It's actually kind of nice. SELinux will let you know when you've done a system change but without stopping you. That way you know if something has changed (that you yourself didn't do).
But not when SELinux is disabled, right? When running in permissive mode, it logs all would-be denials, but does not enforce them. When disabled, SELinux doesn't do anything at all.
One thing I read about somewhere is that they could sell the ability to run third-party (i.e. non-Microsoft) applications as an add-on module, for an extra (possibly monthly) fee.
Do real-time war sims require a mouse, or do they work well with a DS touch screen, a Pocket PC touch screen, a GP2X F-200 touch screen, or a Wii Remote?
Even though touch screens themselves might theoretically work, I sincerely doubt that those machines mentioned above have the sheer power required to run Supreme Commander, the RTS I currently play.
What privacy? The internet is public. Once your packets leave your cable modem they're getting routed all over the place, usually in plain text, where they can be looked at by anybody at any step of the way.
That they technically can do it doesn't mean that it's legal. After all, it's technically possible for the postal service to read your mail too, but that's illegal, at least where I live.
Furthermore, you're using *their* network. You're sending them data and asking them to look at it and route it for you.
There is a difference between looking at the header information necessary to route your packet to its destination and looking at your packet payload data.
I do, however, find all arguments for completely abolishing them, entirely irrational, and borne from ignorance. Nobody bothers to offer any alternative system, it's just a bunch of reactionary whining.
For me it's the opposite, I find all arguments in favor of software patents irrational and emotional. All rational arguments are heavily against software patents. This isn't just from a few geeks whining on Slashdot. Many knowledgeable economists, researchers, businesspeople, software developers, etc, strongly disfavor the patentability of software and business methods.
Like I mentioned, we have patents pending and have invested a substantial amount of money on lawyer and other patent fees. Are we going to get our money back? From whom? What if you already have a software patent? Will there be a refund?
Of course not. Why should you? Your investments in patents would be just like any other failed venture. Should investors get compensated for bad investments into companies that go bankrupt? Times change, and those that are heavily invested into the old ways will take a loss.
And if you don't give companies the options of patents to protect their developments, you can immediately say goodbye to all open standards and scientific sharing.
Except that open standards and scientific sharing still flourishes where there are no software patents.
Oh, that's right, they did... Not only did their patents NOT drag the industry down, it spurred the development of alternate ways to achieve flight, which soon after gave us the methods we know and use today... That nice new Boeing 787 doesn't exactly use "wing warping" now does it?
Compared to the time since the first powered human flight, patent terms are short. There has been plenty of time to use the previously patented methods of the Wrights Brothers. And besides, they probably didn't patent their invention in the entire world, so competitors could just go to another country to freely use their patented inventions.
Compare that with software and patents. Patent term lengths are 20 years, which is more than a lifetime in the computer world. Think about computing 20 years ago, what a difference. The internet has been mainstream for less than 15 years. And today, it is much more common to acquire patents in the entire developed world, so going to another country to escape a patent isn't so much an option anymore.
I agree that working implementations should be necessary, but that would mean that it can just as well be abolished, as a requirement for working implementations would narrow patents down to something that copyright already effectively is. Sure, it might have some additional powers, but not much.
Personally, I think that protection should be awarded for those tasks that demand a serious investment in time and/or money, and that is implementation of actual software. Thinking up an idea for a software project is easy, while the (correct) implementation of the idea into an actual software product is hard and time-consuming. Protection should be awarded for the latter, but not for the former, which effectively means that we should keep copyrights (although the details should be adjusted) and abolish software patents.
it might not be "integrated", but it IS a great development environment, and VERY customizable.
Except code completion, jump-to-declaration, project-wide renames, etc, are great features to have. I used Emacs for development before, but now I use Jetbrains IntelliJ IDEA, and it is a big difference in sheer efficiency. I'm not so sure that I would like to go back to an ordinary text editor like Emacs for development.
Of course, I'm no Emacs guru, it may have all this functionality, but I haven't found it yet.
you don't need to defrag ext2. it doesn't get fragmented
That is not entirely true, although it more or less doesn't happen unless the partition is almost full. Keep the free space above 20%, and fragmentation won't be a problem.
Could they be found innocent in criminal court, yet still be forced to pay thousands/millions of damages in civil court?
I don't know. What I do know is that any damages would probably be in the thousands rather than the millions, especially if the currency is USD. Sweden is not the United States, and we don't have the kind of ridiculously high damages that the US has. I'd be surprised if they had to pay more than around 50,000 USD in damages, if found guilty.
This isn't about freedom of speech. It is about respecting someone else's wishes.
And by censoring pictures of Mohammad respect Muslim wishes, you disrespect my wishes. I demand that everyone wear insulting pictures of Mohammad, to respect my wishes.
See what I did there? One man's respect is another man's insult.
Many Muslims feel that it is their domain, which is violated by prohibition of user editing that removes (quite irrelevant) pictures from the article. (That is essentially what it came to: censoring of Muslim users)
That's a funny definition of censorship. Usually, censorship is about denying access to certain types of information. Denying removal of information is not censorship.
What's next, Muslim claims that hindering their "right" to force everyone to become a Muslim amounts to "censorship" of Muslims?
IMHO Microsoft's "defense" of it's patents (if any) has been anything but aggressive.
I disagree. Aggressiveness is not a black or white situation, it is a continuous line with many shades of gray. The completely non-aggressive stance would be to just keep patents as a defensive weapon in case you are sued, and otherwise be silent about it. The completely aggressive stance would be to launch all-out patent wars against anyone remotely suspected of infringing even one of those patents. Microsoft is somewhere in between, making loud claims about infringement, but not taking any legal action. But claiming that they are anything but aggressive is quite a bit off the mark.
In essence, you are proposing that someone found a patent pool for FOSS. How fortunate that such a patent pool already exists. It is called the Open Invention Network, OIN.
He has a valid reason to be desperate. His operating system is no longer on 98% of the world's desktops, just around 90%. And his browser does no longer have a >95% market share, but rather 50-75% (depending on survey and country). In his eyes, such numbers are probably a disaster. He isn't content until there is no one human in the world using a software product that his company didn't make.
Slashdot Mirror
But not when SELinux is disabled, right? When running in permissive mode, it logs all would-be denials, but does not enforce them. When disabled, SELinux doesn't do anything at all.
One thing I read about somewhere is that they could sell the ability to run third-party (i.e. non-Microsoft) applications as an add-on module, for an extra (possibly monthly) fee.
The omission of RHEL is probably punishment for Red Hat not signing their patent agreement.
No it isn't, that's CPU emulation. Virtualization doesn't enable running software for different architectures than the native one.
so that it can be run in near-native or native formats (meaning little to no translation) to the CPU of the physical hardware?Interpretation meaning little to no translation? I'm sorry, but that does not make sense. Interpretation basically is translation.
Even though touch screens themselves might theoretically work, I sincerely doubt that those machines mentioned above have the sheer power required to run Supreme Commander, the RTS I currently play.
That they technically can do it doesn't mean that it's legal. After all, it's technically possible for the postal service to read your mail too, but that's illegal, at least where I live.
Furthermore, you're using *their* network. You're sending them data and asking them to look at it and route it for you.There is a difference between looking at the header information necessary to route your packet to its destination and looking at your packet payload data.
For me it's the opposite, I find all arguments in favor of software patents irrational and emotional. All rational arguments are heavily against software patents. This isn't just from a few geeks whining on Slashdot. Many knowledgeable economists, researchers, businesspeople, software developers, etc, strongly disfavor the patentability of software and business methods.
Of course not. Why should you? Your investments in patents would be just like any other failed venture. Should investors get compensated for bad investments into companies that go bankrupt? Times change, and those that are heavily invested into the old ways will take a loss.
Except that open standards and scientific sharing still flourishes where there are no software patents.
Oh, that's right, they did... Not only did their patents NOT drag the industry down, it spurred the development of alternate ways to achieve flight, which soon after gave us the methods we know and use today... That nice new Boeing 787 doesn't exactly use "wing warping" now does it?Compared to the time since the first powered human flight, patent terms are short. There has been plenty of time to use the previously patented methods of the Wrights Brothers. And besides, they probably didn't patent their invention in the entire world, so competitors could just go to another country to freely use their patented inventions.
Compare that with software and patents. Patent term lengths are 20 years, which is more than a lifetime in the computer world. Think about computing 20 years ago, what a difference. The internet has been mainstream for less than 15 years. And today, it is much more common to acquire patents in the entire developed world, so going to another country to escape a patent isn't so much an option anymore.
I agree that working implementations should be necessary, but that would mean that it can just as well be abolished, as a requirement for working implementations would narrow patents down to something that copyright already effectively is. Sure, it might have some additional powers, but not much.
Personally, I think that protection should be awarded for those tasks that demand a serious investment in time and/or money, and that is implementation of actual software. Thinking up an idea for a software project is easy, while the (correct) implementation of the idea into an actual software product is hard and time-consuming. Protection should be awarded for the latter, but not for the former, which effectively means that we should keep copyrights (although the details should be adjusted) and abolish software patents.
Except code completion, jump-to-declaration, project-wide renames, etc, are great features to have. I used Emacs for development before, but now I use Jetbrains IntelliJ IDEA, and it is a big difference in sheer efficiency. I'm not so sure that I would like to go back to an ordinary text editor like Emacs for development.
Of course, I'm no Emacs guru, it may have all this functionality, but I haven't found it yet.
Maybe you should look up the facts before trying to correct anyone. It is actually the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL.
It isn't just a troll, it is a copy&paste troll. I've seen exactly the same troll post several times before on Slashdot.
That is not entirely true, although it more or less doesn't happen unless the partition is almost full. Keep the free space above 20%, and fragmentation won't be a problem.
I don't know. What I do know is that any damages would probably be in the thousands rather than the millions, especially if the currency is USD. Sweden is not the United States, and we don't have the kind of ridiculously high damages that the US has. I'd be surprised if they had to pay more than around 50,000 USD in damages, if found guilty.
And by censoring pictures of Mohammad respect Muslim wishes, you disrespect my wishes. I demand that everyone wear insulting pictures of Mohammad, to respect my wishes.
See what I did there? One man's respect is another man's insult.
Islam being based on the insane ramblings of a child-molesting serial killer is not a weakness? No, to Muslims it is a strong point.
Being offended by cartoons from the other side of the world is not a weakness?
That's a funny definition of censorship. Usually, censorship is about denying access to certain types of information. Denying removal of information is not censorship.
What's next, Muslim claims that hindering their "right" to force everyone to become a Muslim amounts to "censorship" of Muslims?
In that case, I propose a new HTTP header instead:
Muslim: Yes/NoThen every site in the western world could just redirect requests with the Muslim flag set to Yes to /dev/null.
I disagree. Aggressiveness is not a black or white situation, it is a continuous line with many shades of gray. The completely non-aggressive stance would be to just keep patents as a defensive weapon in case you are sued, and otherwise be silent about it. The completely aggressive stance would be to launch all-out patent wars against anyone remotely suspected of infringing even one of those patents. Microsoft is somewhere in between, making loud claims about infringement, but not taking any legal action. But claiming that they are anything but aggressive is quite a bit off the mark.
In essence, you are proposing that someone found a patent pool for FOSS. How fortunate that such a patent pool already exists. It is called the Open Invention Network, OIN.
He has a valid reason to be desperate. His operating system is no longer on 98% of the world's desktops, just around 90%. And his browser does no longer have a >95% market share, but rather 50-75% (depending on survey and country). In his eyes, such numbers are probably a disaster. He isn't content until there is no one human in the world using a software product that his company didn't make.
And you can add: Directly from our "clean" coal power stations.
I was rather thinking about the tendency of the EU, and thus in turn Sweden, to import new copyright laws from the United States.