I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the depth of the wisdom which I share with you. Instead of mastering free thought and true debatery, you have become a proficient user of the ad hominem attack. And ad hominem attacks, my friend, are poor discussion style.
And I thank you again, my dear comrade, for proving your incorrectness on such an oft basis.
Having talked to various developers, these recent licensing shenanigans have not been particularly good for the open source community.
Many developers wish to make use of open source software, but are getting to the point where they're not sure what exactly they're allowed to do with some particular piece of software.
These developers are not lawyers, and do not want to waste their time trying to figure out fairly complex licenses. Individual consultants and smaller development firms can't necessarily afford to hire a lawyer to verify that they're complying with the terms of all the licenses their project may be subjected to.
I know many professional developers who won't even touch LGPL'ed libraries. They stick with software released under the BSD license, for instance, because it has very clear and concise terms. They know what they can do with such software, and thus can focus on developing solutions, rather than getting bogged down in legal nonsense.
While the GPL v3 may offer some degree of protection with respect to patents, any such benefits may be mitigated by the fact that many developers out there are not interested in becoming lawyers. They don't want to get bogged down trying to interpret relatively complex licenses.
Observe that the notice used by much GPL software contains the following:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Anyone using the GPL v2 is potentially forced into having their software licensed under the GPL v3, and the GPL v4, and the GPL v5, or any other future version of the GPL.
Even if that particular user wants his program released under only the terms of the GPL v2, if such a notice is included in his software then it may very well be that future versions of the license are applicable.
All these folks up in arms about their children possibly seeing even slightly "objectionable" material would most likely be best locking their children in a closet. Don't let them near a computer, let alone a computer hooked up to the Internet. Don't let them near a television. Don't let them visit the local video shoppe. Don't let them visit the library (there may be medical texts there showing penises, vaginas and anuses!). Don't even let them go to school, as little Jimmy might bring in the Hustler he found in his daddy's sock drawer.
If they were to keep their children locked up in the dark all the time, then they would never accidentally encounter anything objectionable.
Meanwhile, the rest of us could continue to enjoy freedom of expression.
But even then, it shouldn't matter what anybody's definition of "obscenity" is. If Americans truly hold freedom of expression in high regard (as is often claimed by them), then the only focus should be on guaranteeing the ability of pornographers to distribute their pornography.
That's what freedom of expression is truly about: supporting the expression of ideas which you completely disagree with.
I know you're joking, but many Europeans find it hilarious how those in the US who go on the most about bringing "freedom" to Iraq and Afghanistan are often amongst the leaders in wanting to limit freedom in America.
Like it or not, to be against pornography depicting consenting adults performing various sexual acts is to be against freedom. Freedom is one of the few black-and-white situations. Either you have freedom, or you do not. Any amount of censorship, however minor, automatically means that one is not free.
There will always be purveyors of pornography. Even if the US were to attempt to limit the distribution of such material, there would be many in foreign countries who would help fill the void.
It's probably not necessary to even bother listening to more objections. No matter what they do, the various Christian extremist groups will be against it. No solution will be acceptable to them, except perhaps a complete ban on pornography, erotica, and any such material.
But alas, any responsible individual will do as much as is possible to protect their systems. Not just to maintain the integrity and protection of their data, but also to prevent their machines from being used against others. Anyone who doesn't take the basic precautions is being irresponsible.
What are the newer features that you're planning on using?
Indeed, it sounds like you have what may be the perfect situation. Even if your servers are somewhat older, and not the most powerful, they are still very solid Sun systems. They will basically last forever. You suggest that mod_perl is working very well for you at the moment, too.
Perhaps an upgrade would be the worst thing you could do. Sticking with older, proven systems is many times a very wise idea.
My arguments are always correct, and thus cannot be debated. That must be why you resort to ad hominem attacks over and over again whenever we discuss any particular topic. Ad hominem attacks are bad debating style. And to use the strawman accusation is nearly as bad.
Indeed, I enjoy reading thoughts from relatively unknown individuals, as well. However, often times having some background or accomplishment(s) relating to the topic one is discussing help add credence to what is said.
At the end of the article it mentions that he is part of some thinktank. If that's all he has accomplished, then his opinion probably is quite worthless. After all, anyone can claim to be part of a "thinktank".
It's wrong because you're just making up fantasy to try to appease religious fanatics.
Scientists shouldn't try to appease. They should do nothing more than try to understand nature via the devising of theories, and then using observation and experimentation to back up said theories.
Sure, you can concoct some story about some intelligent designer designing evolution. But that doesn't change the fact that there's no basis to such claims.
Gateways go a long way towards solving such problems. You can use your client and your better protocol with others who use it, while chatting with those on inferior networks via the gateway between the two.
An ad hominem attack from you YET AGAIN delivers me the debate victory.
Indeed, it was rather moronic of you to suggest that Microsoft manipulated IBM, when that obviously isn't the case. One would think that a person such as yourself, who bills herself as an engineer, would understand such things.
It's often the other way around. Had you bothered to follow the development of Opera and Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox, you would obviously have seen where the features were first implemented: Netscape, Mozilla, or Firefox.
It was Netscape who pioneered many of the web browser developments we take for granted today. CSS and JavaScript are two examples. Of course, the others like IE and Opera copied from Netscape.
Mosaic and Netscape were also highly innovative in providing a cross-platform browser, long before Opera.
Indeed, Netscape pioneered the concept of providing the integrated browser/email package, which Opera proceeded to copy. Even today the Netscape 4.80 email client is superior to that of the latest Opera releases.
Actually, I was probably about 45 or so when Nike started getting big.
Indeed, there was much confusion regarding their name. That's why it's usually pronounced like "Neyekee" in America, while in Britain (where I am) we pronounce it as if it rhymes with "Like".
I know it's not a popular truth, but the fact of the matter is that the Windows NT-based releases are quite stable. They're nothing like the completely unstable and, quite truthfully, horrible Windows 95, 98 and ME releases.
Windows XP Media Center Edition is, as the name suggests, based off of Windows XP, which is a derivative of Windows NT.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the depth of the wisdom which I share with you. Instead of mastering free thought and true debatery, you have become a proficient user of the ad hominem attack. And ad hominem attacks, my friend, are poor discussion style.
And I thank you again, my dear comrade, for proving your incorrectness on such an oft basis.
Now why, oh why, can't more conservative Christians be like you? Bravo!
Because most people who label themselves as "conservative Christians" are neither conservative nor truly Christian?
He is a Christian conservative. Most others who claim to be both are neither.
Having talked to various developers, these recent licensing shenanigans have not been particularly good for the open source community.
Many developers wish to make use of open source software, but are getting to the point where they're not sure what exactly they're allowed to do with some particular piece of software.
These developers are not lawyers, and do not want to waste their time trying to figure out fairly complex licenses. Individual consultants and smaller development firms can't necessarily afford to hire a lawyer to verify that they're complying with the terms of all the licenses their project may be subjected to.
I know many professional developers who won't even touch LGPL'ed libraries. They stick with software released under the BSD license, for instance, because it has very clear and concise terms. They know what they can do with such software, and thus can focus on developing solutions, rather than getting bogged down in legal nonsense.
While the GPL v3 may offer some degree of protection with respect to patents, any such benefits may be mitigated by the fact that many developers out there are not interested in becoming lawyers. They don't want to get bogged down trying to interpret relatively complex licenses.
Observe that the notice used by much GPL software contains the following:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Anyone using the GPL v2 is potentially forced into having their software licensed under the GPL v3, and the GPL v4, and the GPL v5, or any other future version of the GPL.
Even if that particular user wants his program released under only the terms of the GPL v2, if such a notice is included in his software then it may very well be that future versions of the license are applicable.
All these folks up in arms about their children possibly seeing even slightly "objectionable" material would most likely be best locking their children in a closet. Don't let them near a computer, let alone a computer hooked up to the Internet. Don't let them near a television. Don't let them visit the local video shoppe. Don't let them visit the library (there may be medical texts there showing penises, vaginas and anuses!). Don't even let them go to school, as little Jimmy might bring in the Hustler he found in his daddy's sock drawer.
If they were to keep their children locked up in the dark all the time, then they would never accidentally encounter anything objectionable.
Meanwhile, the rest of us could continue to enjoy freedom of expression.
But even then, it shouldn't matter what anybody's definition of "obscenity" is. If Americans truly hold freedom of expression in high regard (as is often claimed by them), then the only focus should be on guaranteeing the ability of pornographers to distribute their pornography.
That's what freedom of expression is truly about: supporting the expression of ideas which you completely disagree with.
It's because religious zealots do not want just censorship. They want complete eradication of such material.
I know you're joking, but many Europeans find it hilarious how those in the US who go on the most about bringing "freedom" to Iraq and Afghanistan are often amongst the leaders in wanting to limit freedom in America.
Like it or not, to be against pornography depicting consenting adults performing various sexual acts is to be against freedom. Freedom is one of the few black-and-white situations. Either you have freedom, or you do not. Any amount of censorship, however minor, automatically means that one is not free.
There will always be purveyors of pornography. Even if the US were to attempt to limit the distribution of such material, there would be many in foreign countries who would help fill the void.
It's probably not necessary to even bother listening to more objections. No matter what they do, the various Christian extremist groups will be against it. No solution will be acceptable to them, except perhaps a complete ban on pornography, erotica, and any such material.
Are you anti-gaming on your gaming machine?
But alas, any responsible individual will do as much as is possible to protect their systems. Not just to maintain the integrity and protection of their data, but also to prevent their machines from being used against others. Anyone who doesn't take the basic precautions is being irresponsible.
I accept your humble admittance of defeat on this issue, hkmwbz.
What are the newer features that you're planning on using?
Indeed, it sounds like you have what may be the perfect situation. Even if your servers are somewhat older, and not the most powerful, they are still very solid Sun systems. They will basically last forever. You suggest that mod_perl is working very well for you at the moment, too.
Perhaps an upgrade would be the worst thing you could do. Sticking with older, proven systems is many times a very wise idea.
My arguments are always correct, and thus cannot be debated. That must be why you resort to ad hominem attacks over and over again whenever we discuss any particular topic. Ad hominem attacks are bad debating style. And to use the strawman accusation is nearly as bad.
Indeed, I enjoy reading thoughts from relatively unknown individuals, as well. However, often times having some background or accomplishment(s) relating to the topic one is discussing help add credence to what is said.
At the end of the article it mentions that he is part of some thinktank. If that's all he has accomplished, then his opinion probably is quite worthless. After all, anyone can claim to be part of a "thinktank".
Who exactly is Otto Z. Stern? What is his background, credentials, past software development involvement, and so on?
It's wrong because you're just making up fantasy to try to appease religious fanatics.
Scientists shouldn't try to appease. They should do nothing more than try to understand nature via the devising of theories, and then using observation and experimentation to back up said theories.
Sure, you can concoct some story about some intelligent designer designing evolution. But that doesn't change the fact that there's no basis to such claims.
Gateways go a long way towards solving such problems. You can use your client and your better protocol with others who use it, while chatting with those on inferior networks via the gateway between the two.
Why the obsession with scrotums, Hal?
You should have used you're, rather than your.
Please do not make such grammatical mistakes in the future.
I didn't know that you suffered from impotency, Hal! I suffer from it, too.
We should start a Slashdot Impotency Support Group. It could be a club for us men who suffer from soft cock.
An ad hominem attack from you YET AGAIN delivers me the debate victory.
Indeed, it was rather moronic of you to suggest that Microsoft manipulated IBM, when that obviously isn't the case. One would think that a person such as yourself, who bills herself as an engineer, would understand such things.
It's often the other way around. Had you bothered to follow the development of Opera and Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox, you would obviously have seen where the features were first implemented: Netscape, Mozilla, or Firefox.
It was Netscape who pioneered many of the web browser developments we take for granted today. CSS and JavaScript are two examples. Of course, the others like IE and Opera copied from Netscape.
Mosaic and Netscape were also highly innovative in providing a cross-platform browser, long before Opera.
Indeed, Netscape pioneered the concept of providing the integrated browser/email package, which Opera proceeded to copy. Even today the Netscape 4.80 email client is superior to that of the latest Opera releases.
Actually, I was probably about 45 or so when Nike started getting big.
Indeed, there was much confusion regarding their name. That's why it's usually pronounced like "Neyekee" in America, while in Britain (where I am) we pronounce it as if it rhymes with "Like".
I know it's not a popular truth, but the fact of the matter is that the Windows NT-based releases are quite stable. They're nothing like the completely unstable and, quite truthfully, horrible Windows 95, 98 and ME releases.
Windows XP Media Center Edition is, as the name suggests, based off of Windows XP, which is a derivative of Windows NT.