Flash? Ha. You must be kidding me. Flash is hands down the most abused feature on the web.
I don't have flash, I don't have java, I don't have adverts, and I have a disallowed by default policy on both javascript and cookies. These are parts of the web that I don't want and don't need, and between this (admitting strict) setup, I keep my privacy and my speed.
The FSF is dedicated to allowing people to create code that everyone is free to use, for any reason (save the restriction of freedom of others). This code must remain free for everyone in the future to benefit from. This is why is it Free Software, and not simply Open Source. The FSF percieve the ability to take BSD source and use it in closed-source software as a disadvantage of the BSD/MIT licences.
That said, the BSD/MIT licences do have advantages in some contexts. Bittorrent, OpenDocument and Ogg Vorbis are examples of things that are legal for anyone to include in their software, which allows everyone, even people who don't use Free Software to be able to interchange infomation, and this improves interoperability. (Even through Bram Cohen has regrettably since changed to a licence that is no longer DFSG-free). The FSF feel that releasing their source code into the public domain (or under BSD) would directly benefit large companies who have an interest in harming the software community's progress.
And I believe that the Windows iptables stuff was a lift of the BSD iptables, hence the fuck in the arse.
Linux on the amd64 platform is getting pretty advanced; alot of the problems are disappearing, and with multilib we are able to use 32 bit binaries too (in an increasing number of cases). If vista is delayed until 2007, most of the unixes will have gotten pretty stable; it will be interesting to comepare the two; looks like we'll be starting on the amd64 with a significant advantage.
This is the reason I'm not buying an expensive hardrive player. Ogg will mean that a 40gb drive could become ~60gb worth (this ratio can be even higher, depending on what bitrate you choose). Perhaps this is why they refuse to support it?
whenever our interests clash we negotiate a mutually agreeable compromise.
I'm a libertarian too (you, quite obviously, lean further in than I), but you must admit that this happens extremely rarely. I do believe that when Hitler and Churchills interests clashed, we ended up with a rather large war. You really can't live inside those rose-tinted glasses; no political ideology works all the time, for socialists and statists freedom of movement is the problem, for conservatives, it falls down at about the time that government starts regulation. This is where libertarianism trips.
I thought RMS, main point is that computer software was originally free for all to use, and once corporations became involved that changed. ITS was free and open, IIRC (i don't know if any of that PDP-7 assembly survived however).
Unixes don't have to worry about things like email attachments, because those aren't given executable status unless a user specifically gives it thosee rights.
Alot of these methods are really standard practice on unixes; for many home installations, the only time you need to use rootspace is when you want to run wget&make/yum/apt-get/emerge. Generally, once daemons are setup, there is very little need to do anything special, security wise.
"you have absolutely no right to say what the author can and can't include in his software package."
I have every right to say that the author is an amoral jackass who is ruining the computers of people who are knowledgable enough about computers to discern software packages. I have every right to say the daemon-tools is a poor piece of software because of it.
I cannot force the author to change his software-and I wouldn't even if i could. But I will implore him to.
DVD has macrovison (according to wikipedia), which is DRM by most peoples definition. I also see regional coding as DRM, since it was designed to restrict users. I'd probably put CSS under DRM too, since it does digitally restrict users. Peoples definitions of DRM is different (mine is comparitively wide) so YMMV.
SUITCASES??? YOU LUCKY BASTARD!! We only had rucksacks! I had to scavenge parts from the sewer to get it working, because working equipment wasn't in the budget, and our equipment was a 486 and a gumball machine. Our aircraft were mainly comprised of half a stolen Russian MiG, and an old Lada.
By your arguement, png is a waste of space too. You ever heard a low bitrate mp3 on a pair of good speakers? If you had, I promise you that you wouldn't have made that comment. Besides, with the expansion of harddrives etc, space isn't really an issue.
The biggest problem with this is that there is a lot of software out there that can only be run on a MS platform.
If rootkits are exclusive to the Windows, then I would really prefer if they weren't ported to other operating systems.
In an ideal world, Microsoft would make changes to future permission systems to prevent this from happening to people, but thats pretty unlikely considering history.
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software
Rephrased: I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to me.
Ever considered thinking about this affects people who run OS's that don't have this feature? Think about the old guy who's still running win95, or your mum, who runs winxp, or the friend who just bought a new mac. This might not effect you, but it will effect other people. But I'm sure you're still in the "I'm ok Jack" state of mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash? Ha. You must be kidding me. Flash is hands down the most abused feature on the web.
I don't have flash, I don't have java, I don't have adverts, and I have a disallowed by default policy on both javascript and cookies. These are parts of the web that I don't want and don't need, and between this (admitting strict) setup, I keep my privacy and my speed.
It's clearly meant to be "Freedom for users, except users than restrict the freedom of other users".
You might be interested to note:
The FSF is dedicated to allowing people to create code that everyone is free to use, for any reason (save the restriction of freedom of others). This code must remain free for everyone in the future to benefit from. This is why is it Free Software, and not simply Open Source. The FSF percieve the ability to take BSD source and use it in closed-source software as a disadvantage of the BSD/MIT licences.
That said, the BSD/MIT licences do have advantages in some contexts. Bittorrent, OpenDocument and Ogg Vorbis are examples of things that are legal for anyone to include in their software, which allows everyone, even people who don't use Free Software to be able to interchange infomation, and this improves interoperability. (Even through Bram Cohen has regrettably since changed to a licence that is no longer DFSG-free). The FSF feel that releasing their source code into the public domain (or under BSD) would directly benefit large companies who have an interest in harming the software community's progress.
And I believe that the Windows iptables stuff was a lift of the BSD iptables, hence the fuck in the arse.
Isn't the whole problem that is doesn't exist? (Hence the "anti")
Ahhhhhhh, whatever happened to the "God made it" explaination? In my day it was all we had.
Linux on the amd64 platform is getting pretty advanced; alot of the problems are disappearing, and with multilib we are able to use 32 bit binaries too (in an increasing number of cases). If vista is delayed until 2007, most of the unixes will have gotten pretty stable; it will be interesting to comepare the two; looks like we'll be starting on the amd64 with a significant advantage.
This is the reason I'm not buying an expensive hardrive player. Ogg will mean that a 40gb drive could become ~60gb worth (this ratio can be even higher, depending on what bitrate you choose). Perhaps this is why they refuse to support it?
Newsflash: A remote control does not make radio suck less.
That sounds a lot like a Debian user. ;)
:p)
Is this a new "emacs vs vi" style holy war? (For the record I use both
whenever our interests clash we negotiate a mutually agreeable compromise.
I'm a libertarian too (you, quite obviously, lean further in than I), but you must admit that this happens extremely rarely. I do believe that when Hitler and Churchills interests clashed, we ended up with a rather large war. You really can't live inside those rose-tinted glasses; no political ideology works all the time, for socialists and statists freedom of movement is the problem, for conservatives, it falls down at about the time that government starts regulation. This is where libertarianism trips.
I thought RMS, main point is that computer software was originally free for all to use, and once corporations became involved that changed. ITS was free and open, IIRC (i don't know if any of that PDP-7 assembly survived however).
Unixes don't have to worry about things like email attachments, because those aren't given executable status unless a user specifically gives it thosee rights.
Alot of these methods are really standard practice on unixes; for many home installations, the only time you need to use rootspace is when you want to run wget&make/yum/apt-get/emerge. Generally, once daemons are setup, there is very little need to do anything special, security wise.
"you have absolutely no right to say what the author can and can't include in his software package."
I have every right to say that the author is an amoral jackass who is ruining the computers of people who are knowledgable enough about computers to discern software packages. I have every right to say the daemon-tools is a poor piece of software because of it.
I cannot force the author to change his software-and I wouldn't even if i could. But I will implore him to.
Greed? You mean programs that break peoples computers for profit?
firefox lets you have full control of font types and sizes too....
With all that crap, isn't it time you thought about another operating system?
DVD has macrovison (according to wikipedia), which is DRM by most peoples definition. I also see regional coding as DRM, since it was designed to restrict users. I'd probably put CSS under DRM too, since it does digitally restrict users. Peoples definitions of DRM is different (mine is comparitively wide) so YMMV.
HD DVD has drm too. So did DVD. Read up.
You could've mentioned that the pic was irrelevant to this discussion.
I swear the slogan should be "Works by default."
SUITCASES??? YOU LUCKY BASTARD!! We only had rucksacks! I had to scavenge parts from the sewer to get it working, because working equipment wasn't in the budget, and our equipment was a 486 and a gumball machine. Our aircraft were mainly comprised of half a stolen Russian MiG, and an old Lada.
By your arguement, png is a waste of space too. You ever heard a low bitrate mp3 on a pair of good speakers? If you had, I promise you that you wouldn't have made that comment. Besides, with the expansion of harddrives etc, space isn't really an issue.
The biggest problem with this is that there is a lot of software out there that can only be run on a MS platform.
If rootkits are exclusive to the Windows, then I would really prefer if they weren't ported to other operating systems.
In an ideal world, Microsoft would make changes to future permission systems to prevent this from happening to people, but thats pretty unlikely considering history.
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software
Rephrased: I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to me.
Ever considered thinking about this affects people who run OS's that don't have this feature? Think about the old guy who's still running win95, or your mum, who runs winxp, or the friend who just bought a new mac. This might not effect you, but it will effect other people. But I'm sure you're still in the "I'm ok Jack" state of mind.
But I could see why it would bother you... if you are gay.
Childish namecalling really hammers your point home.