How dare someone attempt to bring publicity to human rights by placing themselves at risk? What a selfish move, clearly. Members of "Free Tibet" movements are without a doubt looking for personal gain.
Actually the fact that he is an American is all that much better. What is the saying, when the Nazis came for the Poles I said nothing because I wasn't Polish, etc.
True civil rights means not necessarily forwarding the rights of your minority, but upholding human rights for all human beings. Few people seem to get that.
And like Rosa Parks, he is advocating civil rights through non-violent demonstration.
It is especially powerful that an American is doing so, because it garners more press, and because it shows the Tibetans that other people feel their plight.
Antitrust isn't about market share so much as how well you play with others. You can be anti-competitive without a commanding market share. For instance, Intel is in hot water for demanding retailers not carry AMD products and without shipments from retailers who did. Intel doesn't have a 90% market share, but they can be held responsible for their tactics.
Conversely, the local utility company has no competition, yet they are a legal monopoly. In some states, these "natural" monopolies are regulated.
Microsoft can have a 93% OS market share, and get a pass if they behave well and play nicely with the other kids in the sandbox. Interoperability is precisely what the EU called for.
The EU also declared them to be a monopoly. The issue is not what they were judged on in the past, but whether or not future business practices will merit judgments against them. Having interoperability deals, and playing nice with others saves them from possible antitrust judgments.
The last judgment was over $500 million, plus interest. So they're spending $100 million here, but they recoup some of that by selling the licenses. Even if they take a 50% loss (unlikely) they're dropping 50 million to prevent being fined 500 million. That is a pretty smart investment.
It is called hedging your bets and cutting your losses.
Let's say I'm a CIO who is considering putting Linux in my shop and dropping Microsoft. I'm a little scared, but I want to take the plunge.
Microsoft comes in, and says "we'll work with you. We'll see you commercial support for Linux, and push you in the direction of a Linux distro aimed at interoperability with Microsoft products."
Instead of Microsoft losing money completely, they make up the loss of Microsoft licenses with profits from support contracts, and convince the CIO to not drop Microsoft completely, but rather mix Linux and Microsoft products. They keep a close relationship with the CIO, and establish goodwill in the hopes the CIO will return completely to the Microsoft fold.
All the while they earn interoperability brownie points with the EU.
Is this evil? No. It is in fact really smart business and I applaud them following legitimate smart business tactics as opposed to some of their old ones.
...and I'll even share! I'm all for watching girl-on-girl action!
That being said, as much as my wife and I both love naked chicks, I can't imagine being married to more than one woman, let alone surviving longer from it. One woman is enough to kill me.
Several people have suggested they remove the age limit. In gymnastics especially, it seems like some athletes reach their peak at a very young age. What if Shawn Johnson were a year younger and couldn't compete? 4 years from now she'd by 19, and you generally don't see anyone that old in Olympic gymnastics. Because of timing she'd be screwed over.
I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the age to 14, or even eliminating the limit for gymnasts. However, the rules are the rules right now and cheaters should be punished.
If China wanted younger athletes in, they should have petitioned the IOC for a rule change rather than cheating.
I thought there was another official government statement from a previous event last year that dates one of the team members as being 13. Even though there was had proof from an official Chinese government statement, the IOC said they'd do nothing.
Did you somehow miss me saying I don't want to rehash this over and over again?
I tried it. I hated it. I think honesty anyone of any real discriminant taste who tries several distros is likely to find that most distros are better than Ubuntu in many different ways.
So install the restricted modules.deb package. It's trivial. Or does that not work with a custom kernel?
Perhaps you don't understand. The restricted module.deb package is for a specific kernel. The version made for 2.6.25.15-1 (or whatever) only works with that specific kernel. If you roll your own kernel, that package does not exist. I did download the ATI driver from the ATI website, and that installed fine. However, the ATI module refused to load. The kernel threw an error saying it wouldn't load the proprietary driver without the restricted module package. I checked the source repositories and found no source to make that package myself.
I asked repeatedly how I might make that package, and was told not to attempt to compile anything. I should be happy with defaults.
I explained the default didn't work. I was given no help to fix the driver issue, so I was attempting to fix it myself, and was chastised for doing so.
Even worse, the fact that the kernel has an added measure preventing you from loading proprietary modules was the final blow. Why would the Ubuntu devs add that extra measure into their kernel sources?
Effectively it kills any chance to rolling your own kernel, and using proprietary drivers at the same time.
Again, like many other areas I ran into with the distro, it locks you in and removes choice.
It is exactly as I have said repeatedly. The distro is aimed at a certain market, and I am not that market.
I can only assume you're talking about Hardy, in which KDE 4 was not considered stable. The stable Kubuntu Hardy featured KDE 3.5.
Yes, and the stock KDE 3.5 packages in Kubuntu are still pretty terrible. But the KDE 4.0.4 packages were even worse. They built and packaged them incorrectly, to the point that they got called out by the KDE devs.
The Hardy release had plenty of massive problems aside from the KDE 4 version, which isn't how you issue a LTS release of a major distro that is trying to promote itself as a top-tier product, and enterprise worthy.
Shuttleworth always says that Ubuntu "just works", yet the Hardy release was a very bad example of that.
No, I don't believe the CDDL has blocking rules, which is why FreeBSD was able to pick up DTrace and ZFS. However, the GPL has blocking rules which is preventing the inclusion of ZFS in the Linux kernel.
I'm not a kernel dev, but I read the LKML for a long time. Reiser4 works currently the way it is written, by writing a plugin system that basically only Reiser4 uses.
Some others suggested rewriting the VFS that all file systems in Linux go through, basically placing in many of the improvements that Reiser4 offers, and allowing other file systems to load the "plugins" as well if they so desired.
It seems at one moment, Linus was against the entire idea, and the next he'd state Reiser4 won't get in until that happened.
Hans Reiser said he was out of money, and didn't have the means to basically rewrite both Reiser4 and the Linux VFS, so he wanted it to be included as is.
If brtfs is running into situations where it needs to alter the VFS, then it should propose seperate patches to do that. I don't think the Linux kernel devs were against changing VFS. In fact, it seemed most of them prefered doing that, rather than having a redundant, different means of performing a task within your FS, rather than placing that code in the middle where everyone can get to it.
Sun has not yet released ZFS an openSolaris under GPLv3, which is the first step.
Next, the Linux kernel would need to be GPLv3.
Linus can relicense all of his contributions to GPLv3, but then the kernel can not include any code currently licensed GPLv2. So actually, every developer who contributed code and maintained copyright on that code would have to be contacted, and all of them would have to agree to relicense the code.
Unlike many other projects where people contributed under "GPLv2 or later", the Linux kernel is basically all "GPLv2 specifically".
It would be a logistic nightmare to relicense the Linux kernel, and many developers have stated they would be opposed to it on principle as well.
Sun could just license ZFS and the openSolaris kernel under GPLv2, but in their eyes it would be effectively giving it away for nothing. The reason they'd consider GPLv3, is to entice the Linux kernel to go the same route, and then both can take from each other.
When Sun discovered that Linux wasn't likely to go GPLv3, they decided not to either.
openSUSE 11 is the first version (a fairly recent release BTW) where I really started to like SUSE at all. Package management is pretty fast. I've yet to run into any dependency hell. The new solver works well. Yast is a good tool. The install is very fast. The installer will auto-resize a Windows partition and setup dual-boot (as its recommendation, but you can always change the partition scheme during the installer).
The KDE, KDE 4 and Gnome desktops are all very solid in openSUSE 11.
I have no real complaints with it so far, and I finally ditched Gentoo with it. I loved Gentoo for a while, but I think they are hurting from lack of management, direction, and package maintainers.
In the past four or five years I've posted in probably five or six threads where I've said I don't like Ubuntu. Maybe it is because I loathe that damned distro.
And actually I try to stay away from that discussion. I repeatedly tell people I don't want to get into those details and rehash something unnecessarily.
Your attempt to mischaracterize me here really falls flat. Over the years, amazingly enough I've said as much positive about Ubuntu (mainly centered on Shuttleworth's grasp of marketing) as I've said negative. I don't hang out on the Ubuntu forums and troll. Instead I go to other forums and try to provide them with helpful information.
No, I said I've had the argument several times before and don't see the need to repeat it. Just look for previous posts (like the ones I've listed above).
Trolls get off on pissing people off. I'm trying to avoid an argument. How the hell does that make me a troll?
If anything you're trying to bait me, and frankly I could care less.
Slashdot Mirror
iTunes is the single biggest retailer of music on the planet, surpassing Wal*Mart. That happened a year ago.
Keep up with the times.
And there was a DVD audio format, but it will never catch on.
He kept calling that damned annoying Verizon guy.
"You're in Thailand now? Can you hear me now?"
He used a whistle found in a cereal box.
The Yast /etc/sysconfig editor also operates in a tree view that one could compare to MMC. I'm not sure if it intentionally mimics MMC, or not.
How dare someone attempt to bring publicity to human rights by placing themselves at risk? What a selfish move, clearly. Members of "Free Tibet" movements are without a doubt looking for personal gain.
Actually the fact that he is an American is all that much better. What is the saying, when the Nazis came for the Poles I said nothing because I wasn't Polish, etc.
True civil rights means not necessarily forwarding the rights of your minority, but upholding human rights for all human beings. Few people seem to get that.
And like Rosa Parks, he is advocating civil rights through non-violent demonstration.
It is especially powerful that an American is doing so, because it garners more press, and because it shows the Tibetans that other people feel their plight.
Microsoft isn't providing the support. Novell provides the support. Microsoft is reselling Novell support.
Rosa Parks knew that she was SUPPOSED to give up her seat, but she took a stand. It was arguably dangerous for her to do so.
People who have the balls to stand up against tyrants may be called stupid by some, but they will be called heroes by others.
Oh, and non-destructive graffiti is pretty damned cool.
Antitrust isn't about market share so much as how well you play with others. You can be anti-competitive without a commanding market share. For instance, Intel is in hot water for demanding retailers not carry AMD products and without shipments from retailers who did. Intel doesn't have a 90% market share, but they can be held responsible for their tactics.
Conversely, the local utility company has no competition, yet they are a legal monopoly. In some states, these "natural" monopolies are regulated.
Microsoft can have a 93% OS market share, and get a pass if they behave well and play nicely with the other kids in the sandbox. Interoperability is precisely what the EU called for.
The EU also declared them to be a monopoly. The issue is not what they were judged on in the past, but whether or not future business practices will merit judgments against them. Having interoperability deals, and playing nice with others saves them from possible antitrust judgments.
The last judgment was over $500 million, plus interest. So they're spending $100 million here, but they recoup some of that by selling the licenses. Even if they take a 50% loss (unlikely) they're dropping 50 million to prevent being fined 500 million. That is a pretty smart investment.
It is called hedging your bets and cutting your losses.
Let's say I'm a CIO who is considering putting Linux in my shop and dropping Microsoft. I'm a little scared, but I want to take the plunge.
Microsoft comes in, and says "we'll work with you. We'll see you commercial support for Linux, and push you in the direction of a Linux distro aimed at interoperability with Microsoft products."
Instead of Microsoft losing money completely, they make up the loss of Microsoft licenses with profits from support contracts, and convince the CIO to not drop Microsoft completely, but rather mix Linux and Microsoft products. They keep a close relationship with the CIO, and establish goodwill in the hopes the CIO will return completely to the Microsoft fold.
All the while they earn interoperability brownie points with the EU.
Is this evil? No. It is in fact really smart business and I applaud them following legitimate smart business tactics as opposed to some of their old ones.
...and I'll even share! I'm all for watching girl-on-girl action!
That being said, as much as my wife and I both love naked chicks, I can't imagine being married to more than one woman, let alone surviving longer from it. One woman is enough to kill me.
Several people have suggested they remove the age limit. In gymnastics especially, it seems like some athletes reach their peak at a very young age. What if Shawn Johnson were a year younger and couldn't compete? 4 years from now she'd by 19, and you generally don't see anyone that old in Olympic gymnastics. Because of timing she'd be screwed over.
I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the age to 14, or even eliminating the limit for gymnasts. However, the rules are the rules right now and cheaters should be punished.
If China wanted younger athletes in, they should have petitioned the IOC for a rule change rather than cheating.
I thought there was another official government statement from a previous event last year that dates one of the team members as being 13. Even though there was had proof from an official Chinese government statement, the IOC said they'd do nothing.
I imagine they'll do nothing here as well.
Did you somehow miss me saying I don't want to rehash this over and over again?
I tried it. I hated it. I think honesty anyone of any real discriminant taste who tries several distros is likely to find that most distros are better than Ubuntu in many different ways.
So install the restricted modules .deb package. It's trivial. Or does that not work with a custom kernel?
Perhaps you don't understand. The restricted module .deb package is for a specific kernel. The version made for 2.6.25.15-1 (or whatever) only works with that specific kernel. If you roll your own kernel, that package does not exist. I did download the ATI driver from the ATI website, and that installed fine. However, the ATI module refused to load. The kernel threw an error saying it wouldn't load the proprietary driver without the restricted module package. I checked the source repositories and found no source to make that package myself.
I asked repeatedly how I might make that package, and was told not to attempt to compile anything. I should be happy with defaults.
I explained the default didn't work. I was given no help to fix the driver issue, so I was attempting to fix it myself, and was chastised for doing so.
Even worse, the fact that the kernel has an added measure preventing you from loading proprietary modules was the final blow. Why would the Ubuntu devs add that extra measure into their kernel sources?
Effectively it kills any chance to rolling your own kernel, and using proprietary drivers at the same time.
Again, like many other areas I ran into with the distro, it locks you in and removes choice.
It is exactly as I have said repeatedly. The distro is aimed at a certain market, and I am not that market.
I can only assume you're talking about Hardy, in which KDE 4 was not considered stable. The stable Kubuntu Hardy featured KDE 3.5.
Yes, and the stock KDE 3.5 packages in Kubuntu are still pretty terrible. But the KDE 4.0.4 packages were even worse. They built and packaged them incorrectly, to the point that they got called out by the KDE devs.
The Hardy release had plenty of massive problems aside from the KDE 4 version, which isn't how you issue a LTS release of a major distro that is trying to promote itself as a top-tier product, and enterprise worthy.
Shuttleworth always says that Ubuntu "just works", yet the Hardy release was a very bad example of that.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=650253&cid=24661487
No, I don't believe the CDDL has blocking rules, which is why FreeBSD was able to pick up DTrace and ZFS. However, the GPL has blocking rules which is preventing the inclusion of ZFS in the Linux kernel.
I'm not a kernel dev, but I read the LKML for a long time. Reiser4 works currently the way it is written, by writing a plugin system that basically only Reiser4 uses.
Some others suggested rewriting the VFS that all file systems in Linux go through, basically placing in many of the improvements that Reiser4 offers, and allowing other file systems to load the "plugins" as well if they so desired.
It seems at one moment, Linus was against the entire idea, and the next he'd state Reiser4 won't get in until that happened.
Hans Reiser said he was out of money, and didn't have the means to basically rewrite both Reiser4 and the Linux VFS, so he wanted it to be included as is.
If brtfs is running into situations where it needs to alter the VFS, then it should propose seperate patches to do that. I don't think the Linux kernel devs were against changing VFS. In fact, it seemed most of them prefered doing that, rather than having a redundant, different means of performing a task within your FS, rather than placing that code in the middle where everyone can get to it.
ZFS is still under the CDDL currently. Sun said they'd released ZFS under the GPLv3 if the Linux kernel went GPLv3.
Sun has not yet released ZFS an openSolaris under GPLv3, which is the first step.
Next, the Linux kernel would need to be GPLv3.
Linus can relicense all of his contributions to GPLv3, but then the kernel can not include any code currently licensed GPLv2. So actually, every developer who contributed code and maintained copyright on that code would have to be contacted, and all of them would have to agree to relicense the code.
Unlike many other projects where people contributed under "GPLv2 or later", the Linux kernel is basically all "GPLv2 specifically".
It would be a logistic nightmare to relicense the Linux kernel, and many developers have stated they would be opposed to it on principle as well.
Sun could just license ZFS and the openSolaris kernel under GPLv2, but in their eyes it would be effectively giving it away for nothing. The reason they'd consider GPLv3, is to entice the Linux kernel to go the same route, and then both can take from each other.
When Sun discovered that Linux wasn't likely to go GPLv3, they decided not to either.
openSUSE 11 is the first version (a fairly recent release BTW) where I really started to like SUSE at all. Package management is pretty fast. I've yet to run into any dependency hell. The new solver works well. Yast is a good tool. The install is very fast. The installer will auto-resize a Windows partition and setup dual-boot (as its recommendation, but you can always change the partition scheme during the installer).
The KDE, KDE 4 and Gnome desktops are all very solid in openSUSE 11.
I have no real complaints with it so far, and I finally ditched Gentoo with it. I loved Gentoo for a while, but I think they are hurting from lack of management, direction, and package maintainers.
There are patches to switch schedulers are boot, but Linus has fought to keep these from going upstream. He doesn't want the scheduler to be modular.
Thanks. :)
In the past four or five years I've posted in probably five or six threads where I've said I don't like Ubuntu. Maybe it is because I loathe that damned distro.
And actually I try to stay away from that discussion. I repeatedly tell people I don't want to get into those details and rehash something unnecessarily.
Your attempt to mischaracterize me here really falls flat. Over the years, amazingly enough I've said as much positive about Ubuntu (mainly centered on Shuttleworth's grasp of marketing) as I've said negative. I don't hang out on the Ubuntu forums and troll. Instead I go to other forums and try to provide them with helpful information.
No, I said I've had the argument several times before and don't see the need to repeat it. Just look for previous posts (like the ones I've listed above).
Trolls get off on pissing people off. I'm trying to avoid an argument. How the hell does that make me a troll?
If anything you're trying to bait me, and frankly I could care less.