Sorry, i guess I should've said "Windows 7 copies GNOME", which I always think of as "Linux" since it's the desktop environment I use. For some reason I doubt that Compiz or anything similar runs on Unix. The folder setup I was thinking of was GNOME's "Documents", "Music", etc. instead of "My Documents", "My Music", etc. Similarly, GNOME has had something like UAC for forever, which is helpful because Linux programs have always written with the assumption that they won't be run as root (except for programs meant to be used by root).
Compiz does have at least one effect that I assume was stolen from OSX (the scale/Expose effect), but judging from this, compiz has quite a few effects that don't exist on OSX.
Microsoft is already copying Linux. Did anyone else notice how Windows 7 and Vista lay out home folders exactly the same way Linux does? And the blatant copying of Compiz? The UAC?
The market is processors used in general purpose computers, and the lawsuit is because Intel makes sure that that market is the same as the market for x86. Other processors could easily be used in general purpose computers (Cell is not one of them), but the lawsuit alleges that Intel is using bribes to make sure that doesn't happen.
Except there is no choice. All of our major ISPs are part of an oligarchy propped up by the government. Don't want to pay $60 a month for cable? Our other option is "fuck you".
I think Ubuntu and Debian are the reason the myth that "Linux doesn't support new hardware" still exists. I have a laptop I got almost a year ago and I could never get the sound working. The funny thing about how it "just works" in Arch is that support for my soundcard was added to ALSA before I bought the laptop, Ubuntu is just way behind.
I hadn't considered that. I assumed that since Debian's version of "stable" is two years older than Ubuntu's that their "unstable" would be just as useless as Ubuntu's backports (I seriously think the entire repo doesn't contain a single package). I'll check it out though.
I hate how "stable" is targeted at home users though. Some of us want new software.
I really like how Arch packages work for one simple reason: Anyone can make them. In Ubuntu if you need a package that isn't included or is too old, you can request it (yeah right) or build it yourself (if you're willing to spend two days packaging it so it doesn't break other things). In Arch, it's probably already in the AUR, and if it's not, the packages are one obvious file with name, version number, url, hash, and what you have to do to build and install it (usually "make install" will do it). I have a huge list of problems with the Debian packaging system as well, but suffice it to say, it's a huge waste of time, but if you don't then you lose the whole point of having a package-based distro.
That's actually not such a bad idea. Maybe we could refocus all of those creation "scientists" on something worthwhile. You know, take their argument and turn it around: "Well, if you proved Colorless Jesus Powder exists then we'd have to believe in God" and then once they do we can switch to "Oh come on, only crazy people didn't believe in Colorless Jesus Powder, to really prove science wrong, you'd need to show exactly how the Jesus Explosion occurred". And so on..
And then I thought Ubuntu was too slow, so I switched to Arch (rolling release) and it's more stable. That may seem strange to you, but only if you don't know how Ubuntu/Debian defines "stable". Stable on Debian and Ubuntu means old. If it was release a year ago, it's stable. Who cares if sound doesn't work on your computer, at least it's stable! Who cares if pidgin-facebookchat crashes every couple minutes, in Debian-land it's stable (this is a particularly interesting case because pidgin-facebookchat was added right after the project started, and then Ubuntu arbitrarily stopped adding new versions to the repos even though the plugin still isn't done, so every release adds to the stability). Mozilla release are remarkably stable and always contain security updates.. but sorry, Firefox 3.5 wasn't old enough until this release. Every version of the nvidia drivers add more stability, but I think we'll stick with the old versions.. you know.. because they're old.
And that's not to say that sticking with old versions is always bad, it's just that the method of deciding what's stable is literally "is it old?". Why not test things and then update, instead of arbitrarily picking a version and declaring it to be stable? Or keep track of projects that release safe code and give them 2 weeks to make sure there's no horrible bugs, and then update (like what exactly is the reason for holding back Firefox and Pidgin?).
Yes but if you want to share ideas with someone and not have them beat you to market, you can make them sign a contract saying they won't make the same device for some amount of time. In this case, they should have done that, but they didn't, so I see nothing wrong with B&N making a similar product.
Yeah really, the only thing I see wrong in this case is that B&N was working with them, but if the company didn't want B&N to steal their idea, they should've signed a contract to that effect.
Maybe a combination or redundancy and price/power ratio? When you're sending something in to space the weight is more important the price, so it may cost them similar amounts to send up 100 laptops vs 1 huge server, but it's also a lot harder to break 100 laptops and much easier to "fix" a laptop if you have 100 spares (leave the old one in a pile and replace it when you land). One factor might be that laptops are already designed to be light, while weight isn't really a factor for most servers (so they'd have to design their own). Laptops are also designed to deal with bumps, so they may survive re-entry better.
Last time I checked, you click on the network icon, click "Create New Wireless Network" (or something like that, I'm on a school computer right now), then you put in the SSID and security you want and it's done.
Wouldn't compression do this? I've never written a program involving compression, but it seems like the first thing you'd look for is two places that have the same data, and then you could just store them as references to the original data.
For $20/month you could get a Linode, and run pretty much anything you want off of it. As a bonus, you also gets speeds that your local ISP will never offer you. If you're really paranoid, you could put your public key on the machine and encrypt all incoming email. Just hope you don't lose your private key..
You just gave me another idea for a source of "copyright infringment". New-ish hard drives have fairly significant amounts of cache. Hypothetically, with a small enough program or a large amount of cache, you could have two "unauthorized copies" in memory: one in system memory and one in the hard drive's cache. And that's not even counting processor cache (probably small enough to be considered fair use).
I think you hit the problem right on the head. Or at least a major part of the problem. There are all those campaigns to "get up and vote" to show off your democracy or something, but somehow I doubt the whole "I don't know who any of these people are but I'm voting anyway" was what our founders had in mind..
Trying to get rid of all bacteria in their bodies seems like a bit much, but what about sterilizing all of the food and equipment, then keeping the astronauts in quarantine for [some amount of time], so that we can be reasonably sure that they don't have anything nasty? Once they're in space, they're going to catch anything they didn't bring with them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, i guess I should've said "Windows 7 copies GNOME", which I always think of as "Linux" since it's the desktop environment I use. For some reason I doubt that Compiz or anything similar runs on Unix. The folder setup I was thinking of was GNOME's "Documents", "Music", etc. instead of "My Documents", "My Music", etc. Similarly, GNOME has had something like UAC for forever, which is helpful because Linux programs have always written with the assumption that they won't be run as root (except for programs meant to be used by root).
Compiz does have at least one effect that I assume was stolen from OSX (the scale/Expose effect), but judging from this, compiz has quite a few effects that don't exist on OSX.
GTK/Qt is a big deal, but the others really aren't. Every major distro seems to be moving towards ext4, and Compiz Fusion is Compiz + Beryl.
Yay dial-up?
Yes but Debian releases every 2 years, Ubuntu releases every 6 months.
Microsoft is already copying Linux. Did anyone else notice how Windows 7 and Vista lay out home folders exactly the same way Linux does? And the blatant copying of Compiz? The UAC?
Xmarks is actually extremely slow and bloated. You should try Weave..
The market is processors used in general purpose computers, and the lawsuit is because Intel makes sure that that market is the same as the market for x86. Other processors could easily be used in general purpose computers (Cell is not one of them), but the lawsuit alleges that Intel is using bribes to make sure that doesn't happen.
Except there is no choice. All of our major ISPs are part of an oligarchy propped up by the government. Don't want to pay $60 a month for cable? Our other option is "fuck you".
I think Ubuntu and Debian are the reason the myth that "Linux doesn't support new hardware" still exists. I have a laptop I got almost a year ago and I could never get the sound working. The funny thing about how it "just works" in Arch is that support for my soundcard was added to ALSA before I bought the laptop, Ubuntu is just way behind.
I hadn't considered that. I assumed that since Debian's version of "stable" is two years older than Ubuntu's that their "unstable" would be just as useless as Ubuntu's backports (I seriously think the entire repo doesn't contain a single package). I'll check it out though.
I hate how "stable" is targeted at home users though. Some of us want new software.
I really like how Arch packages work for one simple reason: Anyone can make them. In Ubuntu if you need a package that isn't included or is too old, you can request it (yeah right) or build it yourself (if you're willing to spend two days packaging it so it doesn't break other things). In Arch, it's probably already in the AUR, and if it's not, the packages are one obvious file with name, version number, url, hash, and what you have to do to build and install it (usually "make install" will do it). I have a huge list of problems with the Debian packaging system as well, but suffice it to say, it's a huge waste of time, but if you don't then you lose the whole point of having a package-based distro.
That's actually not such a bad idea. Maybe we could refocus all of those creation "scientists" on something worthwhile. You know, take their argument and turn it around: "Well, if you proved Colorless Jesus Powder exists then we'd have to believe in God" and then once they do we can switch to "Oh come on, only crazy people didn't believe in Colorless Jesus Powder, to really prove science wrong, you'd need to show exactly how the Jesus Explosion occurred". And so on..
And then I thought Ubuntu was too slow, so I switched to Arch (rolling release) and it's more stable. That may seem strange to you, but only if you don't know how Ubuntu/Debian defines "stable". Stable on Debian and Ubuntu means old. If it was release a year ago, it's stable. Who cares if sound doesn't work on your computer, at least it's stable! Who cares if pidgin-facebookchat crashes every couple minutes, in Debian-land it's stable (this is a particularly interesting case because pidgin-facebookchat was added right after the project started, and then Ubuntu arbitrarily stopped adding new versions to the repos even though the plugin still isn't done, so every release adds to the stability). Mozilla release are remarkably stable and always contain security updates.. but sorry, Firefox 3.5 wasn't old enough until this release. Every version of the nvidia drivers add more stability, but I think we'll stick with the old versions.. you know.. because they're old.
And that's not to say that sticking with old versions is always bad, it's just that the method of deciding what's stable is literally "is it old?". Why not test things and then update, instead of arbitrarily picking a version and declaring it to be stable? Or keep track of projects that release safe code and give them 2 weeks to make sure there's no horrible bugs, and then update (like what exactly is the reason for holding back Firefox and Pidgin?).
Yes but if you want to share ideas with someone and not have them beat you to market, you can make them sign a contract saying they won't make the same device for some amount of time. In this case, they should have done that, but they didn't, so I see nothing wrong with B&N making a similar product.
Yeah really, the only thing I see wrong in this case is that B&N was working with them, but if the company didn't want B&N to steal their idea, they should've signed a contract to that effect.
Maybe a combination or redundancy and price/power ratio? When you're sending something in to space the weight is more important the price, so it may cost them similar amounts to send up 100 laptops vs 1 huge server, but it's also a lot harder to break 100 laptops and much easier to "fix" a laptop if you have 100 spares (leave the old one in a pile and replace it when you land). One factor might be that laptops are already designed to be light, while weight isn't really a factor for most servers (so they'd have to design their own). Laptops are also designed to deal with bumps, so they may survive re-entry better.
Ah but I'm one step ahead of you, my password is on a sticky note attached to the bottom of my webcam! Let's see them find it there!
Last time I checked, you click on the network icon, click "Create New Wireless Network" (or something like that, I'm on a school computer right now), then you put in the SSID and security you want and it's done.
Sorry, but I think your car analogy is flawed. It's more like the difference between "don't get in cars with strangers" and "rebuild this engine".
If you don't select WGA, you don't get some of the new patches though. They just don't show up until it's installed.
Wouldn't compression do this? I've never written a program involving compression, but it seems like the first thing you'd look for is two places that have the same data, and then you could just store them as references to the original data.
For $20/month you could get a Linode, and run pretty much anything you want off of it. As a bonus, you also gets speeds that your local ISP will never offer you. If you're really paranoid, you could put your public key on the machine and encrypt all incoming email. Just hope you don't lose your private key..
You just gave me another idea for a source of "copyright infringment". New-ish hard drives have fairly significant amounts of cache. Hypothetically, with a small enough program or a large amount of cache, you could have two "unauthorized copies" in memory: one in system memory and one in the hard drive's cache. And that's not even counting processor cache (probably small enough to be considered fair use).
I think you hit the problem right on the head. Or at least a major part of the problem. There are all those campaigns to "get up and vote" to show off your democracy or something, but somehow I doubt the whole "I don't know who any of these people are but I'm voting anyway" was what our founders had in mind..
Trying to get rid of all bacteria in their bodies seems like a bit much, but what about sterilizing all of the food and equipment, then keeping the astronauts in quarantine for [some amount of time], so that we can be reasonably sure that they don't have anything nasty? Once they're in space, they're going to catch anything they didn't bring with them.