Now that X Windows was split up into modular chunks, wouldn't it in theory by easier to try and pull it apart?
Why rewrite it from scratch right now when the solution might be simply to assemble fewer of the chunks?
Most people don't need an X windowing server per se. They just need to be able to communicate with the graphics and input hardware. I'd like to see someone assemble a stripped-down, minimalist version of X windows.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I believe xorg-x11 version 7 was the first modular one. That was a good three years ago.
"And in addition to the 4th Amendment, the Bush administration has also violated the 5th (due process) the 6th (speedy trials) and 8th (cruel and unusual punishment)."
Way to be clear. I find it odd that the President is personally responsible for everything that happens within the country, and outside of the country during his watch.
First off, not a single court has declared the wiretaps illegal yet.
Secondly, I mentioned Jose Padilla and asked you to name something other than that, which you have failed to do.
Lastly, courts have upheld water-boarding and such for 100 years. It doesn't necessarily make it humane or right, but it isn't illegal per se either. There were some interesting articles I've read about debates on water-boarding during the Spanish American war.
Try Wikipedia and Google. The phrase you quoted includes the term "unreasonable search". Searches are legal, so long as a court determines them reasonable. It is not clearly defined. No where does the term privacy appear. The Constitution doesn't say you have absolute right of privacy. It includes clauses to prevent a person from forced self-incrimination. It prevents unreasonable searches. There is a Grand-Canyon-sized difference between protected privacy, and searches must be okayed by a judge. If a judge rules the search appropriate, then it is legal. Probable cause allows for searching without a warrant for instance. A big portion of this is the interpretation of the courts. That is precisely what I said.
What part of that do you not understand?
"Congress never passed any bills to legalize warrantless wiretapping"
"To say that Bush and Cheney should not be impeached for their long, long list of crimes marks one as either grossly ignorant or an incompetent tool."
Care to enumerate a few of them? I can. In this thread I've suggested Bush should be held responsible for Jose Padilla. Yet a bunch of idiots keep harping on an illegal war when they have no clue what they're talking about. Please, please open your mouth and tell me what laws they broke.
I'd love to blast your various arguments to shreds.
I eagerly await your next fact-less personal attack.
For what it is worth, I think this is the first thread I've responded to anyone that is supposedly Twitter or one his puppets. Furthermore, I disagreed with one of his so-called puppets.
I find sock-puppets to be weak sauce. I'm shocked the site allows them. I'm not sure how everyone is so convinced which accounts are puppets. I'm guessing the mods can see ip addresses and such.
That being said, I did pull a sock-puppet prank once myself, but only as a joke. I thought it was a pretty good joke, and I made no effort to hide the nature of the puppets.
I'm a huge fan of factcheck.org, and oddly enough I discovered it during the Vice Presidential debates 4 years ago when Cheney was advocating it (except I think he called it factcheck.com mistakenly).
Please read up on the Starr Report then. There was all kinds of evidence linking him to a laundry list of crimes. He was charged however only with perjury and abuse of power if I recall.
The biggest problem with the Starr report, is that it dug up far too much, so both parties then quickly sought to bury it, so as to not make the entire country look bad.
And I am extremely suspect of anyone who claims that Clinton wasn't a liar. Primary Colors was written by a close friend of his, and even that book suggested he was a life-long pathological liar.
As a disclaimer, I consider myself very liberal in my political platforms. That doesn't mean I have to worship Clinton, and hate Bush absolutely. There are reasons to hate Bush certainly, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate to try to keep such discussions factual.
The all caps don't make your point suddenly more valid.
The right to privacy is implied, but not very clearly defined in the Constitution. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to privacy. I'm saying there is some legal grey area that should be cleared up.
I think it is reprehensible, but it is up to the courts to decide if it is illegal.
If you're so utterly convinced the Constitution clearly defines your right to privacy, please explain it to me with actual passages.
And just so everyone knows that I'm not a Bush lover, I do think Bush can and should be impeached. The spying is a tough one, again because Congress passed it, and because our Constitutional right to privacy is more one of not being forced to self-incriminate. It would certainly be interesting to see played out in front of a court, but it isn't slam dunk by any means.
I'd have impeached Bush a long time ago over Jose Padilla however. Padilla is a scum bug, but he is an American citizen all the same. I routinely disagree with fanatics who scream the sky is falling, and that we'll all go to gitmo for being unpatriotic, but the Padilla case did happen. There should be fallout for suspending the rights of a US citizen.
The President can't go to war by definition. The President can deploy troops for 90 days (???) and then Congress either sends the troops home, or votes to continue the deployment.
Congress voted to go to war, and the measure passed with strong bi-partisan support. Congress repeatedly votes to continue deployments, and to fund the war.
People routinely call the war illegal. You are free to disagree with the war, and that is fine. I won't even necessarily argue with you. But Congress approved the war, and the UN did so retroactively as well.
When we deposed Saddam, and no new government was in place yet, the UN even voted and recognized the US military's control of Iraq as being a sovreign government.
It simply is not factual to call the war illegal.
I'm not taking political sides. I'm arguing facts because I care about facts.
Not all fanatics are violent, but fanaticism is often unhealthy behavior. Fanaticism is often illogical. For instance, even when Jack Thompson has a point (little kids likely shouldn't be playing GTA) he can't really get credit for being correct because his logic is faulty. He has said that kids playing video games are "Manchurian Candidates ready to kill us all".
Fanaticism certainly doesn't win you brownie points when it comes to diplomacy. I thought we learned this lesson with Bush.
You insist that his fantaticism is a good thing. In the companies I've worked for, people won't go near OSS, and some of that is due to the reputation OSS gets via association with fanaticism.
Also, as a point of semantics, I define fanaticism as idealogy taken to an unhealthy/negative level. In that regard, fanatacism is never good, by definition. I believe a person can be revolutionary, and an idealist without a fanatic.
RMS once said he'd never sign a software license, and didn't agree with the concept of one, only to invent one. The GPLv2 was a great license. I'd argue the benefits outweighed the restrictions, but a license inherently is a series of restrictions. The GPLv3 is even more restrictive. He recent issued a release telling people to fear the government, and always pay in cash because the government was using the Oyster card system to track where you are at all times.
I won't advocate a Big Brother government, but frankly most Big Brother stuff is paranoid delusions, or security theater. Someone bombed a recruitment facility in New York City, and smiled at the camera right before he blew the place up.
London has cameras all over the place, not because the government knows where everyone is at all times (it takes an illogical amount of man power to fully spy on everyone) but to create an illusion of control that will hopefully disuade crime, though often it won't.
When the world decides on how seriously to take OSS as a crusade, RMS's paranoid rants don't help his cause. People associate the ideal with the person championing it.
The GPL allows for commercial software, but RMS has spoken in the past how all software should be free as beer as well. He has spoken out a number of times against commercial software, and long railed against many of the pillars of the OSS community for being commercial.
He is supposed to be a champion of freedom, of choice, yet in reality he wants everyone tied into a dichotomy of 100% free or nothing. He complains when people are given a choice of proprietary products *tainting* free ones. He fails to realize that a partial adoption of OSS technology is better than no adoption, and somtimes partial adoptions are the gateway to total adoptions.
I sure hope he realizes he can't impeach the President for going to war, since Congress votes to go to war. I would assume someone in Congress would realize this.
If the article is based on lying, you'd have to prove the person knowingly lied. And lying isn't against the law, unless you're talking perjury. And I though Democrats didn't think perjury was impeachable.
That being said, I'm not a Bush lover by any means, and I find it fairly interesting that he is being brought up on charges of spying on citizens. Whether or not that is illegal is debatable, even if it is reprehensible, and again, we're talking about bills that have been passed repeatedly by a bipartisan Congress. In Bush is guilty, again, so is everyone who voted on those measures.
"It's no longer possible to write a commercial desktop or server OS and expect to turn a profit from it."
Funny, a few years ago Apple was left for dead, developed a new OS, and is gaining market share as they're selling it.
Similarly, you can't write a commercial office suite, just look at wordperfect, once the dominant player, now pretty screwed.
Corel still sells Wordperfect and makes a profit doing so, but their market share is pathetic. If Sun, IBM, Corel, etc. got together and worked on a kick-ass office suite, and united under either the Wordperfect or Lotus brand name, I think they could sell a serious office suite and compete.
1). Get Dell, HP and the like to preinstall it on any computer that doesn't already come with Microsoft Office, as opposed to Works. A fully-functional, free suite is better than Works and PC OEM's should realize this. Win-win for everyone here. 2). Don't dillute the market with 20 different suites. Again, work together. IBM created a nice interface. Wordperfect is proven. OpenOffice has an interesting base. If you improve your Microsoft filters, combine market share, and work towards one incredible UI, you'd have an Office killer. 3). IBM is smart to target big business and sell it is a cost-effective alternative to Microsoft, but you need to target students. Get schools to install it.
"It's come to the stage that commercial competition with microsoft simply isn't viable."
Tell that to Google and Yahoo who trounce Microsoft's search/advertising efforts. Tell that to Apple who is thriving selling an OS. Tell that to Apple who has completely dominated the MP3 player and online music market. Tell that to Sony and Nintendo, etc. etc. etc.
Many of us benefit from his contributions, and I am grateful for that, but RMS is also a crack-pot and his statements must be taken with a grain of salt.
It is interesting how most people today point at political and religious fanactics and all agree that fanaticism is never good, while many here worship at the feet of a fanatic.
I'm all for advocating freedom, open source, and open standards. I also believe that these causes are best fought by level-headed folk. Acting like a crack-pot only makes the whole cause look bad.
Search your feelings Skywalker, you know it to be true.
Apple manufactures and sells the phone. AT&T sells the service. Alone the same lines, Samsung is going to sell the i900 phone, and Sprint will sell service on that phone.
They launch a phone without many features people expect in free phones, and charge $600 a pop. Now companies like Samsung offer up serious competition with the i900, and suddenly Apple is charging $200 a pop.
Lesson 1: Competition is good. Lesson 2: If you paid $600 for an inferior product, you were hosed.
I'm really curious to see the price point on the i900, which last I heard, will be available in January (a few months earlier than the 3G iPhone).
I'm sick of seeing perfect 10 after perfect 10 review. Not only do I know these are absolutely worthless in regards to objectivity, but very few reviews explain what gameplay is like on a very specific scale.
A good description allows me to decide how much I might enjoy that game. After all, we all enjoy different things.
How long until someone uses technology like this to do a GTA-like in actual New York City, with real buildings as opposed to Liberty City? Admittedly, that would start getting creepy when you realize those are real residences and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that X Windows was split up into modular chunks, wouldn't it in theory by easier to try and pull it apart?
Why rewrite it from scratch right now when the solution might be simply to assemble fewer of the chunks?
Most people don't need an X windowing server per se. They just need to be able to communicate with the graphics and input hardware. I'd like to see someone assemble a stripped-down, minimalist version of X windows.
I believe xorg-x11 version 7 was the first modular one. That was a good three years ago.
"And in addition to the 4th Amendment, the Bush administration has also violated the 5th (due process) the 6th (speedy trials) and 8th (cruel and unusual punishment)."
Way to be clear. I find it odd that the President is personally responsible for everything that happens within the country, and outside of the country during his watch.
First off, not a single court has declared the wiretaps illegal yet.
Secondly, I mentioned Jose Padilla and asked you to name something other than that, which you have failed to do.
Lastly, courts have upheld water-boarding and such for 100 years. It doesn't necessarily make it humane or right, but it isn't illegal per se either. There were some interesting articles I've read about debates on water-boarding during the Spanish American war.
"do you not understand?"
Try Wikipedia and Google. The phrase you quoted includes the term "unreasonable search". Searches are legal, so long as a court determines them reasonable. It is not clearly defined. No where does the term privacy appear. The Constitution doesn't say you have absolute right of privacy. It includes clauses to prevent a person from forced self-incrimination. It prevents unreasonable searches. There is a Grand-Canyon-sized difference between protected privacy, and searches must be okayed by a judge. If a judge rules the search appropriate, then it is legal. Probable cause allows for searching without a warrant for instance. A big portion of this is the interpretation of the courts. That is precisely what I said.
What part of that do you not understand?
"Congress never passed any bills to legalize warrantless wiretapping"
http://www.google.com/search?q=congress+wireless+wiretap
Google is your friend.
"To say that Bush and Cheney should not be impeached for their long, long list of crimes marks one as either grossly ignorant or an incompetent tool."
Care to enumerate a few of them? I can. In this thread I've suggested Bush should be held responsible for Jose Padilla. Yet a bunch of idiots keep harping on an illegal war when they have no clue what they're talking about. Please, please open your mouth and tell me what laws they broke.
I'd love to blast your various arguments to shreds.
I eagerly await your next fact-less personal attack.
"against unreasonable searches and seizures"
The courts determine what is a reasonable search. Therefore it is debatable within the court system whether or not the wiretapping was illegal.
Calm down. Try logic next time.
For what it is worth, I think this is the first thread I've responded to anyone that is supposedly Twitter or one his puppets. Furthermore, I disagreed with one of his so-called puppets.
I find sock-puppets to be weak sauce. I'm shocked the site allows them. I'm not sure how everyone is so convinced which accounts are puppets. I'm guessing the mods can see ip addresses and such.
That being said, I did pull a sock-puppet prank once myself, but only as a joke. I thought it was a pretty good joke, and I made no effort to hide the nature of the puppets.
http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?t37016.html
Just and legal are two very different things.
I won't get into the just argument because it is inherently legthy, and perhaps premature. The legal debate is another one altogether.
I'm a huge fan of factcheck.org, and oddly enough I discovered it during the Vice Presidential debates 4 years ago when Cheney was advocating it (except I think he called it factcheck.com mistakenly).
Please read up on the Starr Report then. There was all kinds of evidence linking him to a laundry list of crimes. He was charged however only with perjury and abuse of power if I recall.
The biggest problem with the Starr report, is that it dug up far too much, so both parties then quickly sought to bury it, so as to not make the entire country look bad.
And I am extremely suspect of anyone who claims that Clinton wasn't a liar. Primary Colors was written by a close friend of his, and even that book suggested he was a life-long pathological liar.
As a disclaimer, I consider myself very liberal in my political platforms. That doesn't mean I have to worship Clinton, and hate Bush absolutely. There are reasons to hate Bush certainly, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate to try to keep such discussions factual.
The all caps don't make your point suddenly more valid.
The right to privacy is implied, but not very clearly defined in the Constitution. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to privacy. I'm saying there is some legal grey area that should be cleared up.
I think it is reprehensible, but it is up to the courts to decide if it is illegal.
If you're so utterly convinced the Constitution clearly defines your right to privacy, please explain it to me with actual passages.
And just so everyone knows that I'm not a Bush lover, I do think Bush can and should be impeached. The spying is a tough one, again because Congress passed it, and because our Constitutional right to privacy is more one of not being forced to self-incriminate. It would certainly be interesting to see played out in front of a court, but it isn't slam dunk by any means.
I'd have impeached Bush a long time ago over Jose Padilla however. Padilla is a scum bug, but he is an American citizen all the same. I routinely disagree with fanatics who scream the sky is falling, and that we'll all go to gitmo for being unpatriotic, but the Padilla case did happen. There should be fallout for suspending the rights of a US citizen.
The President can't go to war by definition. The President can deploy troops for 90 days (???) and then Congress either sends the troops home, or votes to continue the deployment.
Congress voted to go to war, and the measure passed with strong bi-partisan support. Congress repeatedly votes to continue deployments, and to fund the war.
People routinely call the war illegal. You are free to disagree with the war, and that is fine. I won't even necessarily argue with you. But Congress approved the war, and the UN did so retroactively as well.
When we deposed Saddam, and no new government was in place yet, the UN even voted and recognized the US military's control of Iraq as being a sovreign government.
It simply is not factual to call the war illegal.
I'm not taking political sides. I'm arguing facts because I care about facts.
Sex sells. Apple lives and dies by this.
A sexy UI will sell software.
Not all fanatics are violent, but fanaticism is often unhealthy behavior. Fanaticism is often illogical. For instance, even when Jack Thompson has a point (little kids likely shouldn't be playing GTA) he can't really get credit for being correct because his logic is faulty. He has said that kids playing video games are "Manchurian Candidates ready to kill us all".
Fanaticism certainly doesn't win you brownie points when it comes to diplomacy. I thought we learned this lesson with Bush.
You insist that his fantaticism is a good thing. In the companies I've worked for, people won't go near OSS, and some of that is due to the reputation OSS gets via association with fanaticism.
Also, as a point of semantics, I define fanaticism as idealogy taken to an unhealthy/negative level. In that regard, fanatacism is never good, by definition. I believe a person can be revolutionary, and an idealist without a fanatic.
RMS once said he'd never sign a software license, and didn't agree with the concept of one, only to invent one. The GPLv2 was a great license. I'd argue the benefits outweighed the restrictions, but a license inherently is a series of restrictions. The GPLv3 is even more restrictive. He recent issued a release telling people to fear the government, and always pay in cash because the government was using the Oyster card system to track where you are at all times.
I won't advocate a Big Brother government, but frankly most Big Brother stuff is paranoid delusions, or security theater. Someone bombed a recruitment facility in New York City, and smiled at the camera right before he blew the place up.
London has cameras all over the place, not because the government knows where everyone is at all times (it takes an illogical amount of man power to fully spy on everyone) but to create an illusion of control that will hopefully disuade crime, though often it won't.
When the world decides on how seriously to take OSS as a crusade, RMS's paranoid rants don't help his cause. People associate the ideal with the person championing it.
The GPL allows for commercial software, but RMS has spoken in the past how all software should be free as beer as well. He has spoken out a number of times against commercial software, and long railed against many of the pillars of the OSS community for being commercial.
He is supposed to be a champion of freedom, of choice, yet in reality he wants everyone tied into a dichotomy of 100% free or nothing. He complains when people are given a choice of proprietary products *tainting* free ones. He fails to realize that a partial adoption of OSS technology is better than no adoption, and somtimes partial adoptions are the gateway to total adoptions.
Please mod parent up over and over again.
I sure hope he realizes he can't impeach the President for going to war, since Congress votes to go to war. I would assume someone in Congress would realize this.
If the article is based on lying, you'd have to prove the person knowingly lied. And lying isn't against the law, unless you're talking perjury. And I though Democrats didn't think perjury was impeachable.
That being said, I'm not a Bush lover by any means, and I find it fairly interesting that he is being brought up on charges of spying on citizens. Whether or not that is illegal is debatable, even if it is reprehensible, and again, we're talking about bills that have been passed repeatedly by a bipartisan Congress. In Bush is guilty, again, so is everyone who voted on those measures.
Thusly, the impeachment isn't going anywhere.
"It's no longer possible to write a commercial desktop or server OS and expect to turn a profit from it."
Funny, a few years ago Apple was left for dead, developed a new OS, and is gaining market share as they're selling it.
Similarly, you can't write a commercial office suite, just look at wordperfect, once the dominant player, now pretty screwed.
Corel still sells Wordperfect and makes a profit doing so, but their market share is pathetic. If Sun, IBM, Corel, etc. got together and worked on a kick-ass office suite, and united under either the Wordperfect or Lotus brand name, I think they could sell a serious office suite and compete.
1). Get Dell, HP and the like to preinstall it on any computer that doesn't already come with Microsoft Office, as opposed to Works. A fully-functional, free suite is better than Works and PC OEM's should realize this. Win-win for everyone here.
2). Don't dillute the market with 20 different suites. Again, work together. IBM created a nice interface. Wordperfect is proven. OpenOffice has an interesting base. If you improve your Microsoft filters, combine market share, and work towards one incredible UI, you'd have an Office killer.
3). IBM is smart to target big business and sell it is a cost-effective alternative to Microsoft, but you need to target students. Get schools to install it.
"It's come to the stage that commercial competition with microsoft simply isn't viable."
Tell that to Google and Yahoo who trounce Microsoft's search/advertising efforts. Tell that to Apple who is thriving selling an OS. Tell that to Apple who has completely dominated the MP3 player and online music market. Tell that to Sony and Nintendo, etc. etc. etc.
Many of us benefit from his contributions, and I am grateful for that, but RMS is also a crack-pot and his statements must be taken with a grain of salt.
It is interesting how most people today point at political and religious fanactics and all agree that fanaticism is never good, while many here worship at the feet of a fanatic.
I'm all for advocating freedom, open source, and open standards. I also believe that these causes are best fought by level-headed folk. Acting like a crack-pot only makes the whole cause look bad.
Search your feelings Skywalker, you know it to be true.
All those countries initially voted no with comments. The comments weren't addressed, and then suddenly the standard was fast-tracked and passed.
The "appeals" will be heard, but I'm not expecting a miracle here.
Apple manufactures and sells the phone. AT&T sells the service. Alone the same lines, Samsung is going to sell the i900 phone, and Sprint will sell service on that phone.
And that text often reads "This game is twelve shades of awesome!" as opposed to adequately describing gameplay mechanics.
They launch a phone without many features people expect in free phones, and charge $600 a pop. Now companies like Samsung offer up serious competition with the i900, and suddenly Apple is charging $200 a pop.
Lesson 1: Competition is good.
Lesson 2: If you paid $600 for an inferior product, you were hosed.
I'm really curious to see the price point on the i900, which last I heard, will be available in January (a few months earlier than the 3G iPhone).
How is a game all that quantifiable?
I'm sick of seeing perfect 10 after perfect 10 review. Not only do I know these are absolutely worthless in regards to objectivity, but very few reviews explain what gameplay is like on a very specific scale.
A good description allows me to decide how much I might enjoy that game. After all, we all enjoy different things.
How long until someone uses technology like this to do a GTA-like in actual New York City, with real buildings as opposed to Liberty City? Admittedly, that would start getting creepy when you realize those are real residences and the like.
Manhole was my favorite Hypercard game.