unless you're blind or very stupid, there are quite a few cases where it's obvious that there is, indeed, no traffic
imply that you think so? The asshat who nearly hit me as I came out of a sidestreet (I'll add that as I had a green he must have run a red) would probably agree with you. I obviously wasn't there because he couldn't see me. Or perhaps he was blind and stupid, who knows?
They do have cities where you come from, huh? With narrow streets and sharp corners and idiots who park right on those corners?
Since it appears Oracle is not interested in Red Hat or Novell (I said appears; never let it be said Ellison couldn't change his mind in a heartbeat), they'll go after someone else, like Ubuntu.
Who says they need to go after anyone? They could simply take the source and fork off of it, like Whitebox and Centos did.
You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property: it is limited in time it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress
It does. But nobody seems to take any notice of it, which is why people are able to patent business processes, naturally ocurring organisms and the wheel.
Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.
I agree it doesn't say they're limited. But it doesn't say they're unlimited either. In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.
I am only speaking from my own firsthand knowledge as a freelance programmer over the last 8 years or so. 99% of the clients that I take on want thier code done in Visual Studio, mostly for maintainability reasons.
Make your mind up. In one sentence you claim to be a programmer, but in another you say you use visual studio. Seriously, it couldn't be that your firsthand knowledge is somewhat biased, on the grounds that you tend to look at the stuff you know, which tends to be M$?
I've been a freelance programmer longer than you and I haven't programmed anything other than hobby stuff on Windoze since I was a student.
Then you're a bit of an idiot. With the audio example, the transformation is digital to analog. With the camera, it's the other way. You do understand causality, right?
Well, the problem with man pages s that to use them, you need to know the command, and that's often the question.
If the rest of your rant says anything, it's probably that the FAQ is too big (It's actually a EQEA) or it's badly written. Or both. While that may well be the case, the user should still read it. One, they might find the answer. Two, they might find some background information which saves them asking other questions in future. Third, and perhaps most important, the question they ask might be more intelligently phrased and more likely to get a sensible answer.
i.e. instead of "My network card not working can u hlp me pls" they mention the distro & version, make/model of card, exact definition of what it does wrong, error message...
So the conclusion is probably that different software created by different people is usually going to be different.
But it's more likely to be more different when it's produced by volunteers, simply because a business has more power to compel developers to follow standards or guidelines.
That's probably a good thing and you should just get used to it. Nobody can invent a single way to do things that is right for every piece of software you might want to use in the future.
This is plainly and simply wrong. While no one way may be intrinsically any better than the others, making things different just for the sake of it adds no value at all and smacks of developer arrogance to me. All it does is confuse users - which no doubt feeds that arrogance and sense of being "733t".
For example, it doesn't matter whether an electric plug has flat or round pins, but it's useful that they match the socket in the wall, and that a TV has the same shaped one as a microwave. Sometimes a standard is right simply because it is a standard.
Linux is a good example of this - it's not descriptive in the least.
I agree. It doessn't even remotley remind me of Linus. Or unix. Or Linus' unix. At all. In fact, I have no idea (sorry RMS, gnu/no idea) why those words sprang to mind.
But if they really need only one or two things, chances are they're the same ones most people want, i.e. they're frequently asked, ergo they're the FAQ. There really is no excuse for not reading the FAQ if it exists. Period.
To extend your piscatorial analogy way, way too far:
It's more like 1) the fish that you want, nay a whole shoal of them, has already been caught and 2) they've probably got them in that fishmonger's shop there, right next door. You can smell it from here.
You may complain that it's hard to find, but you can't complain that it's not there.
But if it's not where you can find it easily, it might as well not exist. In a way it would be better if it didn't exist - at least the effort of creating it wouldn't have been wasted. The problem with a lot of the documentation in linux is that you often need to know the answer before you can look it up...
Though linux is by no means the sole, or even the worst, offender for that.
Question: how often do you drive in snow? Specifically, the kind of loosely packed snow that would benefit from having locked tires dig in? That's right, close to never.
Quite often. If you live in Finland.
But then I suspect you'd either have tyre chains or special studded tyres. Which might somewhat reduce the need use strip mining as a means of speed reduction.
A company which has no experience in a given area tends to purchase another company that does have that experience.
And then make an utter balls-up of running it. Mainly due to the fact that all the key people in the target company - the ones whose knowledge made it a desirable acquisition - get pushed out in favour of people from the new owners. Who have like, bought in, and are team players and so totally with the program and all that stuff.
Makes you wonder if they think experience & competence are stored in the carpets.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus you could wear a cool, sophisticated monocle without any accusations of being pretentious. Chicks love cool and sophisticated.
You must be really old, then. Since apparently remember the times before cakes, coffee, tobacco, newspapers and gossip were invented.
Who says they need to go after anyone? They could simply take the source and fork off of it, like Whitebox and Centos did.
He sure did. Nobody could ork cows like that guy!
I agree it doesn't say they're limited. But it doesn't say they're unlimited either. In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.
I've been a freelance programmer longer than you and I haven't programmed anything other than hobby stuff on Windoze since I was a student.
Then you're a bit of an idiot. With the audio example, the transformation is digital to analog. With the camera, it's the other way. You do understand causality, right?
If the rest of your rant says anything, it's probably that the FAQ is too big (It's actually a EQEA) or it's badly written. Or both. While that may well be the case, the user should still read it. One, they might find the answer. Two, they might find some background information which saves them asking other questions in future. Third, and perhaps most important, the question they ask might be more intelligently phrased and more likely to get a sensible answer. i.e. instead of "My network card not working can u hlp me pls" they mention the distro & version, make/model of card, exact definition of what it does wrong, error message...
This is plainly and simply wrong. While no one way may be intrinsically any better than the others, making things different just for the sake of it adds no value at all and smacks of developer arrogance to me. All it does is confuse users - which no doubt feeds that arrogance and sense of being "733t".
For example, it doesn't matter whether an electric plug has flat or round pins, but it's useful that they match the socket in the wall, and that a TV has the same shaped one as a microwave. Sometimes a standard is right simply because it is a standard.
No, -1 Diaper.
To extend your piscatorial analogy way, way too far:
It's more like 1) the fish that you want, nay a whole shoal of them, has already been caught and 2) they've probably got them in that fishmonger's shop there, right next door. You can smell it from here.
Though linux is by no means the sole, or even the worst, offender for that.
They'd probably mistake it for a unix command. Making it four whole letters long removes any such ambiguity.
That country where it isn't always foggy. Sometimes it rains.
Sorry, you lost me there. Is it something about cricket?
But then I suspect you'd either have tyre chains or special studded tyres. Which might somewhat reduce the need use strip mining as a means of speed reduction.
Makes you wonder if they think experience & competence are stored in the carpets.