To the contrary. The big telecoms in the USA (and many other places the situation is similar) have already been paid out of tax money to build new networks with the required capacities. More than once. They take the money, they put it in their pockets instead of rolling out fibre and adding more trunks with it, then they come back to DC next year looking to get paid yet again for the job they still havent done.
The funny thing is that the ISPs are on the wrong side of the power gradient here. The end users likely don't give a shit if they're connecting to the internet through AT&T or Comcast or whoever. They will care if they can't reach Google (or any other 'content' provider), though. If Google doesn't pay up and AT&T throttles traffic to Google, what are AT&T expecting to happen?
What they expect is that their customer are ignorant sheep who will shrug, blame the problem on Google, and proceed to use the search engine AT&T "partners" with instead.
And sorry if I sound pessimistic, but a lifetime of experience leads me to believe that this assessment is true of enough people that in any mass market context it might as well be true. You and I may not fall for this, but if 95% of the public does, the remaining 5% (us) will eventually find that we have no other choice.
DOS is going to have difficulty meeting the requirement to support lots of modern file systems I'm afeared. (And I could be wrong, if FreeDOS has gotten a LOT better since the last time I looked.)
And WordPerfect is NOT a text editor. It's a word processor. Totally different animal. Doh.
If you can get a DOS running with the necessary file system support, try to dig up an old copy of QEdit. That old thing rocked hard.
Or Xtree. Also rocked hard. Qedit was the best single-purpose text editor, Xtree was really a file manager with a great text editor built-in. Both far more lightweight than WP.
Unixtree contains some extra functionality, mostly file management, which wouldnt be bad to have anyway.
It's pretty small as well.
For many years I used DOS+Xtree Gold for this sort of thing, whole system fit on a floppy disk (with some of the optional Xtree modules removed) and it worked great. But I dont think that system could (at least easily) be set up to support the newer file systems the OP needs to work with, however a linux+busybox+unixtree system should be the up-to-date equivelant.
Oh, that's undoubtedly the point from the clients point of view.
Surveyers walk a fine line. You DO have to serve the paymaster, of course, as with anything else.
At the same time, getting caught compromising the integrity of a study you conduct is not worth it. The client may or may not care about getting accurate information as opposed to an excuse to make their sound bite - but if you cease to be a reputable provider you cant really give them the latter anymore either.
It's good that you are trying to add some info to the survey, while perhaps making a point, but unfortunately the way surveys work is that the data is inputted into a database. This means that extra or unsupported data is not collected. Your comment was discarded. Sorry.
Not necessarily true. A proper study design will *always* allow for this sort of input. At the very least, someone will collate any such write-ins that they get and account for them. Afterwards there's a chance that the analysts may then go ahead and decide that it's noise and disregard it, but they can only do that AFTER tallying up this and any other write-ins. IF they get a significant number of write-in answers, particularly a significant number with the same or very similar answer, the database will have to be altered to account for them, and in the report it will have to be noted that there was this unexpected response, which was statistically significant, and which might likely have been even more significant had it not required a write-in to record. The next iteration of the survey should then have that response available without a write-in.
This is the proper way to do it. I'm not saying there arent fly-by-night survey outfits that cut corners, and I'm not saying it's impossible that some of them cut this particular corner - but to do otherwise is disreputable and scientifically unsound.
AIX is really old, mature, and definitely still maintained. It's a very good system.
I expect it will eventually be retired and replaced with Linux, but that's still years down the road. Right now, it offers some advantages, particularly on minicomputer class hardware.
It's a good point, however there *must* be something specifying how those modules should behave when errors occur, handle input etc or the whole thing reaches the stage Linux has now where it works, and works well for the vast majority of tasks, but only if you remember the right combination of switches to make one module talk nicely to another module provided that you pipe it through a shell script to do something trivial like remove blank lines, because the first app includes them for readability but the developers of the second app decided that they should correspond to an EOF.
Then the app developers in that case are already WAY out of line. Line termination is handled correctly, and transparently, by simply using the standard libraries on the system, so someone decided to reïnvent the wheel, and did it badly. This is exactly the point I was making - don't do that.
Solaris is a very good kernel. But compare the time in development with that of Linux. Sun saw the writing on the wall and realised they simply couldn't keep up with the 'herd of cats' in the long run - hence the release of Solaris as Free Software.
As projects become larger and more complex, they outstrip the ability of anything but a decentralised network of programmers. The resources of a traditional centralised software company, even the biggest in the business, is nothing compared to what decentralised networks of programmers have. The linux kernel team being one excellent example. And commercial software houses - *many* of them - are definitely involved, but the model is still distributed. No single company could handle that task - a widely distributed team from all around the world, with both commercial and noncommercial interests contributing, can and does.
Projects that attempt to decentralise their development while still retaining a monolithic structure internally may find that doesnt work so well, of course. For this to work the project must follow the 'unix way' and have many more-or-less self contained modules that work together, rather than building monolithic do-everthing apps. Not everyone seems to grok that yet, but give it time.
That simply isn't an option. Novelle and IBM both have lots of counterclaims that will have to be dealt with, even if Caldera does drop their baseless claims. And lawyers aren't allowed to just back out of a case. Plus BS&F have already been paid to take this thing to the conclusion...
Quite correct. That usually means one is a subset of the other, but it's certainly possible for it not to mean that. Can you think of an actual example?
I tried to make this click and drag but slashdot won't allow it.
Anyway, make a new button on your bookmarks bar and set the "location" field to the following:
Works great. Firefox still doesn't show the location of sponsored ads on mouseover though, with redirects removed or not. What I'd like to see is a patch for that.
True, but Firefox allows the suppression of information on the mouse hover as well, I just tested it. Opera does the right thing here, why not Firefox?
BSDL, old or new, is nothing whatsoever like public domain. Both require copyright notices be preserved, and neither permits relicensing. This is a common misunderstanding - using code under compatible, but different, licenses does not involve relicensing. For instance using BSDL or X11/MIT code in a GPL project does NOT result in that code somehow being converted to GPL. It's still under the original license. It's simply being used in accordance with that original license, which is possible because the terms do not conflict.
If you take BSD code and remove the copyright notices, remove the license notices, and publish it under the GPL you *would* be in violation of copyright. But if you take that same code, preserve the relevant copyright and licensing notices, and use it as a part of a larger project, with the remaining code being under the GPL, that is fine. Is that any clearer?
Suppose you write foo.cc, and release it under the BSDL. I come along and see that this solves some problems I need to solve for my project, so I grab it and use it. I add bar.cc, licensed under the GPL, and the binary I produce is the product of both foo and bar. *The binary* must be treated as though it were GPL, but foo.cc is still and always under the BSDL - the license hasn't changed, and I'm not allowed to remove your copyright notices.
As to Apache, I'm going to assume you're referring to version 2. This license, like Suns, has a patent clause that renders it incompatible with the GPL v2 for the same reason, and the same comments apply.
I may have been off base with the DRM stuff, but I still say it will be possible to TiVOize code regardless of what terms they put in the license. Requiring that the user be able to hack the box/code in spite of the DMCA seems like a good idea, but in the end it will not stop people from making it very difficult to run modified code on some devices.
Sure, it's not going to solve all problems, but nothing will. You should keep in mind that DRM schemes are inherently insecure, and without the weight of law in form of the DMCA-type laws they're quite untenable in the long run. As it is, you may well be able to defeat the DRM on your own machine, but the minute you start helping anyone else reclaim their own rights you fall afoul of the law and face massive penalties. This prevent commercial ventures, in particular, from touching the problem with a ten foot pole - and exposes you to considerable risk personally as well. The DRM provision ensures that to the degree a company relies on leveraging free software to build their systems, they have to give up on that. Without the DMCA, every linux distro could ship with deCSS installed and configured, for instance.
What then does license compatibility really mean exactly?
Two licenses are compatible if a licensee can fulfil the conditions of both licenses simultaneously. Another way of saying this is that two licenses are compatible if the requirements of one are a subset of the other. For example the BSD is compatible with the GPL, because it is possible to fulfill the conditions of both simultaneously, since all the BSD requires is a subset of the requirements of the GPL. So it is possible to legally use BSD code and GPL code in the same work.
Wouldn't it be better to write other apps from scratch under GPL than alter the license to be compatible with certain apps license?
That depends on how much work would be involved and what requirements the other license makes.
There's no point to reïmplementing something already available under the (modern) BSD license, for instance. This should be fairly obvious.
On the other hand, code available only under the old BSD license should probably all be reïmplemented entirely. The advertising clause may not look like much at first glance, but when you consider how many thousands of different copyrights might apply to a single commercial distribution, you can see what a nightmare that clause could become in time.
On the third hand, consider the Sun license. It's not compatible with the GPL v2, because the GPL has a requirement that no further conditions may be added, and the Sun license has patent provisions that the GPL doesn't. This makes it legally impossible to use code under these two licenses together - they are incompatible. BUT, aside from the fact of incompatibility, there's nothing wrong with Suns license. The FSF had already stated they wanted to add similar patent provisions in the future, and a similar clause would probably have been in the GPL v2 had software patents been an issue when it was written. So in this case, making the GPL v3 compatible with Suns license might not be a bad idea at all - the details of wording may be a pain to work out, but the patent requirement itself is not onerous, to the contrary, it or something very much like it is a desirable addition anyway.
What about DRM? GPL3 says you have to provide everything needed to make the app run. Does that mean the compiler too?
No, of course not. Your paraphrase is not what the license says. The actual wording has been reviewed and revised very carefully. The DRM section doesn't say anything resembling what you wrote.
3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.
To paraphrase, you can't use Free Software to build a system and then use the DMCA to forbid modification of that system. That's it.
There are no sections of the license that say anything more than vaguely resembling what you wrote. The definition of "Corresponding Source" for instance says:
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or
A lot of the myths they investigate involve many complex variables. There's too many factors involved to accurately calculate "scientifically", and actually performing the test is far more conclusive.
Agreed. The concept is a good one.
Sure some of the tests can't be done properly without unrealistically large amounts of effort and or money, but they do pretty damned good with what they've got most of the time.
And this is where I disagree. Many times they *could* do a decent test, and easily within budget, but they just don't. Not because their budget won't allow it, but because they make basic mistakes of reasoning.
They have stated both on the show and in other interviews that a lot more testing goes on than just what we see on the show.
If that's true it just makes them look worse, because they often fail to grok crucial and obvious things. One example that comes to mind - they supposedly tested the myth of the old west gunslinger that could shoot a coin so many times before it hit the ground. They "tested" this by seeing if a SA revolver could physically fire that many shots before a dropped coin hit the ground. Totally idiotic because, of course, the people that actually did that stunt were knocking the coin back up into the air with each shot - it was a show of accuracy, not a feat of rapid-fire. If they spent more time on that episode than indicated in the broadcast and still not one of them thought of that... ick.
No, while the concept for the show is fairly cool, the people involved do not appear to be up to the task.
Read the IAEA reports. Not just the cherry-picked two or three word out of context quotes faux news repeats endlessly. Iran has been extensively inspected, and the IAEA has never found any evidence of violations there.
Think of it this way... What if an IT department didn't have women's bathrooms, because it was designed back when only men held IT jobs. So the job "requires" women to go to a different building to use the bathroom. If a women quits because she finds that annoying, it is literally correct to say that she isn't willing to accept the conditions of the job. But obviously no one would defend that situation.
Actually in much of the world (outside of the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the like) segregated bathrooms are not the norm, so this example is almost incomprehensible.
Is this still news? Better still - why is this still news?!?
It's news because a significant portion of the population has drunk the kool-aid so that any time a statistical difference between men and women is spotted there is an assumption this indicates some injustice, and a knee-jerk reaction that this 'problem' must be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Through no fault of their own?
To the contrary. The big telecoms in the USA (and many other places the situation is similar) have already been paid out of tax money to build new networks with the required capacities. More than once. They take the money, they put it in their pockets instead of rolling out fibre and adding more trunks with it, then they come back to DC next year looking to get paid yet again for the job they still havent done.
Screw em.
What they expect is that their customer are ignorant sheep who will shrug, blame the problem on Google, and proceed to use the search engine AT&T "partners" with instead.
And sorry if I sound pessimistic, but a lifetime of experience leads me to believe that this assessment is true of enough people that in any mass market context it might as well be true. You and I may not fall for this, but if 95% of the public does, the remaining 5% (us) will eventually find that we have no other choice.
Ask a glass of water.
*sigh*
DOS is going to have difficulty meeting the requirement to support lots of modern file systems I'm afeared. (And I could be wrong, if FreeDOS has gotten a LOT better since the last time I looked.)
And WordPerfect is NOT a text editor. It's a word processor. Totally different animal. Doh.
If you can get a DOS running with the necessary file system support, try to dig up an old copy of QEdit. That old thing rocked hard.
Or Xtree. Also rocked hard. Qedit was the best single-purpose text editor, Xtree was really a file manager with a great text editor built-in. Both far more lightweight than WP.
Unixtree contains some extra functionality, mostly file management, which wouldnt be bad to have anyway.
It's pretty small as well.
For many years I used DOS+Xtree Gold for this sort of thing, whole system fit on a floppy disk (with some of the optional Xtree modules removed) and it worked great. But I dont think that system could (at least easily) be set up to support the newer file systems the OP needs to work with, however a linux+busybox+unixtree system should be the up-to-date equivelant.
Oh, that's undoubtedly the point from the clients point of view. Surveyers walk a fine line. You DO have to serve the paymaster, of course, as with anything else. At the same time, getting caught compromising the integrity of a study you conduct is not worth it. The client may or may not care about getting accurate information as opposed to an excuse to make their sound bite - but if you cease to be a reputable provider you cant really give them the latter anymore either.
Not necessarily true. A proper study design will *always* allow for this sort of input. At the very least, someone will collate any such write-ins that they get and account for them. Afterwards there's a chance that the analysts may then go ahead and decide that it's noise and disregard it, but they can only do that AFTER tallying up this and any other write-ins. IF they get a significant number of write-in answers, particularly a significant number with the same or very similar answer, the database will have to be altered to account for them, and in the report it will have to be noted that there was this unexpected response, which was statistically significant, and which might likely have been even more significant had it not required a write-in to record. The next iteration of the survey should then have that response available without a write-in.
This is the proper way to do it. I'm not saying there arent fly-by-night survey outfits that cut corners, and I'm not saying it's impossible that some of them cut this particular corner - but to do otherwise is disreputable and scientifically unsound.
AIX is really old, mature, and definitely still maintained. It's a very good system.
I expect it will eventually be retired and replaced with Linux, but that's still years down the road. Right now, it offers some advantages, particularly on minicomputer class hardware.
Then the app developers in that case are already WAY out of line. Line termination is handled correctly, and transparently, by simply using the standard libraries on the system, so someone decided to reïnvent the wheel, and did it badly. This is exactly the point I was making - don't do that.
Solaris is a very good kernel. But compare the time in development with that of Linux. Sun saw the writing on the wall and realised they simply couldn't keep up with the 'herd of cats' in the long run - hence the release of Solaris as Free Software.
I think you have it exactly backwards.
As projects become larger and more complex, they outstrip the ability of anything but a decentralised network of programmers. The resources of a traditional centralised software company, even the biggest in the business, is nothing compared to what decentralised networks of programmers have. The linux kernel team being one excellent example. And commercial software houses - *many* of them - are definitely involved, but the model is still distributed. No single company could handle that task - a widely distributed team from all around the world, with both commercial and noncommercial interests contributing, can and does.
Projects that attempt to decentralise their development while still retaining a monolithic structure internally may find that doesnt work so well, of course. For this to work the project must follow the 'unix way' and have many more-or-less self contained modules that work together, rather than building monolithic do-everthing apps. Not everyone seems to grok that yet, but give it time.
If you're accustomed to Microsoft, yes.
That simply isn't an option. Novelle and IBM both have lots of counterclaims that will have to be dealt with, even if Caldera does drop their baseless claims. And lawyers aren't allowed to just back out of a case. Plus BS&F have already been paid to take this thing to the conclusion...
Quite correct. That usually means one is a subset of the other, but it's certainly possible for it not to mean that. Can you think of an actual example?
True, but Firefox allows the suppression of information on the mouse hover as well, I just tested it. Opera does the right thing here, why not Firefox?
BSDL, old or new, is nothing whatsoever like public domain. Both require copyright notices be preserved, and neither permits relicensing. This is a common misunderstanding - using code under compatible, but different, licenses does not involve relicensing. For instance using BSDL or X11/MIT code in a GPL project does NOT result in that code somehow being converted to GPL. It's still under the original license. It's simply being used in accordance with that original license, which is possible because the terms do not conflict.
If you take BSD code and remove the copyright notices, remove the license notices, and publish it under the GPL you *would* be in violation of copyright. But if you take that same code, preserve the relevant copyright and licensing notices, and use it as a part of a larger project, with the remaining code being under the GPL, that is fine. Is that any clearer?
Suppose you write foo.cc, and release it under the BSDL. I come along and see that this solves some problems I need to solve for my project, so I grab it and use it. I add bar.cc, licensed under the GPL, and the binary I produce is the product of both foo and bar. *The binary* must be treated as though it were GPL, but foo.cc is still and always under the BSDL - the license hasn't changed, and I'm not allowed to remove your copyright notices.
As to Apache, I'm going to assume you're referring to version 2. This license, like Suns, has a patent clause that renders it incompatible with the GPL v2 for the same reason, and the same comments apply.
Sure, it's not going to solve all problems, but nothing will. You should keep in mind that DRM schemes are inherently insecure, and without the weight of law in form of the DMCA-type laws they're quite untenable in the long run. As it is, you may well be able to defeat the DRM on your own machine, but the minute you start helping anyone else reclaim their own rights you fall afoul of the law and face massive penalties. This prevent commercial ventures, in particular, from touching the problem with a ten foot pole - and exposes you to considerable risk personally as well. The DRM provision ensures that to the degree a company relies on leveraging free software to build their systems, they have to give up on that. Without the DMCA, every linux distro could ship with deCSS installed and configured, for instance.
Umm, yeah, at least 10 years ago.
Two licenses are compatible if a licensee can fulfil the conditions of both licenses simultaneously. Another way of saying this is that two licenses are compatible if the requirements of one are a subset of the other. For example the BSD is compatible with the GPL, because it is possible to fulfill the conditions of both simultaneously, since all the BSD requires is a subset of the requirements of the GPL. So it is possible to legally use BSD code and GPL code in the same work.
That depends on how much work would be involved and what requirements the other license makes.
There's no point to reïmplementing something already available under the (modern) BSD license, for instance. This should be fairly obvious.
On the other hand, code available only under the old BSD license should probably all be reïmplemented entirely. The advertising clause may not look like much at first glance, but when you consider how many thousands of different copyrights might apply to a single commercial distribution, you can see what a nightmare that clause could become in time.
On the third hand, consider the Sun license. It's not compatible with the GPL v2, because the GPL has a requirement that no further conditions may be added, and the Sun license has patent provisions that the GPL doesn't. This makes it legally impossible to use code under these two licenses together - they are incompatible. BUT, aside from the fact of incompatibility, there's nothing wrong with Suns license. The FSF had already stated they wanted to add similar patent provisions in the future, and a similar clause would probably have been in the GPL v2 had software patents been an issue when it was written. So in this case, making the GPL v3 compatible with Suns license might not be a bad idea at all - the details of wording may be a pain to work out, but the patent requirement itself is not onerous, to the contrary, it or something very much like it is a desirable addition anyway.
No, of course not. Your paraphrase is not what the license says. The actual wording has been reviewed and revised very carefully. The DRM section doesn't say anything resembling what you wrote.
To paraphrase, you can't use Free Software to build a system and then use the DMCA to forbid modification of that system. That's it.
There are no sections of the license that say anything more than vaguely resembling what you wrote. The definition of "Corresponding Source" for instance says:
Agreed. The concept is a good one.
And this is where I disagree. Many times they *could* do a decent test, and easily within budget, but they just don't. Not because their budget won't allow it, but because they make basic mistakes of reasoning.
If that's true it just makes them look worse, because they often fail to grok crucial and obvious things. One example that comes to mind - they supposedly tested the myth of the old west gunslinger that could shoot a coin so many times before it hit the ground. They "tested" this by seeing if a SA revolver could physically fire that many shots before a dropped coin hit the ground. Totally idiotic because, of course, the people that actually did that stunt were knocking the coin back up into the air with each shot - it was a show of accuracy, not a feat of rapid-fire. If they spent more time on that episode than indicated in the broadcast and still not one of them thought of that... ick.
No, while the concept for the show is fairly cool, the people involved do not appear to be up to the task.
Aristotelian logic is not the entire set of logic, not by a long shot.
Read the IAEA reports. Not just the cherry-picked two or three word out of context quotes faux news repeats endlessly. Iran has been extensively inspected, and the IAEA has never found any evidence of violations there.
Actually in much of the world (outside of the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the like) segregated bathrooms are not the norm, so this example is almost incomprehensible.
It's news because a significant portion of the population has drunk the kool-aid so that any time a statistical difference between men and women is spotted there is an assumption this indicates some injustice, and a knee-jerk reaction that this 'problem' must be fixed.