The composer part of your post is obsolete. Nvu is a replacement for Mozilla Composer, and has far better and more features to boot.
I agree with the rest of your post though. I myself have taken a liking to this new IE7 Beta however.
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Notice the "by default" part of his comment? Doing a custom install wouldn't be "by default" now would it?
Now re-read his comment 5 times before posting again please:)
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Name a single feature not included in Firefox that your Grandma would be dissapointed by it not being included.
How about doing as ImageShack asks, and using their page with advertisements? Or are you helping them pay for the bandwidth out of your own pocket?
Re:Do people actually log-in when searching Google
on
Google Toolbar v.4
·
· Score: 1
Since when do you perform these activities through Google.com? I can't say I have ever checked my bank account information, or anything else of the sort, through a search engine.
I log into Google.com simply because my computer is a single user computer, and I leave myself logged into Gmail.com, which also leaves me logged into Google.com.
You people are being dumb. Google receives hundreds of millions of search queries a day. Do you honestly think someone is sitting on the other end monitoring *everyone's* search habits. Christ, the company only has 3000 employees. It is done using software that uses the information for targetted ads, nothing more.
Ever since this whole China thing, everyone is paranoid of Google. Google is following THE LAW in China. Google has no choice in the matter. This is exactly the same as Google not being allowed to show kiddie porn results in the US. Is that censorship? Yes. Does anyone bitch about it? No.
Destruction? Hardly. If I ask any other person I know that uses Google, they could care less whether results are censored in China. They use their services because they find them useful, not because of the company itself.
Well then why don't you pay Google the billions of potential dollars they would be losing by taking your advice....every year? Google isn't here to please random Slashdotters, Google is here to make money, and 99% of Google's users probably don't give two shits about this whole thing. Grow up, quit being a crybaby, and get over it.
And face it, the Chinese are used to this kind of treatment....and it will continue, with or without Google. Another poster said that China needs Google more than the other way around. That poster is braindead. I doubt Chinese people really care whether they use Yahoo!, MSN, Baidu or Google.
If all search engines did as you say, people would simply not be able to use search engines in China, the Chinese government wouldn't care. Why take such a valuable resource, censored or not, away from over a billion people?
I completely disagree. Google Earth has much better coverage. For instance, Google Local has a big green blob covering several blocks right over my house (up in Canada). In Google Earth I have no problem viewing any of this area. The coverage was taken at different dates too. There is a park right by my house (about 7 or 8 blocks away) during the summer, which is turned into a skating rink in the winter. On Google Earth it shows the skating rink, on Google Local it shows the green leaves and no rink.
Kind of ironic, I go to view an article that talks about how the looks of a website influence our impressions of the site within 50 ms, and the pink in the article is so bright and ugly it hurts my eyes. Needless to say, I didn't RTFA.
So Party A can't sue Party B for breaching the GPL because Party C failed to sue Party D before for willful infringement, all because both pieces of software use the same license?
You should go work for SCO's legal team me thinks.
Re:My measurement of Google's evil...
on
A Look at Google DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That drew me to reflect on Google's other practices. What was Google's line of reasoning that led it to release a non-open source desktop search utility?
Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?
Almost right. SCO now gets 100% of the money on binary sales of Unixware. Novell retains 95% (that's right, SCO gets 5%, not 15%) for all SVRx licensees and all Unixware Source licensees, subject to a few limited exceptions. In order for SCO to receive 100% of the royalties for the SCOSource, Sun and Microsoft licenses, one of the requirements was that SCO ask Novell for permission first before entering into the licenses (actually, according to the contract, that was a requirement for even offering the license in the first place, never mind receiving all of the royalties). SCO didn't do this, and thus they are not exempt from Novell's claim to 95% of the royalties (actually, Novell says SCO failed to perform their administrative duties under the APA, and are not entitled to the 5% either, and are asserting their rights to every single dime SCO made on those licenses.)
Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)
As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.
Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).
Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"
The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.
So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.
Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.
wtf? My aunt got a laptop through a similar program in Canada and she plays games on it at home. Because she handles sensitive data, she can't work on it at home, and uses a regular desktop at work, and yet she still got the laptop witha tax deduction. I'm starting to get sick of all this conspiracy theory bullshit on Slashdot. Please repeat after me 500 times a day "Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me."
Can you please provide a link to the open source version of Opera, and to the source code? Thx!!! (I am being sarcastic, by the way....Opera isn't GPL'd)
Re:OK, there is NO WAY...
on
aMSN 0.95 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Lindows is a company, a company that even develops proprietary software alongside open source software. Lindows was not, is not, nor will it ever be an "open source project". It was a commercial company that was gunning straight for Microsoft's market, using a very similarly named product. I won't go into the whole "is Windows a valid trademark" thing though.
I love Musikcube, best simple music/CD player for Windows. I wish they would port it to Linux, all the other media players on Linux feel bloated and unintuitive compared to Musikcube. No fancy, uneeded effects. Everything completely in one single window. Built-in search. Built-in CD Ripper. But it stays out of your way. All of this out of the box. I highly suggest anyone interested to try it.
http://www.musikcube.com/
It is GPL too (or maybe it was BSD, don't remember, you'll have to check).
Slashdot Mirror
The composer part of your post is obsolete. Nvu is a replacement for Mozilla Composer, and has far better and more features to boot. I agree with the rest of your post though. I myself have taken a liking to this new IE7 Beta however.
Notice the "by default" part of his comment? Doing a custom install wouldn't be "by default" now would it?
:)
Now re-read his comment 5 times before posting again please
Name a single feature not included in Firefox that your Grandma would be dissapointed by it not being included.
How about doing as ImageShack asks, and using their page with advertisements? Or are you helping them pay for the bandwidth out of your own pocket?
Since when do you perform these activities through Google.com? I can't say I have ever checked my bank account information, or anything else of the sort, through a search engine.
I log into Google.com simply because my computer is a single user computer, and I leave myself logged into Gmail.com, which also leaves me logged into Google.com.
You people are being dumb. Google receives hundreds of millions of search queries a day. Do you honestly think someone is sitting on the other end monitoring *everyone's* search habits. Christ, the company only has 3000 employees. It is done using software that uses the information for targetted ads, nothing more.
Ever since this whole China thing, everyone is paranoid of Google. Google is following THE LAW in China. Google has no choice in the matter. This is exactly the same as Google not being allowed to show kiddie porn results in the US. Is that censorship? Yes. Does anyone bitch about it? No.
Opera's ads were removed from the free version months ago.
Destruction? Hardly. If I ask any other person I know that uses Google, they could care less whether results are censored in China. They use their services because they find them useful, not because of the company itself.
Well then why don't you pay Google the billions of potential dollars they would be losing by taking your advice....every year? Google isn't here to please random Slashdotters, Google is here to make money, and 99% of Google's users probably don't give two shits about this whole thing. Grow up, quit being a crybaby, and get over it.
And face it, the Chinese are used to this kind of treatment....and it will continue, with or without Google. Another poster said that China needs Google more than the other way around. That poster is braindead. I doubt Chinese people really care whether they use Yahoo!, MSN, Baidu or Google.
If all search engines did as you say, people would simply not be able to use search engines in China, the Chinese government wouldn't care. Why take such a valuable resource, censored or not, away from over a billion people?
I completely disagree. Google Earth has much better coverage. For instance, Google Local has a big green blob covering several blocks right over my house (up in Canada). In Google Earth I have no problem viewing any of this area. The coverage was taken at different dates too. There is a park right by my house (about 7 or 8 blocks away) during the summer, which is turned into a skating rink in the winter. On Google Earth it shows the skating rink, on Google Local it shows the green leaves and no rink.
Kind of ironic, I go to view an article that talks about how the looks of a website influence our impressions of the site within 50 ms, and the pink in the article is so bright and ugly it hurts my eyes. Needless to say, I didn't RTFA.
Well if you say you can consolidate it down to a few, ill just email you my address and you can send me some of them :-P (just kidding by the way)
Do you honestly need 6+ computers in your house? Just curious is all.
So Party A can't sue Party B for breaching the GPL because Party C failed to sue Party D before for willful infringement, all because both pieces of software use the same license?
You should go work for SCO's legal team me thinks.
That drew me to reflect on Google's other practices. What was Google's line of reasoning that led it to release a non-open source desktop search utility?
Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?
but it seems like the value they get from OSS is far more than anything they contribute
As with 100% of all companies that either use or make money directly from OSS.
....
.....
So your point is?
95%, not 85 to 90%
Almost right. SCO now gets 100% of the money on binary sales of Unixware. Novell retains 95% (that's right, SCO gets 5%, not 15%) for all SVRx licensees and all Unixware Source licensees, subject to a few limited exceptions. In order for SCO to receive 100% of the royalties for the SCOSource, Sun and Microsoft licenses, one of the requirements was that SCO ask Novell for permission first before entering into the licenses (actually, according to the contract, that was a requirement for even offering the license in the first place, never mind receiving all of the royalties). SCO didn't do this, and thus they are not exempt from Novell's claim to 95% of the royalties (actually, Novell says SCO failed to perform their administrative duties under the APA, and are not entitled to the 5% either, and are asserting their rights to every single dime SCO made on those licenses.)
Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)
0 _03_n-sco.pdf7 _03_n-sco_tla.pdf9 _03_sco-n.pdf1 9_03_n-sco.pdf
Read these linked PDFs.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_2
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_
As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.
Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).
Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"
The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.
So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.
Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.
Crossover's software support pales to both Microsoft's and Apple's. And even some supported software has quirks that make it almost unbearable to use.
wtf? My aunt got a laptop through a similar program in Canada and she plays games on it at home. Because she handles sensitive data, she can't work on it at home, and uses a regular desktop at work, and yet she still got the laptop witha tax deduction. I'm starting to get sick of all this conspiracy theory bullshit on Slashdot. Please repeat after me 500 times a day "Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me. Everyone isn't out to get me."
Can you please provide a link to the open source version of Opera, and to the source code? Thx!!! (I am being sarcastic, by the way....Opera isn't GPL'd)
What if he needs high speed internet? Runs Linux?
Lindows is a company, a company that even develops proprietary software alongside open source software. Lindows was not, is not, nor will it ever be an "open source project". It was a commercial company that was gunning straight for Microsoft's market, using a very similarly named product. I won't go into the whole "is Windows a valid trademark" thing though.
I love Musikcube, best simple music/CD player for Windows. I wish they would port it to Linux, all the other media players on Linux feel bloated and unintuitive compared to Musikcube. No fancy, uneeded effects. Everything completely in one single window. Built-in search. Built-in CD Ripper. But it stays out of your way. All of this out of the box. I highly suggest anyone interested to try it. http://www.musikcube.com/ It is GPL too (or maybe it was BSD, don't remember, you'll have to check).
Are you talking about Caldera or OldSCO when you say they couldn't make it as a technology company? Two seperate companies, remember.
Guess it doesn't really matter, both companies were utter failures.