm buying land in warm, sunny Alaska.
Well... it'll be sunny and warm by the time I retire.
Don't forget to bring your anti-radiation-suite, the hole in the ozone layer will be bigger by that time too.
Because it runs on commodity hardware, available from several vendors offering a stunning range of options both on hardware types and prices. While OS X only runs on hardware from Apple, usually slightly more expensive than the similar hardware for XP.
I'd consider using KDE, but the button order always drives me up the wall,
Why don't you change it then? Add the following text to your ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals to change the button order:
[KDE]
ButtonLayout=1
which in turn means all kde apps must be GPL...
Wrong, since Qt free edition are under a dual license GPL/QPL. KDE applications can be licensed under any open source license.
Ok, perhaps the AC had misunderstood, as sometimes you see rants against the QPL and that Luke fellow may have been one. Mostly from clueless people who never have read or understood the QPL, so I misunderstood and thought you was of them(Sorry).
:-)
On the other hand I think the AC got it right, I think Luke Psywalker tries to uses the "Qt are not pure GPL" or "not really GPL" troll argument:-) Which is even more silly, but hey they usuall get used by anti TrollTech/Qt/KDE trolls.
"biggest producer of Linux software for mobile devices" This isn't meant as a flamebait, but where are these mobile devices with linux on it?
br> In China, where the world biggest producers of smartphones are. Easiest way to find them, try TT customers page.
GP said totally GPL'd, i.e. ditch the QPL.
Oh yes brilliant move, remove the OPEN SOURCE license making it possible to use other OSS licenses than the GPL when using Qt. The QPL you know are the license letting you use ANY open source license you want when using Qt. It makes it possible to use BSD, MIT, X11, APL, Artistic and all other open source licenses with Qt for free. That must be bad in some way, but I can't see why so feel free to explain?
add a "Frivolous patent deposit" to the cost of filing.
Not a bad idea, but I would chose a sightly different path. Having a "Frivolous patent clause" in the patent application, where the patentee argues why it is not frivolous and should be granted. With a automatic cancellation clause when someone(anyone) gives a valid argument against it.
Real men don't use desktops, they use twm and throw down with some .twmrc
.rc files, they use WMX and have to recompile to change the settings.
Bah! Real men don't use
No, it's not like that. That falls under fair use, same as writing articles about Linux. You can sell Linux all you want whitout any changes. What you can't do, is things like using the Linux name as part of you company name. So if you want to call your company The Linux Company, you have to pay for using the trademark. The same if you want to call your publication LinuxInsider etc.
Exactly. But not if you call it Red Hat 9.0, and advertise something like this: Red Hat 9.0 a Linux for the futere. Or different variants of this. Basically the same thing as you do for MS Windows, except you have the opportunity to pay for using Linux as part of your own brand name. You can sell your product as Foo for MS Windows, but MS will never allow you to call it MS Windows Foo. Basic fair use.
Well, Linux is still free apparently, just not calling it that
Wrong, you can call it Linux as much as you want for free, as you always have done. It's nice if you acknowledge the trademark with a "Linux is trademark of Linus etc." as you would any other trademark, but that's nothing new either. What you cannot do is calling your company/publication/product "Super Linux" or something like it.
why not just ask for $1
Because setting up, administrating and defending a trademark are not free. You have to cover the actual cost. Or are you suggesting that Linus should pay out of his own pocket the expenses involved for dealing with commercial entities using his trademark.
Will it run Linux?
What do you mean run? He said "composed entirely of turtles". You must have watched too many cartoons, real turtles don't run!
So you have no graphics, sound and networking, but other than that it runs just fine? I'd guess that's taking the famous mac usability one step further.
No, since none or nearly none BIOS versions can boot from a USB storage device. It's used to boot a PC in server configuration, using the Debian on the USB device. No OS are needed on the machine which it is plugged in, so there is no OS suposed to be running an able to mount it.