That is actually a big problem. If everyone was force to pay for Windows instead of pirating it, some users might choose a free operating system instead. Or at least they would not have the option of running Windows for free. The same applies for Microsoft Office piracy.
AFAIK, Yum wasn't invented at Red Hat either. The name, Yellow Dog Updater Modified suggests that it was created for the Yellow Dog Linux distribution.
Interesting. At least one store here in Sweden reports having Core 2 Duo in stock. I actually thought Intel would send every processor to Dell for the first couple of months. But anyway, it doesn't seem to be a paper release to me.
Webhallen reports having a few Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 in stock, and several hundred at their supplier. Komplett.se reports having more than 500 Core 2 Duo E6300 in stock.
If you outlawed crypto for fear of terrorists using it they would just use other methods.
I cannot understand why terrorists, planning to e.g. blow up a plane (which is highly illegal) would care about cryptography being outlawed. They would use it anyway, legal or not. The result is that honest people cannot use cryptography, but terrorists can.
Trains are defintely needed in larger cities such as LA, but they cannot come close to replacing the airline system.
At the moment you may be right, but when airplane fuel becomes prohibitively expensive, maybe trains would be an option. And I'm not talking 60 mph diesel trains, I'm talking 200+ mph electric high-speed trains. Heck, if Transrapid (or a similar system) would get cheaper, you might even be travelling at 310 mph at a reasonable price point.
And at 310 mph, that would be slightly more than half the speed of airplanes, possibly making up for the two hour plus security checks and inconvenient baggage restrictions of current air travel.
it still wouldn't be successful because of the economic requirement to put lots of passengers onto each train and stop relatively infrequently. Greyhound buses on Interstate highways are the proof.
You can put much more passengers on a train than on either on a bus or an airplane.
They are already competing, just not in the United States. Just look at central Europe, where we have interconnected systems of high-speed rail all over the place, and trains that routinely travel at 320 km/h (200 mph) (They did over 500 km/h (312 mph) in test runs).
someone's going to steal a Cessna and smash it into a Nu-cle-ar power plant!
Heh, if the nuclear power plants were that fragile, a Cessna flying into them would be among the last things I'd be concerned about. A containment building that can't withstand a Cessna crashing into it, would surely not be able to contain a steam explosion.:)
Who the hell would ever do business with a company that can't even seem to spell properly?
Are you surprised? If some people are stupid enough to buy products advertised in spam, they are probably stupid enough not to care about spelling either.
Aren't strong magnetic fields supposed to be harmful? After all, there's this fuss about living under power lines...
I'd guess there is a difference between static fields and alternating fields. The permanent magnets create a static magnetic field, while the power lines create alternating magnetic fields.
If they have changed, the system bugchecks (BSOD).
That sounds unnecessarily brutal. Why BSOD when you can just kill the process? This would mean that the remaining applications would keep running as usual. Or is it a penalty for messing with the DRM? "Mess with this program, and you lose all your unsaved data"
I'll remind you that you also said "Deny all you want, but don't expect my computer to obey you." What did you mean by "obey"?
Simply that if it's in my power, my computer will not be DRM-crippled, which means that I'm in charge of my computer, not "them". Of course, that means I won't be able to buy their DRM-crippled products, but that's fine with me.
GPLv2 and DRM aren't mutually exclusive.
At the moment, no, but that problem is being addressed. I'll switch to GPLv3 for all my GPL code releases when the license is finished (unless problem turns up with it).
As far as pirating, that's good to hear. Seems like you were implying otherwise.
I only meant that my computer won't obey their demands (because of a lack of DRM). The lack of DRM also means that I won't be able to play their content, but I'm fine with that. I refuse to pay money for intentionally crippled hardware. The irony is that DRM only hurts their legitimate customers, who will be locked into specific systems by the DRM. The pirates will get it anyway, with DRM stripped, which in essence means a better product. But I don't support copyright infringement, how could I do that and at the same time enforce the GPL (which depends on copyright)?
Now, regarding "the GPL spirit", there is no such thing.
Okay, let's say the free software spirit instead. Ask the FSF. They would probably disagree with your claim of no GPL spirit.
If you release code under a license then don't get mad when you find out your license doesn't pack the punch you thought it did.
This is a fairly recent problem, and is therefore being addressed by the FSF and the community (by way of the drafting and comments process). I never thought the current version packed the punch to prevent DRM from removing user freedom, I'm simply happy to see it addressed.
Believe it or not, some programmers don't mind their work being integrated into commercial products
Neither do I under certain circumstances. GPL is for code that I write for free on my spare time. BSD is for code written at my current place of work, since I work at a publicly funded university. Taxpayers (including corporations) already payed for my work, so they should be able to use it any way they want. I could even write proprietary software if I would get paid, provided it wouldn't be for Microsoft or similar companies (I wouln't want to help such companies get any further than they already have).
also how others use software licensed to them (you aren't)
You mean software licensed to third parties by other third parties with none of my code involved? Where did I write that?
how commercial entities will do business with you (ain't so)
If I don't accept how they want to do business with me, I have no obligation to do business with them. So in essence, I do have the right to make decisions about how they do business with me, at least indirectly.
Everyone else's freedom to choose is intact as well, and maybe it's time you understand that. Your rights don't include violating the rights of others.
Now where did I say that?
Content providers will use drm whether you like it or not.
And they are free to do so, except using my code. In addition, they cannot expect me to buy their DRM:ed offerings (although I won't pirate it either).
Vendors use GPL'ed software in proprietary products because it offers some advantage they don't otherwise have and rarely is hackability their goal.
Such as the advantage of reduced costs. This certainly gives them two options, lower prices or raised profit margin (or a combination of the two). But I don't see why programmers releasing GPL software have any responsibility to fund the development for vendors that don't want to pass on the GPL spirit to their customers.
so is the need to maintain incentives for creativity
Such as retaining the ability to profiteer from other peoples' work, but not comply fully with their wishes?
That has to be one of the only reasons a good graphical installer for Linux doesn't exist today.
Then what is a good graphical installer? The Windows XP installer? I'd prefer the Fedora Core 5 installer over the Windows XP installer every time. It is not only the graphics, but certain other issues. One prominent example is that the Windows XP installer won't ask everything before the installation and then work for half an hour. It will work for five minutes, ask a few questions, work for five minutes, ask a few questions, ad nauseum. The FC5 installer asks everything needed for the installation before it starts working.
But of course, most users never install Windows, since it comes with their computer.
I find it silly that different distros keep configuration files in different locations, use different init scripts, use different install methods, have varying level of compliance with the LSB, are focused on either Gnome or KDE predominately, etc.
Maybe because people are different?
Since everyone can take the available pieces of free software and assemble them in any way they like to form a complete operating system, would you really expect everyone to be essentially the same? People have differing preferences and different solutions to various issues in building a Linux distribution. The major distributions may work together to create standards för certain parts of the operating system, but don't expect everyone to come along.
As long as there is freedom, people will make different choices.
TCPA lies in the HARDWARE and Prozesses can get an encryptet environment from the TCPA-Hardware.
In every current desktop OS, applications never interface directly to the hardware, they do this through the OS libraries and the system kernel. Why would applications suddenly start interfacing directly with hardware now?
Security hardware would need drivers, just like any other hardware. This is to hide the details of how the hardware works from the application programmer. And then we have the different CPU privilege levels required by different classes of instructions. For applications to interface directly with hardware, the CPU instructions to do this would need to work even in the least privileged CPU mode. Otherwise, access to security hardware would require involvement of the kernel, which would need to be trusted in this case. And since applications never interface with the kernel directly, the OS libraries would need to be trusted too.
Please inform you how TCPA works:
I could not find a single word about how applications are going to interface with the hardware. The article discussed the concept, but details about how this would work were conveniently left out.
You want to project the limitations of the software license onto other parts of the product not associated with it.
And if the hardware won't function without my software, why can't I do that? Either use my software according to my rules, or write your own software.
A Linksys router? They made changes to their product to discourage it.
Then, why did they make a special Linux version, the WRT54GL, after they changed the WRT54G to VxWorks?
And included in your intentions is any hardware that is bundled with the GPL'ed software even though abolutely no GPL'ed work went into that design or construction of that hardware.
I don't care about the design of your hardware except that it may not be used to limit the rights of users of my software. If you don't like it, write your own software and smell the increased costs.
I also think that copyright holders should also be free to deny those users access to their content
Deny all you want, but don't expect my computer to obey you. Either it plays and allows everything (no DRM on media), or it don't allow anything at all (DRM on media, but no DRM in my computer). I won't allow my computer to selectively allow certain actions and deny others based on your decisions. If this means that I cannot buy your songs or your movies, it's your loss. I'll live without them.
the free software foundation is making a software license that restricts freedoms. Cracks me up.
They only restrict the freedom to take someone else's GPL-licensed code and adding restrictions further down the line, like e.g. preventing modified versions to run using DRM hardware (which subverts the license and essentially removes the freedom to run modified code).
Slashdot Mirror
Then use Windows, it seems to suit you well.
That is actually a big problem. If everyone was force to pay for Windows instead of pirating it, some users might choose a free operating system instead. Or at least they would not have the option of running Windows for free. The same applies for Microsoft Office piracy.
This is a known troll. I have seen it before, and I'll (unfortunately) probably see it again. I'm just sorry I don't have any mod points.
AFAIK, Yum wasn't invented at Red Hat either. The name, Yellow Dog Updater Modified suggests that it was created for the Yellow Dog Linux distribution.
I don't really know what that command does, but a useful command with yum might be
which lists all available packages in all enabled repositories. Another command that might be helpful is
which is self-explaining.
Interesting. At least one store here in Sweden reports having Core 2 Duo in stock. I actually thought Intel would send every processor to Dell for the first couple of months. But anyway, it doesn't seem to be a paper release to me.
Webhallen reports having a few Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 in stock, and several hundred at their supplier. Komplett.se reports having more than 500 Core 2 Duo E6300 in stock.
I cannot understand why terrorists, planning to e.g. blow up a plane (which is highly illegal) would care about cryptography being outlawed. They would use it anyway, legal or not. The result is that honest people cannot use cryptography, but terrorists can.
Windows Live OneCare service?
At the moment you may be right, but when airplane fuel becomes prohibitively expensive, maybe trains would be an option. And I'm not talking 60 mph diesel trains, I'm talking 200+ mph electric high-speed trains. Heck, if Transrapid (or a similar system) would get cheaper, you might even be travelling at 310 mph at a reasonable price point.
And at 310 mph, that would be slightly more than half the speed of airplanes, possibly making up for the two hour plus security checks and inconvenient baggage restrictions of current air travel.
You can put much more passengers on a train than on either on a bus or an airplane.
That's okay, there are no stops in flight for airplanes either.
They are already competing, just not in the United States. Just look at central Europe, where we have interconnected systems of high-speed rail all over the place, and trains that routinely travel at 320 km/h (200 mph) (They did over 500 km/h (312 mph) in test runs).
Heh, if the nuclear power plants were that fragile, a Cessna flying into them would be among the last things I'd be concerned about. A containment building that can't withstand a Cessna crashing into it, would surely not be able to contain a steam explosion. :)
Since terra means the earth, I wonder if use of this phrase was intentional, or if it was some kind of plural version of terror.
Are you surprised? If some people are stupid enough to buy products advertised in spam, they are probably stupid enough not to care about spelling either.
I'd guess there is a difference between static fields and alternating fields. The permanent magnets create a static magnetic field, while the power lines create alternating magnetic fields.
Ahh, I see. Then I guess one could compare the Windows application installers with the Linux package managers.
That sounds unnecessarily brutal. Why BSOD when you can just kill the process? This would mean that the remaining applications would keep running as usual. Or is it a penalty for messing with the DRM? "Mess with this program, and you lose all your unsaved data"
Simply that if it's in my power, my computer will not be DRM-crippled, which means that I'm in charge of my computer, not "them". Of course, that means I won't be able to buy their DRM-crippled products, but that's fine with me.
At the moment, no, but that problem is being addressed. I'll switch to GPLv3 for all my GPL code releases when the license is finished (unless problem turns up with it).
I only meant that my computer won't obey their demands (because of a lack of DRM). The lack of DRM also means that I won't be able to play their content, but I'm fine with that. I refuse to pay money for intentionally crippled hardware. The irony is that DRM only hurts their legitimate customers, who will be locked into specific systems by the DRM. The pirates will get it anyway, with DRM stripped, which in essence means a better product. But I don't support copyright infringement, how could I do that and at the same time enforce the GPL (which depends on copyright)?
Okay, let's say the free software spirit instead. Ask the FSF. They would probably disagree with your claim of no GPL spirit.
This is a fairly recent problem, and is therefore being addressed by the FSF and the community (by way of the drafting and comments process). I never thought the current version packed the punch to prevent DRM from removing user freedom, I'm simply happy to see it addressed.
Neither do I under certain circumstances. GPL is for code that I write for free on my spare time. BSD is for code written at my current place of work, since I work at a publicly funded university. Taxpayers (including corporations) already payed for my work, so they should be able to use it any way they want. I could even write proprietary software if I would get paid, provided it wouldn't be for Microsoft or similar companies (I wouln't want to help such companies get any further than they already have).
You mean software licensed to third parties by other third parties with none of my code involved? Where did I write that?
If I don't accept how they want to do business with me, I have no obligation to do business with them. So in essence, I do have the right to make decisions about how they do business with me, at least indirectly.
Now where did I say that?
And they are free to do so, except using my code. In addition, they cannot expect me to buy their DRM:ed offerings (although I won't pirate it either).
Such as the advantage of reduced costs. This certainly gives them two options, lower prices or raised profit margin (or a combination of the two). But I don't see why programmers releasing GPL software have any responsibility to fund the development for vendors that don't want to pass on the GPL spirit to their customers.
Such as retaining the ability to profiteer from other peoples' work, but not comply fully with their wishes?
Then what is a good graphical installer? The Windows XP installer? I'd prefer the Fedora Core 5 installer over the Windows XP installer every time. It is not only the graphics, but certain other issues. One prominent example is that the Windows XP installer won't ask everything before the installation and then work for half an hour. It will work for five minutes, ask a few questions, work for five minutes, ask a few questions, ad nauseum. The FC5 installer asks everything needed for the installation before it starts working.
But of course, most users never install Windows, since it comes with their computer.
Maybe because people are different?
Since everyone can take the available pieces of free software and assemble them in any way they like to form a complete operating system, would you really expect everyone to be essentially the same? People have differing preferences and different solutions to various issues in building a Linux distribution. The major distributions may work together to create standards för certain parts of the operating system, but don't expect everyone to come along.
As long as there is freedom, people will make different choices.
In every current desktop OS, applications never interface directly to the hardware, they do this through the OS libraries and the system kernel. Why would applications suddenly start interfacing directly with hardware now?
Security hardware would need drivers, just like any other hardware. This is to hide the details of how the hardware works from the application programmer. And then we have the different CPU privilege levels required by different classes of instructions. For applications to interface directly with hardware, the CPU instructions to do this would need to work even in the least privileged CPU mode. Otherwise, access to security hardware would require involvement of the kernel, which would need to be trusted in this case. And since applications never interface with the kernel directly, the OS libraries would need to be trusted too.
I could not find a single word about how applications are going to interface with the hardware. The article discussed the concept, but details about how this would work were conveniently left out.
And if the hardware won't function without my software, why can't I do that? Either use my software according to my rules, or write your own software.
Then, why did they make a special Linux version, the WRT54GL, after they changed the WRT54G to VxWorks?
I don't care about the design of your hardware except that it may not be used to limit the rights of users of my software. If you don't like it, write your own software and smell the increased costs.
Deny all you want, but don't expect my computer to obey you. Either it plays and allows everything (no DRM on media), or it don't allow anything at all (DRM on media, but no DRM in my computer). I won't allow my computer to selectively allow certain actions and deny others based on your decisions. If this means that I cannot buy your songs or your movies, it's your loss. I'll live without them.
They only restrict the freedom to take someone else's GPL-licensed code and adding restrictions further down the line, like e.g. preventing modified versions to run using DRM hardware (which subverts the license and essentially removes the freedom to run modified code).