It was more intended as an example of what may well be excellent software - I've not used it - being used in an entirely inappropriate situation, and hence being a complete waste of money and time.
My old secondary school/sixth form moved to a cold fusion web server, at the request of the (part time, one day per week only) webmaster.
The entire IT staff and computing students agreed that it was one of the more stupid things that had been done recently - forking out something like £4000 for a server when it could have been done for free. It's not like there was anything afterwards that couldn't have been done with static HTML, let alone PHP or similar.
It'll probably be noticeable - providing my hand's not in the way at the time. Considering that when you're using a mouse, your hand usually covers most of it, I can see possible problems.
I believe the GP's point was one that's been made elsewhere: Linux installs of any of the non-paid distos on ANY hardware (in this case, likely OS-less, but also on many windows machines) aren't counted at all in SALES figures.
One major reason that more eploits and flaws are found in browsers could be that just about everybody actively uses a browser. Virtual machines of any kind are generally less widely used.
And compression of the type you mentioned, whilst used to fake loudness in modern recorded music, can be very useful for live performances. Compressing the sound from a vocal mic, where the singer varies their volume from song to song, can be a very good idea to keep levels the same throughout. Compression (and gates) can also be very useful in improving the sound of a bass drum.
And that's part of what some people forget. Linux is great. It can be used for just about anything you can think of, given some tweaking.
But for some things, while it is CABAPLE of doing everything, it's not necessarily GOOD at it.
In general terms, what's better for the gamer? Most games are only available on windows. Some notably excellent ones are available elsewhere, but most aren't. Yet.
For an older/smaller/cheaper mobile phone, desktop-intended OS's aren't ideal. Symbian was designed to be fast and simple.
An embedded system may need a custom-written system to give it speed or timing features it needs.
I'd pick at one point in there: AFAICT, the GPL allows modifications to be kept private as long as the modified software isn't distributed. So, if a company needs some internal software with certain secret features, that would be allowed.
It's only distributing modifications without allowing others to modify them in turn that the GPL restricts, there.
I personally put more weight on the views of people who use one system for quite a while, and then try another, and prefer the newer one, to people who use one, try another, and immediately dislike it.
That way round, there's less bias from "it's not what I'm used to" and so on.
I'd say that you can't necessarily claim any of those as reasons why industries prefer Linux-based systems to BSD ones. Except one.
I think that the main reason that Linux systems are more popular is that they are more popular.
It mostly comes down to whether you want to have the freedom to stop anyone else using your modifications, or you want to stop anyone denying anyone else that freedom.
(One of) The main thing(s) that stops most companies forking proprietary versions off BSD-licensed code is that they then have to repeat any patching, fixing, and improving done on the trunk. (Or repeatedly re-fork, as Firefox has done - and yes, that's not a closed-source project, but it's still a good example for this point.)
If you're using a BSD distribution, I'm not sure it can be directly compared to using individual GNU/Linux/etc packages. Maybe it should be compared to one of the linux distros, where again you can go to that project's devs and community for assistance if you need it, rather than going direct to the individual programs and projects.
Possibly because the user base and developer base of Linux and derivatives is considerably larger. There's very little difference in freedom, EXCEPT that someone who takes on a project involving GPL software cannot stop other people having exactly the same freedoms.
At least, that's the sole intention of the GPL, as far as I know.
Slashdot Mirror
It was more intended as an example of what may well be excellent software - I've not used it - being used in an entirely inappropriate situation, and hence being a complete waste of money and time.
I think it's a mostly universal thing with politicians. Sure, some of them are good people. But I would say NOT the majority.
How would it violate it?
The GPL does not forbid selling software.
My old secondary school/sixth form moved to a cold fusion web server, at the request of the (part time, one day per week only) webmaster.
The entire IT staff and computing students agreed that it was one of the more stupid things that had been done recently - forking out something like £4000 for a server when it could have been done for free. It's not like there was anything afterwards that couldn't have been done with static HTML, let alone PHP or similar.
As justified as it may be, this is still a DDoS attack. And hence not a good idea.
Most of them probably don't know of any other platform, or don't care whatsoever.
It'll probably be noticeable - providing my hand's not in the way at the time. Considering that when you're using a mouse, your hand usually covers most of it, I can see possible problems.
There's always alternative MSNm clients availble, remember...
In my case, I will die of various different cancers, and also of a stroke. At the same time, I will still be alive.
:)
Possibly needs a bit more thought, eh?
I believe the GP's point was one that's been made elsewhere: Linux installs of any of the non-paid distos on ANY hardware (in this case, likely OS-less, but also on many windows machines) aren't counted at all in SALES figures.
Ubuntu now has a very clean looking package management, and also synaptic. And AFAIK it does wireless pretty well when it supports your adapter.
If any distro is unlikely to ever fold, it's probably Debian. I'd not worry about that.
Cow-orkers actually WORKING? Never gonna happen.
(I think we can safely blame that view on the fact that a previous job was part-time duty manager at a local convenience store.)
One major reason that more eploits and flaws are found in browsers could be that just about everybody actively uses a browser. Virtual machines of any kind are generally less widely used.
Not quite the same thing, however.
And compression of the type you mentioned, whilst used to fake loudness in modern recorded music, can be very useful for live performances. Compressing the sound from a vocal mic, where the singer varies their volume from song to song, can be a very good idea to keep levels the same throughout. Compression (and gates) can also be very useful in improving the sound of a bass drum.
Not that anyone really needs to know that.
And that's part of what some people forget. Linux is great. It can be used for just about anything you can think of, given some tweaking. But for some things, while it is CABAPLE of doing everything, it's not necessarily GOOD at it. In general terms, what's better for the gamer? Most games are only available on windows. Some notably excellent ones are available elsewhere, but most aren't. Yet. For an older/smaller/cheaper mobile phone, desktop-intended OS's aren't ideal. Symbian was designed to be fast and simple. An embedded system may need a custom-written system to give it speed or timing features it needs.
I'd pick at one point in there: AFAICT, the GPL allows modifications to be kept private as long as the modified software isn't distributed. So, if a company needs some internal software with certain secret features, that would be allowed. It's only distributing modifications without allowing others to modify them in turn that the GPL restricts, there.
I personally put more weight on the views of people who use one system for quite a while, and then try another, and prefer the newer one, to people who use one, try another, and immediately dislike it. That way round, there's less bias from "it's not what I'm used to" and so on.
I'd say that you can't necessarily claim any of those as reasons why industries prefer Linux-based systems to BSD ones. Except one. I think that the main reason that Linux systems are more popular is that they are more popular.
It mostly comes down to whether you want to have the freedom to stop anyone else using your modifications, or you want to stop anyone denying anyone else that freedom. (One of) The main thing(s) that stops most companies forking proprietary versions off BSD-licensed code is that they then have to repeat any patching, fixing, and improving done on the trunk. (Or repeatedly re-fork, as Firefox has done - and yes, that's not a closed-source project, but it's still a good example for this point.) If you're using a BSD distribution, I'm not sure it can be directly compared to using individual GNU/Linux/etc packages. Maybe it should be compared to one of the linux distros, where again you can go to that project's devs and community for assistance if you need it, rather than going direct to the individual programs and projects.
Possibly because the user base and developer base of Linux and derivatives is considerably larger. There's very little difference in freedom, EXCEPT that someone who takes on a project involving GPL software cannot stop other people having exactly the same freedoms.
At least, that's the sole intention of the GPL, as far as I know.
Clearly, whatever intelligence designed us left out the intelligence in many of us.
If the royalties were distributed fairly, the RIAA would get not one penny either.
I'm worried. It took me at least two seconds to get that after I remembered what I wrote.
(Not quite that bad, however! Some of it was quite good. It just wasn't voluntary. I had a gig I could have been at.)
Or you're reading this about Saturday lunchtime the next day after going out last night. Feel free to shun me; I'm by no means stereotypical!