Or should I believe that Linux developers are deliberately making changes not to accomodate the users of the kernel, but to force the makers of drivers to open-source them?
You can believe whatever you want to believe. But I found something interesting over on the lkml.
Also, I don't see what the "API" discussion is. That's a _total_ red herring. There is no "module API", and never has been. Modules have always been about linking against internal kernel functions, and it's always been very clear that there is no API, and that those internal kernel interfaces change _all_ the time.
Linus
and this
> > A work that is inspired by Linux is no more a derivative work than > > a programmatic musical composition inspired by a novel. Having > > Linux in mind cannot be enough to constitute infringement. > > But it does - you have to include the Linux header files in order to be > able to make any nontrivial module. > > I'm not claiming that "thinking about Linux makes you tainted". It's not > about inspiration. But it's a bit like getting somebody pregnant: you have > to do a lot more than just think about it to actually make it happen, or > every high school in the world would be crawling with babies. > > In other words: feel free to be inspired by Linux all you want. But if you > release a binary module that loads and works, you've been doing more than > just feeling inspired. And then you need to be _careful_. > > Linus
but until Linus grows up and stabilizes the driver API
How did this get modded insightful? Are you saying you know more about designing a kernel than Linus? Most hardware either has GPL drivers embedded in the kernel which automatically get updated to new changes in the API, or no driver at all. For those binary-only models I don't see nVidia having any problems. Maybe the people making the binary-only drivers need to learn how to do their job. Ever think of that?
Come on people, it's 2004 and it's not too much to expect to be able to buy a piece of hardware that says "Drivers supplied for Linux 2.6" and expect to be able to use those drivers.
Yes it is too much to expect. Its only 2004. There are many pieces of hardware that still don't support Linux. And it has nothing to do with the driver API or how difficult it is/isn't to support. Most hardware would already be supported for free if they had released the specs.
Want to have your cake and eat it too? Well, we don't play that way. Its more like put up or shut up.
Well, one day a vendor will come along that supplies source code. Then we'll finally get some nice graphics hardware that fully integrates with the OS. When this happens the ball will be in nVidia's court to explain why their drivers don't fully integrate or why they have bugs and other problems that haven't been addressed.
Will it happen? Probably, but not today. So we'll see how it all plays out.
The best reason to restrict it is because I don't like it, so therefore you shouldn't be able to do it. I also don't like kissing in public, holding hands, looking sexual in any way, wearing makeup or fake hair or lots of extra unnecessary clothing, driving big ugly vehicles that get bad gas mileage, or smiling too much. We should restrict a lot of things. Yes, yes, I agree!
my next PVR will run MythTV -- unless HR2391 passes and makes me a criminal for skipping commercials.
If HR2391 passes I'll consider buying a gun and entertaining myself at the firing range. I bet if several million TV watching couch potatoes did something like that it would send a very clear message to everyone who wants to make everything illegal. They remember our history. Could you imagine how scared they would be if target practice suddenly became the nations favorite method of entertainment?
I bet they'd want to give you commercial-free cable TV for free, anything to keep you sedated.
Because the proprietary software might meet more of those requirements this year, but widespread adoption of the open solution might meet more of those requirements next year and cost you less and keep you clear of vendor lockin.
Its important to understand the simple concept that time is always moving forward. It never stops to rest. If we ignore that fact and that open software has been improving at a rate some say is faster than proprietary we might spend extra money on proprietary hardware and software to meet a solution today that could have been met for half the cost with open commodity goods.
Now if you ignore this and choose the proprietary solution anyway, then your competition (other governments/corps, etc.) choose the open solution and spend less money than you do you will be held accountable to your voting public, share holders, pocket book. And they might be able to outcompete you by using their money wisely, doing it the right way the first time, etc. Perhaps its easier to pick the best tool for the job today, but if it is no longer the best tool for the job tomorrow and you've spent a lot of cash on it what are you going to do then, ask for more money?
If governments had chosen Linux 4 years ago they wouldn't have had to pay for upgrades to their OSs. How much would that alone have saved them? What about per seat licensing on server software? What about... I could go on but I think you get the point.
What will happen to all our jobs if robots automate everything.
In a capitalist society like ours a person is only worth their salt if they provide some valuable labor to society. What will happen to all those people once their jobs are automated. With they be worth any salt?
I personally think that every person is worth more money than we could ever print. They are worth so much because they have within their possession a neural network with decades of programming that allow them to be creative and innovative in ways machines are not yet capable. Besides all that they are human, like me, so they automaticly get a +1 value of anything that is not. However, capitalists don't view the world this way.
I am affraid that these coming robots will displace jobs and the net result will be more poverty which leads to more crime and mental illness.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to phase out the existence of money than to attempt to make enough work for everyone to keep busy?
Perhaps if things get bad enough we will become more open minded to these ideas.
Similarly if you want people to be happy don't force them to live in poverty. Want to prevent crime, prevent homeless and jobless environments. Want to stop terrorism, don't shoot their relatives, provide them a better way of live by sharing and giving.
We would be a lot more productive if we didn't spend all our time counting coins, IMHO. What if we invested that time, instead, in building robots and automating labor?
Nah send sKerry, he flip-flops so much he can propell him self there and forgo the expensive boosters.
There's some good ol' right wing physics for yall. Well, I wish you luck. But I bet Bush on our PATRIOT missile will beat 'im to the red planet even if Kerry gets a head start.
Wouldn't this be a much better competition than just voting these losers into office?
OSS has many bugs and security problems. But if I paid over $100 for my Linux based OS I would expect better quality and security than I get from XP. Ironicly I have less problems with viruses and popups on my free OS, which also includes more revelant software in its standard install. Not to mention I can modify, distribute and sell it. Perhaps Microsoft deserves some of this criticism. No one mentions Apple's software, do they.
I think of this as constructive criticism. But I know you and Microsoft would rather we just forgot about its flaws and moved on to show how wonderful the software is when it is working in a stable and secure manner. Maybe their next OS will have us agree in the EULA not to be so critical.
Haven't you guys played the game of Monopoly? That is what capitalism is all about. Once you have a monopoly why would you let some stupid community take it away from you? You didn't land on their monopoly with hotels and lose a bunch of money or anything that would force you to sell your monopoly. So its only fair to grant additional legal protection for our wholesome American businesses. They have the community's interests in mind. And I'm sure as soon as they win the game, forcing all their competition to sell their monopolies, they will revolutionize our communications infrastructure.
So have faith. One day AOL will offer 10 Mbps to your street, maybe even to your home. Though you will forever be capped on upload bandwidth because that threatens those RIAA/MPAA Monopolies, so you will have to take that up with them.
If we want to put people in space then we need to assure their safe return....
I agree. Money should be no object if we want manned space exploration. Or we can safely explore space unmanned with robots and save a bundle. What's the difference in cost between sending a human and a rover to Mars?
As long as we want to complain about the budget we shouldn't be allowed to risk the lives of our astronauts, IMO.
I've screwed around with mysql + various front ends (perl, tcl+tk, java), and it's not the same. End users need all the visual drag and drop kind of stuff, they don't want to touch code.
Well, if they don't want to touch code then why would anyone need to implement an Access clone complete with VBA? Why not just offer them a graphical frontend to perl/java and postgres/mysql without all the bloat?
I don't really care if those hardcore Access users migrate, but it would be nice to have an easy-to-use frontend for our databases and languages.
You don't pass laws to grant freedom. By default you are free to do whatever you want, and laws exist to selectively place restrictions on this freedom. The only way you get freedom back is to REPEAL laws, not pass new ones!
Then why did they pass the amendments to the constitution? Weren't those freedoms implied? I think some more definition of our freedom needs to become law because we all know this digital revolution changes everything. We have to draft new laws like the DMCA because we are dealing with copyright in a digital age, so now I think we should write up a bunch of freedom granting laws so people know they still have rights, digitally.:)
I suppose if everyone--instead--lived on a commune and ate daisies and smoked weed, we'd all be happier, right?
No, we'd be happier if we worked in the office environment programming systems and machines while smoking weed and giving away our software and technology under a F/OSS style license so everyone can contribute to the overall quality of the systems we all have to deal with on a daily basis. Is there something wrong with working in a stress-free environment that treats people with respect and encourages self, peer and group education?
When was the last time F/OSS users had to spend hours cleaning off viruses and worms from their systems? How much do you think it costs corporations to pay for those hours their employees wasted on maintaining Microsoft's insecure software? Why doesn't Microsoft make an OS free of these problems or lower their prices to make up for these added costs?
And as for the rest of your post, please read the fundamental attribution error. This is a concept in social psychology. Actually its a conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology, or at least that's what the wiki page says.
But I'm probably too liberal to understand these things. Y'know, smoked too much Cannabis and stuff. Mmmmm, Cannabis...
Well, what stops corporations from making unsafe products? Its not freedom and capitalism, because the consumer, in our society, isn't intelligent enough not to make purchasing decisions that don't hurt them or their neighbor. These regulations prevent businesses from damaging the environment excessively or getting a monopoly.
I doubt Kerry will be anywhere near as bad as Bush has been at erroding freedom, though he probably won't enact legislation that grants freedom.
When was the last time we passed legislation that gives us more freedom? Perhaps freedom is too dangerous for us to share. Maybe we should reserve it for the upper class citizens, like CEOs and members of the board, because they obviously are intelligent consumers.
Or maybe we should vote for Bush/Cheney and ask them to build us a police state where we can feel safe and protected by our Freedom-Loving(tm) government.
Forget the fish. What we need to do is outsource our homeless and prison problems to Mexico. We can ship anyone who can't afford a fish out of the country so we don't have to worry about them not finding a job, being homeless, begging for money, or upsetting our statistics. And if, God forbid, they starved in the streets, that's really their problem. Everyone knows they were taught how to fish.
Maybe we can ship all those liberals out of the country, too. Because they are getting kinda looney y'know.
And anyone who dissents doesn't deserve to live in God's country.
We're on the defensive. That cannot be a good sign.
I'm voting for Bush/Cheney because I believe he will turn your precious freedom-loving country into a police state. I'm doing this because too many of us didn't stand up for our freedoms and our rights 3 years ago. So now we get to find out if its too late. There are new technologies that can easily control large crowds of angry citizens. And acts of terrorism or dissent will not be tolerated.
Hey I wanted my freedom too, I even know what freedom means, but nobody seems to care anymore. They're happy as long as they got their choice of Pepsi or Coke. So I'm voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004.
Are you affraid yet?
How does it feel?:)
If you want me to vote for Kerry all you got to do is stand up for freedom, explain what it means to you, and pray I haven't already given in to the belief that God will save us all.
I bet heaven has freedom too. And the best freedom fries, freedom bread, and freedom dressing this side of Texas.
Oh, nevermind, don't worry I probably won't vote at all. I'll be too busy watching TV or somethi
To make a profit you have to make an income greater than your expenses. Your total gross earnings must exceed your costs.
There are many ways to make money as a GPL using company. You can:
a) Sell the software in a box on a store shelf. b) Sell the software on CD from an online order form. c) Sell the software or ask for donations online via PayPal, Visa/MC, etc. d) Offer commercial customization options online so anyone who uses your software can purchase enhancements. e) Offer support services so anyone who uses your software can get support. f) Sell documentation. g) Sell certification. h) Sell training. i) Sell merchandise using the software and your accomplishments as advertisement. A simple contribute/donation option and a url link are much more pleasant than a full screen flashing advertisement from the perspective of the customer. j) Sell systems designed to run your software. k) Sell yourselves, offer money in exchange for your time on interviews, presentations, implementation/contracting, analysis/design, review/benchmarking with news and mass media, etc. l) Ask for donation (politely) from other F/OSS organizations if they are using your software. m) Be evil and try to make your customers pay by only offering the software for sale on your website, for very high prices, with marketting fluff and very little internal information so your customers can't tell what you do (if anything) to your software behind the scenes, then only give your source code modifications to the people who ask for it and only if it is required because you borrowed your source code from someone else because you were too [slow|stupid|lazy|greedy|cheap] to do it yourself, but unfortunately (for you) they were smart enough to release it with a GPL style license. So now you claim they don't exist and threaten to sue everyone who uses any copies of this software that you didn't authorize, build up your army of lawyers and plan to take over the world.
Care to name a few? I know of at least one socialist country that has more net access per capita than the US.
Just because capitalism worked to amass wealth in countries with slavery is no excuse that there aren't better solutions to be acknowledged and considered. People, human beings, are worth more than the money we pay them. Its time to recognise the value of each individual and provide them the proper environment to explore their potential. Capitalism doesn't always do this, though it often gets closer than, say, a monarchy.
I consider farming out labor to countries where their minimum wage and working conditions are lower than legally acceptable levels in the US is similar to slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
Or should I believe that Linux developers are deliberately making changes not to accomodate the users of the kernel, but to force the makers of drivers to open-source them?
You can believe whatever you want to believe. But I found something interesting over on the lkml.
Also, I don't see what the "API" discussion is. That's a _total_ red
herring. There is no "module API", and never has been. Modules have always
been about linking against internal kernel functions, and it's always been
very clear that there is no API, and that those internal kernel interfaces
change _all_ the time.
Linus
and this
> > A work that is inspired by Linux is no more a derivative work than
> > a programmatic musical composition inspired by a novel. Having
> > Linux in mind cannot be enough to constitute infringement.
>
> But it does - you have to include the Linux header files in order to be
> able to make any nontrivial module.
>
> I'm not claiming that "thinking about Linux makes you tainted". It's not
> about inspiration. But it's a bit like getting somebody pregnant: you have
> to do a lot more than just think about it to actually make it happen, or
> every high school in the world would be crawling with babies.
>
> In other words: feel free to be inspired by Linux all you want. But if you
> release a binary module that loads and works, you've been doing more than
> just feeling inspired. And then you need to be _careful_.
>
> Linus
but until Linus grows up and stabilizes the driver API
How did this get modded insightful? Are you saying you know more about designing a kernel than Linus? Most hardware either has GPL drivers embedded in the kernel which automatically get updated to new changes in the API, or no driver at all. For those binary-only models I don't see nVidia having any problems. Maybe the people making the binary-only drivers need to learn how to do their job. Ever think of that?
Come on people, it's 2004 and it's not too much to expect to be able to buy a piece of hardware that says "Drivers supplied for Linux 2.6" and expect to be able to use those drivers.
Yes it is too much to expect. Its only 2004. There are many pieces of hardware that still don't support Linux. And it has nothing to do with the driver API or how difficult it is/isn't to support. Most hardware would already be supported for free if they had released the specs.
Want to have your cake and eat it too? Well, we don't play that way. Its more like put up or shut up.
Well, one day a vendor will come along that supplies source code. Then we'll finally get some nice graphics hardware that fully integrates with the OS. When this happens the ball will be in nVidia's court to explain why their drivers don't fully integrate or why they have bugs and other problems that haven't been addressed.
Will it happen? Probably, but not today. So we'll see how it all plays out.
The best reason to restrict it is because I don't like it, so therefore you shouldn't be able to do it. I also don't like kissing in public, holding hands, looking sexual in any way, wearing makeup or fake hair or lots of extra unnecessary clothing, driving big ugly vehicles that get bad gas mileage, or smiling too much. We should restrict a lot of things. Yes, yes, I agree!
my next PVR will run MythTV -- unless HR2391 passes and makes me a criminal for skipping commercials.
If HR2391 passes I'll consider buying a gun and entertaining myself at the firing range. I bet if several million TV watching couch potatoes did something like that it would send a very clear message to everyone who wants to make everything illegal. They remember our history. Could you imagine how scared they would be if target practice suddenly became the nations favorite method of entertainment?
I bet they'd want to give you commercial-free cable TV for free, anything to keep you sedated.
Because the proprietary software might meet more of those requirements this year, but widespread adoption of the open solution might meet more of those requirements next year and cost you less and keep you clear of vendor lockin.
Its important to understand the simple concept that time is always moving forward. It never stops to rest. If we ignore that fact and that open software has been improving at a rate some say is faster than proprietary we might spend extra money on proprietary hardware and software to meet a solution today that could have been met for half the cost with open commodity goods.
Now if you ignore this and choose the proprietary solution anyway, then your competition (other governments/corps, etc.) choose the open solution and spend less money than you do you will be held accountable to your voting public, share holders, pocket book. And they might be able to outcompete you by using their money wisely, doing it the right way the first time, etc. Perhaps its easier to pick the best tool for the job today, but if it is no longer the best tool for the job tomorrow and you've spent a lot of cash on it what are you going to do then, ask for more money?
If governments had chosen Linux 4 years ago they wouldn't have had to pay for upgrades to their OSs. How much would that alone have saved them? What about per seat licensing on server software? What about... I could go on but I think you get the point.
What will happen to all our jobs if robots automate everything.
In a capitalist society like ours a person is only worth their salt if they provide some valuable labor to society. What will happen to all those people once their jobs are automated. With they be worth any salt?
I personally think that every person is worth more money than we could ever print. They are worth so much because they have within their possession a neural network with decades of programming that allow them to be creative and innovative in ways machines are not yet capable. Besides all that they are human, like me, so they automaticly get a +1 value of anything that is not. However, capitalists don't view the world this way.
I am affraid that these coming robots will displace jobs and the net result will be more poverty which leads to more crime and mental illness.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to phase out the existence of money than to attempt to make enough work for everyone to keep busy?
Perhaps if things get bad enough we will become more open minded to these ideas.
Similarly if you want people to be happy don't force them to live in poverty. Want to prevent crime, prevent homeless and jobless environments. Want to stop terrorism, don't shoot their relatives, provide them a better way of live by sharing and giving.
We would be a lot more productive if we didn't spend all our time counting coins, IMHO. What if we invested that time, instead, in building robots and automating labor?
Nah send sKerry, he flip-flops so much he can propell him self there and forgo the expensive boosters.
There's some good ol' right wing physics for yall. Well, I wish you luck. But I bet Bush on our PATRIOT missile will beat 'im to the red planet even if Kerry gets a head start.
Wouldn't this be a much better competition than just voting these losers into office?
Remember how George was saying how we were going to go to Mars. Well I agree. I vote to send Bush to Mars.
OSS has many bugs and security problems. But if I paid over $100 for my Linux based OS I would expect better quality and security than I get from XP. Ironicly I have less problems with viruses and popups on my free OS, which also includes more revelant software in its standard install. Not to mention I can modify, distribute and sell it. Perhaps Microsoft deserves some of this criticism. No one mentions Apple's software, do they.
I think of this as constructive criticism. But I know you and Microsoft would rather we just forgot about its flaws and moved on to show how wonderful the software is when it is working in a stable and secure manner. Maybe their next OS will have us agree in the EULA not to be so critical.
Haven't you guys played the game of Monopoly? That is what capitalism is all about. Once you have a monopoly why would you let some stupid community take it away from you? You didn't land on their monopoly with hotels and lose a bunch of money or anything that would force you to sell your monopoly. So its only fair to grant additional legal protection for our wholesome American businesses. They have the community's interests in mind. And I'm sure as soon as they win the game, forcing all their competition to sell their monopolies, they will revolutionize our communications infrastructure.
So have faith. One day AOL will offer 10 Mbps to your street, maybe even to your home. Though you will forever be capped on upload bandwidth because that threatens those RIAA/MPAA Monopolies, so you will have to take that up with them.
If we want to put people in space then we need to assure their safe return....
I agree. Money should be no object if we want manned space exploration. Or we can safely explore space unmanned with robots and save a bundle. What's the difference in cost between sending a human and a rover to Mars?
As long as we want to complain about the budget we shouldn't be allowed to risk the lives of our astronauts, IMO.
I've screwed around with mysql + various front ends (perl, tcl+tk, java), and it's not the same. End users need all the visual drag and drop kind of stuff, they don't want to touch code.
Well, if they don't want to touch code then why would anyone need to implement an Access clone complete with VBA? Why not just offer them a graphical frontend to perl/java and postgres/mysql without all the bloat?
I don't really care if those hardcore Access users migrate, but it would be nice to have an easy-to-use frontend for our databases and languages.
You don't pass laws to grant freedom. By default you are free to do whatever you want, and laws exist to selectively place restrictions on this freedom. The only way you get freedom back is to REPEAL laws, not pass new ones!
:)
Then why did they pass the amendments to the constitution? Weren't those freedoms implied?
I think some more definition of our freedom needs to become law because we all know this digital revolution changes everything. We have to draft new laws like the DMCA because we are dealing with copyright in a digital age, so now I think we should write up a bunch of freedom granting laws so people know they still have rights, digitally.
I suppose if everyone--instead--lived on a commune and ate daisies and smoked weed, we'd all be happier, right?
No, we'd be happier if we worked in the office environment programming systems and machines while smoking weed and giving away our software and technology under a F/OSS style license so everyone can contribute to the overall quality of the systems we all have to deal with on a daily basis. Is there something wrong with working in a stress-free environment that treats people with respect and encourages self, peer and group education?
When was the last time F/OSS users had to spend hours cleaning off viruses and worms from their systems? How much do you think it costs corporations to pay for those hours their employees wasted on maintaining Microsoft's insecure software? Why doesn't Microsoft make an OS free of these problems or lower their prices to make up for these added costs?
And as for the rest of your post, please read the fundamental attribution error. This is a concept in social psychology. Actually its a conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology, or at least that's what the wiki page says.
But I'm probably too liberal to understand these things. Y'know, smoked too much Cannabis and stuff. Mmmmm, Cannabis...
Well, what stops corporations from making unsafe products? Its not freedom and capitalism, because the consumer, in our society, isn't intelligent enough not to make purchasing decisions that don't hurt them or their neighbor. These regulations prevent businesses from damaging the environment excessively or getting a monopoly.
I doubt Kerry will be anywhere near as bad as Bush has been at erroding freedom, though he probably won't enact legislation that grants freedom.
When was the last time we passed legislation that gives us more freedom? Perhaps freedom is too dangerous for us to share. Maybe we should reserve it for the upper class citizens, like CEOs and members of the board, because they obviously are intelligent consumers.
Or maybe we should vote for Bush/Cheney and ask them to build us a police state where we can feel safe and protected by our Freedom-Loving(tm) government.
Forget the fish. What we need to do is outsource our homeless and prison problems to Mexico. We can ship anyone who can't afford a fish out of the country so we don't have to worry about them not finding a job, being homeless, begging for money, or upsetting our statistics. And if, God forbid, they starved in the streets, that's really their problem. Everyone knows they were taught how to fish.
Maybe we can ship all those liberals out of the country, too. Because they are getting kinda looney y'know.
And anyone who dissents doesn't deserve to live in God's country.
We're on the defensive. That cannot be a good sign.
:)
I'm voting for Bush/Cheney because I believe he will turn your precious freedom-loving country into a police state. I'm doing this because too many of us didn't stand up for our freedoms and our rights 3 years ago. So now we get to find out if its too late. There are new technologies that can easily control large crowds of angry citizens. And acts of terrorism or dissent will not be tolerated.
Hey I wanted my freedom too, I even know what freedom means, but nobody seems to care anymore. They're happy as long as they got their choice of Pepsi or Coke. So I'm voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004.
Are you affraid yet?
How does it feel?
If you want me to vote for Kerry all you got to do is stand up for freedom, explain what it means to you, and pray I haven't already given in to the belief that God will save us all.
I bet heaven has freedom too. And the best freedom fries, freedom bread, and freedom dressing this side of Texas.
Oh, nevermind, don't worry I probably won't vote at all. I'll be too busy watching TV or somethi
To make a profit you have to make an income greater than your expenses. Your total gross earnings must exceed your costs.
There are many ways to make money as a GPL using company. You can:
a) Sell the software in a box on a store shelf.
b) Sell the software on CD from an online order form.
c) Sell the software or ask for donations online via PayPal, Visa/MC, etc.
d) Offer commercial customization options online so anyone who uses your software can purchase enhancements.
e) Offer support services so anyone who uses your software can get support.
f) Sell documentation.
g) Sell certification.
h) Sell training.
i) Sell merchandise using the software and your accomplishments as advertisement. A simple contribute/donation option and a url link are much more pleasant than a full screen flashing advertisement from the perspective of the customer.
j) Sell systems designed to run your software.
k) Sell yourselves, offer money in exchange for your time on interviews, presentations, implementation/contracting, analysis/design, review/benchmarking with news and mass media, etc.
l) Ask for donation (politely) from other F/OSS organizations if they are using your software.
m) Be evil and try to make your customers pay by only offering the software for sale on your website, for very high prices, with marketting fluff and very little internal information so your customers can't tell what you do (if anything) to your software behind the scenes, then only give your source code modifications to the people who ask for it and only if it is required because you borrowed your source code from someone else because you were too [slow|stupid|lazy|greedy|cheap] to do it yourself, but unfortunately (for you) they were smart enough to release it with a GPL style license. So now you claim they don't exist and threaten to sue everyone who uses any copies of this software that you didn't authorize, build up your army of lawyers and plan to take over the world.
Don't use Direct Connect.
Use MUTE, or something more secure, instead.
$ echo "Hello, world!"
Absolute simplicity, proof that Shell is the supreme programming language!
"There can be only one." - Santa Clause in South Park
The best protection is abstinence.
But your Powerbook doesn't run Windows, so its irrelevant.
I think they should charge $150 per copy per CPU. I know its worth a lot more than that considering developement and licensing costs.
Care to name a few? I know of at least one socialist country that has more net access per capita than the US.
Just because capitalism worked to amass wealth in countries with slavery is no excuse that there aren't better solutions to be acknowledged and considered. People, human beings, are worth more than the money we pay them. Its time to recognise the value of each individual and provide them the proper environment to explore their potential. Capitalism doesn't always do this, though it often gets closer than, say, a monarchy.
I consider farming out labor to countries where their minimum wage and working conditions are lower than legally acceptable levels in the US is similar to slavery.