Learn whichever distro(s) that you need to learn. Learn whichever (wildly divergent) products called 'Windows' you need to learn. Learn whichever MacOS versions you need to learn. What's so hard about that?
Linux shouldn't cater to 'Joe sixpack,' this is your fundamental misunderstanding here. Can Linux be used to cater to this? Sure. Because there are options, because it's flexible. Any step that impairs its flexibility is a bad move in the longrun.
Distros are the ones that can and should cater to particular audiences. Distros can produce standardized 'desktops' and all the stuff you're talking about, and that's fine. Several are trying to cater to your 'Joe sixpack' and that's great. But they can only do this because Linux is so flexible.
I have a similar situation, an address I've had a good 15 years and it's so swamped with spam I'm regretfully coming to the conclusion it's not worth having anymore. But, if I only had control of the mail server...
I've got a much simpler method of stopping spam, and my analysis of the spam I receive tells me it would kill the vast majority of it. The author of the article almost mentions it, but discards it, wrongfully I think. He says
Sure, one could add a new
spam detection rule that flags e-mail messages that only contain
HTML image tags, etc, but the risk of flagging legitimate e-mails
in the process is high.
But he's wrong. I don't think I've ever once gotten a legitimate email in HTML. Trouble is it's no good to download the damn things before I can see that they're HTML, for it to be an effective remedy it needs to be implemented on the server. I think if email clients quit interpreting HTML (which they never should have done to begin with) or servers started simply refusing to accept messages in HTML, SPAM would, if not totally die, be dealt an incredibly powerful blow.
My god you can't be so clueless.
John McCain is no more a libertarian than Ted Kennedy.
The only libertarian still in the Republican party at the national level is Representative Ron Paul. The libertarians have been pretty effectively driven out of the GOP, and they're purging the conservatives as we speak.
If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over.
The article is incorrect. The writer appears to have confused a 'declaratory judgement' with a 'summary judgement' - but it's the former, not the latter. It just means that this declaration is part of the remedy IBM is asking the court to provide, when the case finally comes to a conclusion and they win.
A summary judgement would be a motion for the Judge to declare that there is no need for a trial, that he can rule based on the facts already in evidence and stipulated. That's a very different thing, even though a lot of people seem to be confusing them.
But it's our country.
Don't you think we should have a say in what our laws should be?
Absolutely. It is our politicians who are constantly putting this in danger by creating monsters like the WTO. They just don't seem to grasp the notion that if they can use the WTO against other nations, it can be used against us too, however. This hypocrisy is what creates all the 'anti-american' feeling you keep hearing about. Not this case in particular, but this sort of (il)logic.
I'm very happy with this particular incident though, for the moment at least. It looks like a win-win situation for me, either we get rid of some of our idiotic anti-gambling laws, or we get rid of the idiotic WTO membership. Either result would be a win from my point of view.
Its a technical issue, it will be solved by technical means. Some hacker needs to sit down and spend a few months writing an open standard for mail that takes SPAM into account.
I think the technical means are already in place. It's just a matter of getting everyone that runs a mail user to implement them. SMTP traffic should always be encrypted and authenticated, if every SMTP server did that the cost of SPAM would go through the roof.
That's nonsense. Sure, some people, way too many in my opinion, are imprecise in their usage - that's true in every language though. English is capable of just as much precision as any language. 'Verbing' isn't a case of having no rules or structure, it's a case of having different rules and structure than some people expect.
Not just English, it's a characteristic of Germanic languages in general. I'm always amused by folks that complain about this and act like it makes them superior... more like it means they don't understand the fundamentals of the language very well.
Well you show the absurdity of rejecting GNUStep on language grounds, even as you make the claim that's what happened. I can't believe it is. C++ is indeed monstrous, hideous, and anyone that can handle it can't have any trouble with ObjC. Besides which, GNOME isn't based on C++ either, but plain old C.
I think it's an exageration to say that "GNUstep fell by the wayside" - it's hardly over yet. It is disappointing how little attention it gets, but it's hardly a dead project, if it picked up a few more active developers that would be very nice though.
I agree completely. Well, the one thing I disagree on is the UI, frankly I find GNUSteps preferable to Aqua (and I'm writing this on a Mac.) I've never understood why folks wasted all that time reinventing everything for GNOME and KDE when they could have done everything they wanted, easier, with GNUStep.
Does that mean every comet/asteroid that orbits the sun is technically a planet? If you throw out the size requirement, what other criteria remain for designating something a planet?
Umm no. RTFA. It wasn't slashdotted when I hit it, and you posted before I did, so you have no excuse.
The rule he proposes is the gravity threshold rule, which has been around a long time. It means that an object must have enough mass that its own gravity causes it to assume a spherical state to be a planet. That rules out almost all of the objects considered comets and asteroids, with the exception of a few extremely large ones like Pluto and Ceres.
You're correct, and the reviewer was confused. There is a GPL version, with which you can write GPL programs, whether commercial or not. However, if you want to write proprietary programs, not licensed under the GPL, then you need to pay them for a different license.
Also note that there are actually four versions of QT - for QT X11, QT Embedded, QT Mac, and QT Win32. While you should be able to consider them as equivelant when you're writing the code, you'll need the appropriate one to compile the code on a particular platform, and there is no GPL version of QT Win32 best I can tell, although there is an independent project porting the X11 version over. So if you're going to compile your QT app for Windows you'll need to buy the non-GPL version, or use a work-around like Cygwin perhaps.
I somewhat agree with that. I think ideally, the core functions should be cross-platform and well designed, so that it can be plugged into the native GUI fairly easily on each platform. This gives the best of both worlds - most of the advantages of portability, without the interface mess you get using something like QT on Mac, for example.
But, we don't live in an ideal world, and assuming the app is worth having in the first place, it's probably better to have it available on more platforms than less, even if the UI isn't ideal.
BSD focuses on being secure and stable through eliminating shoddy code. There's still good work to be done there, although at this point they've been pretty thorough cleaning up all the old shoddy code. Coding SMP into a kernel isn't easy, but when that code is going to be held to BSDs standards it's 10 times harder.
Let me just say that, from my unusual perspective of someone who generally prefers the BSD way of doing things outside of licenses, but thinks the GPL is a huge advantage, I've never heard anyone make such an inane argument sincerely. The GPL doesn't keep people from forking, and neither does the BSD, that's just not one of the differences between them. BSD does allow one to create a proprietary fork and hide the changes while still distributing binaries, yes, but none of the major BSD forks do that anyway. The reason there are three BSDs and one Linux? Linux is a better manager than anyone the BSDs have had, I suspect.
About Project Gutenberg 2
Project Gutenberg 2 is a member of the World eBook Library Consortia, an eBook library consortium adds an additional scope to eBook preservation and access. Project Gutenberg 2 is not affiliated with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and has received no funding, materials, or any other support from the Foundation.
So that answers your first question.
Looks to me like it's time for Mr. Hart to talk with a lawyer though. The name is definately 'confusingly similar' to the one he has trademarked, and being used in the same area.
Your gripe doesn't show that the kernel interface sucks, but that binary drivers suck. The kernel API is left somewhat changeable on purpose, because there are major advantages to it and because the disadvantages of it accrue solely on binary-only drivers, which are in Linus' words 'unsupported' and not to be encouraged anyway.
Interesting that you chose your selections to give McVoy the last word. He's not exactly an authority on the GPL, or even someone with a neutral position on it historically. Linus answered him quite well:
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:58:18 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > linux/COPYING says: This copyright does *not* cover user programs > > that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely > > considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under > > the heading of "derived work". > > Yeah, and the GPL specificly invalidates that statement. We're on thin > ice here. Linus is making up the rules, which is cool (since I tend to > like his rules) but the reality is that the GPL doesn't allow you to > extend the GPL. It's the GPL or nothing.
Larry, you are wrong.
The license _IS_ the GPL. There's no issue about that. The GPL rules apply 100%.
But a license only covers what it _can_ cover - derived works. The fact that Linux is under the GPL simply _cannot_matter_ to a user program, if the author can show that the user program is not a derived work.
And the linux/COPYING addition is not an addition to the license itself (indeed, it cannot be, since the GPL itself is a copyrighted work, and so by copyright law you aren't allowed to just take it and change it).
No, the note at the top of the copying file is something totally different: it's basically a statement to the effect that the copyright holder recognizes that there are limits to a derived work, and spells out one such limit that he would never contest in court.
See? It's neither a license nor a contract, but it actually does have legal meaning: look up the legal meaning of "estoppel" (google "define:" is qutie good). Trust me, it's got _tons_ of legal precedent.
Is an attempt to institutionalise rights violation. Resist it.
I've never had any interest in these things before, but now I'm thinking I should find one just for purposes of civil disobedience.
That's the point. The article apparently claims that it remained stable at over an additional 100%. Now, not all processors are alike, but if one of those can handle up to that, shouldn't others be able to handle a fairly good amount of overclocking as well?
Well you've got to remember that these things were made for several years. Just a guess, but I'm thinking by the time the last ones they sold were made, Motorola probably had long since quit making 7.6mghz chips, and were just shipping whatever their bottom of the line was at the moment and underclocking it.
Also, you have to remember even if that's not the case, there's a lot of variability in chips. Just because this guy got his to run at this speed reliably, doesn't mean they all would.
I agree that it's a bit ambiguous and that's what left room open for the suit.
The more interesting question, to me, is one no one seems to have brought up yet though. Why does MLB want to not make these games available in both formats? They're making the regular season games available in both formats either way, so obviously there is no technical problem - the overhead is already payed. Could this be something they're doing in order to get a sweetheart deal of some kind?
Slashdot Mirror
Learn whichever distro(s) that you need to learn. Learn whichever (wildly divergent) products called 'Windows' you need to learn. Learn whichever MacOS versions you need to learn. What's so hard about that?
Linux shouldn't cater to 'Joe sixpack,' this is your fundamental misunderstanding here. Can Linux be used to cater to this? Sure. Because there are options, because it's flexible. Any step that impairs its flexibility is a bad move in the longrun.
Distros are the ones that can and should cater to particular audiences. Distros can produce standardized 'desktops' and all the stuff you're talking about, and that's fine. Several are trying to cater to your 'Joe sixpack' and that's great. But they can only do this because Linux is so flexible.
I have a similar situation, an address I've had a good 15 years and it's so swamped with spam I'm regretfully coming to the conclusion it's not worth having anymore. But, if I only had control of the mail server...
I've got a much simpler method of stopping spam, and my analysis of the spam I receive tells me it would kill the vast majority of it. The author of the article almost mentions it, but discards it, wrongfully I think. He says
But he's wrong. I don't think I've ever once gotten a legitimate email in HTML. Trouble is it's no good to download the damn things before I can see that they're HTML, for it to be an effective remedy it needs to be implemented on the server. I think if email clients quit interpreting HTML (which they never should have done to begin with) or servers started simply refusing to accept messages in HTML, SPAM would, if not totally die, be dealt an incredibly powerful blow.My god you can't be so clueless. John McCain is no more a libertarian than Ted Kennedy. The only libertarian still in the Republican party at the national level is Representative Ron Paul. The libertarians have been pretty effectively driven out of the GOP, and they're purging the conservatives as we speak.
The article is incorrect. The writer appears to have confused a 'declaratory judgement' with a 'summary judgement' - but it's the former, not the latter. It just means that this declaration is part of the remedy IBM is asking the court to provide, when the case finally comes to a conclusion and they win.
A summary judgement would be a motion for the Judge to declare that there is no need for a trial, that he can rule based on the facts already in evidence and stipulated. That's a very different thing, even though a lot of people seem to be confusing them.
Not if you were half competent, or had the advice of an attorney who was.
The 'license' doesn't just piss of your customers; it opens you up to liability you didn't have before, and gives you absolutely nothing in return.
Even if The SCO Group were willing to pay you $699/seat, it would still be a bad deal.
Absolutely. It is our politicians who are constantly putting this in danger by creating monsters like the WTO. They just don't seem to grasp the notion that if they can use the WTO against other nations, it can be used against us too, however. This hypocrisy is what creates all the 'anti-american' feeling you keep hearing about. Not this case in particular, but this sort of (il)logic.
I'm very happy with this particular incident though, for the moment at least. It looks like a win-win situation for me, either we get rid of some of our idiotic anti-gambling laws, or we get rid of the idiotic WTO membership. Either result would be a win from my point of view.
I think the technical means are already in place. It's just a matter of getting everyone that runs a mail user to implement them. SMTP traffic should always be encrypted and authenticated, if every SMTP server did that the cost of SPAM would go through the roof.
That's nonsense. Sure, some people, way too many in my opinion, are imprecise in their usage - that's true in every language though. English is capable of just as much precision as any language. 'Verbing' isn't a case of having no rules or structure, it's a case of having different rules and structure than some people expect.
Not just English, it's a characteristic of Germanic languages in general. I'm always amused by folks that complain about this and act like it makes them superior... more like it means they don't understand the fundamentals of the language very well.
Well you show the absurdity of rejecting GNUStep on language grounds, even as you make the claim that's what happened. I can't believe it is. C++ is indeed monstrous, hideous, and anyone that can handle it can't have any trouble with ObjC. Besides which, GNOME isn't based on C++ either, but plain old C.
I think it's an exageration to say that "GNUstep fell by the wayside" - it's hardly over yet. It is disappointing how little attention it gets, but it's hardly a dead project, if it picked up a few more active developers that would be very nice though.
I agree completely. Well, the one thing I disagree on is the UI, frankly I find GNUSteps preferable to Aqua (and I'm writing this on a Mac.) I've never understood why folks wasted all that time reinventing everything for GNOME and KDE when they could have done everything they wanted, easier, with GNUStep.
You're correct, and so's he. Remember he did say 'inside a poorly designed case' which, sadly, is a correct description of about 90% of them.
Umm no. RTFA. It wasn't slashdotted when I hit it, and you posted before I did, so you have no excuse.
The rule he proposes is the gravity threshold rule, which has been around a long time. It means that an object must have enough mass that its own gravity causes it to assume a spherical state to be a planet. That rules out almost all of the objects considered comets and asteroids, with the exception of a few extremely large ones like Pluto and Ceres.
You're correct, and the reviewer was confused. There is a GPL version, with which you can write GPL programs, whether commercial or not. However, if you want to write proprietary programs, not licensed under the GPL, then you need to pay them for a different license.
Also note that there are actually four versions of QT - for QT X11, QT Embedded, QT Mac, and QT Win32. While you should be able to consider them as equivelant when you're writing the code, you'll need the appropriate one to compile the code on a particular platform, and there is no GPL version of QT Win32 best I can tell, although there is an independent project porting the X11 version over. So if you're going to compile your QT app for Windows you'll need to buy the non-GPL version, or use a work-around like Cygwin perhaps.
I somewhat agree with that. I think ideally, the core functions should be cross-platform and well designed, so that it can be plugged into the native GUI fairly easily on each platform. This gives the best of both worlds - most of the advantages of portability, without the interface mess you get using something like QT on Mac, for example. But, we don't live in an ideal world, and assuming the app is worth having in the first place, it's probably better to have it available on more platforms than less, even if the UI isn't ideal.
BSD focuses on being secure and stable through eliminating shoddy code. There's still good work to be done there, although at this point they've been pretty thorough cleaning up all the old shoddy code. Coding SMP into a kernel isn't easy, but when that code is going to be held to BSDs standards it's 10 times harder.
Let me just say that, from my unusual perspective of someone who generally prefers the BSD way of doing things outside of licenses, but thinks the GPL is a huge advantage, I've never heard anyone make such an inane argument sincerely. The GPL doesn't keep people from forking, and neither does the BSD, that's just not one of the differences between them. BSD does allow one to create a proprietary fork and hide the changes while still distributing binaries, yes, but none of the major BSD forks do that anyway. The reason there are three BSDs and one Linux? Linux is a better manager than anyone the BSDs have had, I suspect.
So that answers your first question.
Looks to me like it's time for Mr. Hart to talk with a lawyer though. The name is definately 'confusingly similar' to the one he has trademarked, and being used in the same area.
Your gripe doesn't show that the kernel interface sucks, but that binary drivers suck. The kernel API is left somewhat changeable on purpose, because there are major advantages to it and because the disadvantages of it accrue solely on binary-only drivers, which are in Linus' words 'unsupported' and not to be encouraged anyway.
Interesting that you chose your selections to give McVoy the last word. He's not exactly an authority on the GPL, or even someone with a neutral position on it historically. Linus answered him quite well:
I'd happily pay that here, but not for a service that is windows only.
Is an attempt to institutionalise rights violation. Resist it. I've never had any interest in these things before, but now I'm thinking I should find one just for purposes of civil disobedience.
Well you've got to remember that these things were made for several years. Just a guess, but I'm thinking by the time the last ones they sold were made, Motorola probably had long since quit making 7.6mghz chips, and were just shipping whatever their bottom of the line was at the moment and underclocking it.
Also, you have to remember even if that's not the case, there's a lot of variability in chips. Just because this guy got his to run at this speed reliably, doesn't mean they all would.
I agree that it's a bit ambiguous and that's what left room open for the suit.
The more interesting question, to me, is one no one seems to have brought up yet though. Why does MLB want to not make these games available in both formats? They're making the regular season games available in both formats either way, so obviously there is no technical problem - the overhead is already payed. Could this be something they're doing in order to get a sweetheart deal of some kind?