I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
This is exagerration for sure. Yes, GNOME and KDE can be quite bloated. But I've run both satisfactorily on hardware that XP won't even try to run on.
You probably are trying to use some really fancy themes if you're having a problem at that level. Solution is easy, get rid of the big pixmap-heavy themes and put something simple up. If you're using GNOME use a lightweight WM - one of the best things about GNOME is it is WM agnostic.
If I can run GNOME/WindowMaker and GNOME/IceWM on a k6-233 with 32 MB RAM at a reasonable speed I know you can run it on anything that XP would run on, easily. And yes, Windows*95* definitely feels a little faster on the same hardware. It runs all the graphics routines at privilege, of course it's going to be faster. It's also unstable as all hell - that's the price you pay.
However if you want to compare XP, well, good luck getting XP to even boot up on that box.
With KDE, Netscape takes a good 10 seconds to load. Konqueror isn't much better. Fair enough, gimp loads quicker than photoshop. But when I can load internet explorer in a blink on a win98 machine, I find this frustrating.
IE is loading itself during the boot sequence. You can have Konq or Netscape do the same thing if you fiddle with your x init routines.
Obviously because he wants them to be able to send anonymously as well. I can see that. What I can't figure out is why he won't disable *bulk* anonymous access. The ISP in this case is being quite fair, that's all they are requiring from what I read.
John Gilmore is a great guy. He deserves boukou respect, he's really one of the founding fathers of the internet. But it sounds like he may be suffering from a bit of senility at the moment *sigh*.
US Law went from registration date, not authors death, up until '78. Unlike in Europe, copyright here was not supposed to be an entitlement - you didn't get it automatically, you had to register and put a copy of the work in trust so it would survive, and you had to renew it regularly or it would expire.
'66 is 75 years from the registration date, that's what mattered.
I don't think anyone is doing that. If you read slashdot, and you can't figure out how to block ads on your own... well not even the gay linux conspiracy guy is that dumb. Although there are a few posters that claim to be computer professionals and use MS OSs for their servers *grin* I guess they are probably that dumb.
I don't think anyone doubts that at least most of us can all block the ads on their own. This looks like more of a tip jar than anything else. Some people will pay it, just to feel good about supporting the site.
Re:slashdot vs alterslash.org
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I may not be a lawyer, but I certainly have had to deal with enough legal mumbo-jumbo to have a fair grasp of it, and I just don't see what you're talking about. Comments are owned by the posters. Obviously we have given slashdot permission to publish them. That hardly creates any liability on your part, or obligation on your part, to police our copyright.
Put another way, a slashdot poster could conceivably go after them, but I don't see how slashdot has any standing to do that independently, and I certainly don't see how you have any liability or obligation to do that.
It's interesting you note that your script doesn't work in Opera. It's not really needed in Opera. Not loading images and disallowing popups works rather well already.
Filesystem caching improves performance on repeated access. Compilations doesn't benefit a lot from this, because it involves writing A LOT of files once, and then usually only reading them one or at most a few times.
I understand that, but in that case the tempfs shouldn't boost performance either the best I can figure.
This has been bugging me for awhile - supposedly the tempfs increases performance - but it shouldn't the best I can tell. Doesn't Linux have a true intelligent disk caching system? There really shouldn't be any performance advantage to this tempfs bit, unless there is a serious problem with the disk cache subsystem.
However, the bit about it reducing filesystem fragmentation I haven't seen yet, and that does make sense to me. Just don't see how it's going to improve raw performance.
I'm curious as to why anyone would buy the "lifetime" plan. It's not going to last your lifetime, you know, only the lifetime of your box, or of the company, whichever comes first - and from what I've heard it seems a decent bet that will make the monthly fee cost you less in the long run.
If their source links to the Gnucleus source, either statically or dynamically, it must be GPLd. If they want to keep their source closed, but rely on Gnucleus for functionality, they'll be doing a lot of message-passing, and they'll of course have to GPL the changes made to Gnucleus to get it to work that way.
So IF they didn't request it, AND IF the products were sent through the USPS, THEN the products are theirs.
Unfortunately AOL avoids USPS regulations by using UPS instead.
However, that is not likely to save them, legally.
Supposedly, the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2 contains that rule, according to a previous poster, but I wasn't able to find the section in question. However, many states in the US do have such rules (see this Colorodo law for instance) as do many foreign countries that AOL does business in (Australia, for instance) and I am fairly sure this is the case at the federal level too, even if I can't find the relevant statute at the moment.
The problem, of course, is that AOL will claim that the shipment was solicited, and thus that their claim is correct, and they have the lawyers, credit card companies, credit reporting agencies, etc. behind them, so short of a class action suit like this the average Joe has very little chance of asserting his rights successfully against them.
I'm inclined to say that this is a perfectly legitimate business, based on your post, however there is one thing you didn't make quite clear. You say they require clients to run opt-in lists only. Do they require true opt-in procedures, what spammers call "double opt-in?" Or, to put it another way, do they require a procedure that prevents one of these lists from being used to spam by a third party - i.e. if I go to a client of theirs and sign you up for the "opt-in" list, do they immediately start spamming you, or do they simply send you a confirmation mail and wait for you to confirm that you really did want to subscribe, sending nothing more until and unless you do?
This is a very important distinction. If it is permitted to use unconfirmed "opt-in" procedures, then it's really permitted to spam. However, if you insist on a true opt-in system, then it's a perfectly legitimate business and a good netizen, not a spammer at all.
Ummm... obviously you were never a DOS hacker
on
FreeDOS
·
· Score: 2
The main problem with DOS is that it runs in real-mode, and therefore has a 1mb addressable memory limit.
Yeah, strictly speaking that's true. But you're probably reading way more into that than reality warrants.
The kernel (particularly a DOS kernel, a true micro-kernel if ever there was one) doesn't need any more memory. Now I'm not one of those who will tell you they used MSDOS 1.0 (when MSDOS 1.0 came out, I was using a computer, but it sure as hell wasn't an x86 toy) but I started using MSDOS at version 3, and I've never seen a version of it that didn't allow applications to access more memory.
EMS allows any application program to access several megs of ram, very easily, through a sliding address translation frame located in high memory, with minimal overhead. This was apparently old hat among the more experienced x86 hands when I joined the club, in the DOS 3.x days, so it's hardly fair to claim that 1mb barrier as a limitation of the architecture.
Nice troll though, most of the readers are obviously completely ignorant of the actual mechanics of DOS.
Hey, sorry for the late response but I just found this post via meta-mod.
Try using ctrl-t, to open a new tab. It's a lot faster than ctrl-n, and tabbed browsing is one of the nicest extras in the new mozilla builds anyway.
Any way to remap that ctrl-t to ctrl-n? Not that it's a huge deal, but if you can do that it would catch you up to Opera on that issue.
As far as 'best browser' goes, a Free Software advocate has to be incredibly hypocritical to recommend the use of IE. Mozilla works wonderfully for me, and I don't have to play the standard slashdot hypocrite, "believing" in one position, yet supporting another.
Well, a good point, to a degree. I certainly would never advocate using IE. But Mozilla is hardly more commendable.
The fact is, as a pro-mozilla poster made extremely clear to me a little earlier, Mozilla is not a browser. Mozilla is, as bwt informed me, a cross platform GUI toolkit which happens to have a (very bloated) browser as sample application.
Now I am a Free Software advocate from way back, but I'm not blind or stupid. Give me a program that does the job passably, but is proprietary (Opera) versus a bloated ugly toolkit demo app like Mozilla, and I'll choose the one that's functional. Gecko itself is a great contribution though. Maybe one day a real browser will arise using it (Galleon is cool, but hardly complete the last time I checked.) I personally have no interest in XUL, and I don't know anyone that does, so that means that to the best of my knowledge the Mozilla project is about 98% tragic waste. And if you are trying to imply that "being a Free Software advocate" means supporting non-functional bloated stupid code, simply because it's free, then I'm just happy you can't force us to comply with your definition. Fortunately your implied definition is not a requirement, if it were then the troll's parodies of us would be accurate. Also fortunately, the KDE folks have produced a wonderful bunch of actual browser (not UI toolkit, but browser) code under the name of Konqueror. So the future for Free browsers is pretty bright.
However, the future for Mozilla is about as dull as it gets. At best, a project like Galleon may preserve the small portion of that work that actually has to do with a browser. XUL is dying a long, slow, richly deserved, and painful death.
On my game partition, I'm using 98SE with the 95 explorer.exe just to avoid the overhead of IE integration, and it works great too. Nearly 50% faster in realistic benchmarks than another system with slightly faster hardware running stock ME. 98lite rocks - integration sucks.
I'm a bit vague now on GPL and LGPL for static vs dynamic linking. Let me note that NuSphere makes themselves sound crooked when they claim that a mail client connecting to a GPL'd mail server would be polluted. That's absurd.
Clearly absurd, and unfortunately typical of NuSphere so far as honesty goes. Which is why I am NOT in any way angry at MySQL AB on this case - if you've followed it at all you know that NuSphere have been arses to them repeatedly, while relying on their code to sustain their business, so it's hard to criticise MySQL for just saying enough's enough, cease and desist you dumb f*ckers.
So, I've always gathered that the LGPL exists to permit a program to link to libraries - but my impression was that the LGPL was phrased such that code could statically link to it -- such that the result would be a single executable, and that even under the GPL, it was legally permissible to write code that would rely upon a dynamically loaded library. Can someone confirm this is the case? IE, you could write a program which required that a person have libmysqlclient.so* installed for dynamic loading and that program could be closed source, but you could NOT produce an executable which statically linked that into the executable unless libmysqlclient.so was distributed under the LGPL (which, of course, it is not).
The Lesser GPL is indeed so phrased, and that is why Stallman recommends its use only when a pre-existing proprietary library beat us to the punch so far as functionality goes. If there is a reasonably priced proprietary library that gives you function X, then a GPL library that gives you function X isn't particularly attractive. So in that case it should be LGPL instead.
As to the rest... I think it's pretty clear to anyone with a small fraction of a clue that a statically linked program is a derivative work. The question remaining is whether a dynamically linked work is a derivative work as well. That's really the only area where FSF interpretations are likely to face any significant court challenge, and the FSF is and has been aware that their view may not prevail from the beginning - their publications make this clear.
The "official" FSF interpretation, if memory serves, is that dynamically linking a GPL library creates a derivative work. Yeah, that's a period.
Before the peanut gallery starts raving about the FSF being hypocritical here, let's just remember that this is a standard tactic in any legal or political arena, and the FSF would be selling us all short if they didn't use it.
Based on legal history, if it came down to the wire a court would be unlikely to uphold that claim in the event of a program which was dynamically linked against a GPL library but would also function if dynamically linked against another library instead. However, if there was no non-gpl library it could be dynamically linked against instead, the courts would likely side with us. Courts may not understand code, but they do understand pretty easily the difference between a work which has no value without X and a work which can work identically with X or Y.
Even if there is a non-GPL library now, if the work in question was distributed before the non-GPL library was available, the courts would likely call the work a GPL-derivative. Just one more reason to license your library under GPL NOT LGPL unless you are certain your library simply duplicates functions already available.
While you are essentially correct, copyright infringement is NOT theft. It's copyright infringement. Courts have traditionally interpreted copyright in a different light from fee-simple property rights, so this shouldn't be any big news.
Are YOU going to be the one that pays to buy RMS a box that can take that many hits?
Oh yeah, a P.S. just for those that moderate this kind of crap up because they think Stallman is an egomaniac, a religious nut that wants everything to run on Gnu/Linux and all that rot.
Stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD.
Now, most reasonable companies would allow them to get into compliance with the GPL, then drop the matter. MySQL decided not to.
Normally, yes. However, it's important to note that the offended party has no requirement to forgive such violations, and that is intentional.
While I do not agree with this action, it is, strictly legally speaking, the right thing for MySQL to do in this situation.
If this were a simple, onetime mistake I would agree with you. However NuSphere has been making an arse of themselves and being a thorn in MySQLs side for years. There is a lot of history here, and NuSphere's part is VERY blamewourthy. Given the history, I don't blame MySQL in any way for this - if I were them I'd do the same damn thing. Make no mistake, NuSphere picked this fight, not MySQL. MySQL just happens to have section 4 on their side.
Just goes to show the level of technical (in)comprehension among suits and reporters. Both groups seem to have a difficult time using simple words like "originate" properly.
Most of the spam I get comes *via* asia (with a rising amount coming from Spain and Portugal lately too) because there are a lot of abusable relays in those areas. But the actual *origin* for most of it seems to be some guy with a cable modem in Arizona.
Oh, btw, it's just as annoying getting spam for it when you are here in the USA, spam is just annoying period. The most annoying spam I think is when it's for something I might actually be interested in - because there is no way I'd buy ANYTHING that's spamvertised, so a spammer could actually cause me not to get something I want. That's pretty rare though. I think the last time that happened was probably when I got spammed by a BeOS distributor a year or more back.
If that's what you want, feel free to work on it, or to pay someone to work on it. Don't feel free to tell volunteers where they can and cannot put their time and effort. It's rude and stupid.
Don't like a product? Don't use it. Simple as that.
Trying to tell someone that doesn't give a crap about "Desktops" that they must work on one only works when you are willing to pay them a salary.
Slashdot Mirror
Good theory. But false. I DO use ECC and still have that problem in windows, not in Linux, on the same box.
This is exagerration for sure. Yes, GNOME and KDE can be quite bloated. But I've run both satisfactorily on hardware that XP won't even try to run on.
You probably are trying to use some really fancy themes if you're having a problem at that level. Solution is easy, get rid of the big pixmap-heavy themes and put something simple up. If you're using GNOME use a lightweight WM - one of the best things about GNOME is it is WM agnostic.
If I can run GNOME/WindowMaker and GNOME/IceWM on a k6-233 with 32 MB RAM at a reasonable speed I know you can run it on anything that XP would run on, easily. And yes, Windows*95* definitely feels a little faster on the same hardware. It runs all the graphics routines at privilege, of course it's going to be faster. It's also unstable as all hell - that's the price you pay.
However if you want to compare XP, well, good luck getting XP to even boot up on that box.
IE is loading itself during the boot sequence. You can have Konq or Netscape do the same thing if you fiddle with your x init routines.
True enough. But we just might be able to do a better job the second time.
Obviously because he wants them to be able to send anonymously as well. I can see that. What I can't figure out is why he won't disable *bulk* anonymous access. The ISP in this case is being quite fair, that's all they are requiring from what I read.
John Gilmore is a great guy. He deserves boukou respect, he's really one of the founding fathers of the internet. But it sounds like he may be suffering from a bit of senility at the moment *sigh*.
US Law went from registration date, not authors death, up until '78. Unlike in Europe, copyright here was not supposed to be an entitlement - you didn't get it automatically, you had to register and put a copy of the work in trust so it would survive, and you had to renew it regularly or it would expire.
'66 is 75 years from the registration date, that's what mattered.
I don't think anyone is doing that. If you read slashdot, and you can't figure out how to block ads on your own... well not even the gay linux conspiracy guy is that dumb. Although there are a few posters that claim to be computer professionals and use MS OSs for their servers *grin* I guess they are probably that dumb.
I don't think anyone doubts that at least most of us can all block the ads on their own. This looks like more of a tip jar than anything else. Some people will pay it, just to feel good about supporting the site.
I may not be a lawyer, but I certainly have had to deal with enough legal mumbo-jumbo to have a fair grasp of it, and I just don't see what you're talking about. Comments are owned by the posters. Obviously we have given slashdot permission to publish them. That hardly creates any liability on your part, or obligation on your part, to police our copyright.
Put another way, a slashdot poster could conceivably go after them, but I don't see how slashdot has any standing to do that independently, and I certainly don't see how you have any liability or obligation to do that.
It's interesting you note that your script doesn't work in Opera. It's not really needed in Opera. Not loading images and disallowing popups works rather well already.
I understand that, but in that case the tempfs shouldn't boost performance either the best I can figure.
This has been bugging me for awhile - supposedly the tempfs increases performance - but it shouldn't the best I can tell. Doesn't Linux have a true intelligent disk caching system? There really shouldn't be any performance advantage to this tempfs bit, unless there is a serious problem with the disk cache subsystem.
However, the bit about it reducing filesystem fragmentation I haven't seen yet, and that does make sense to me. Just don't see how it's going to improve raw performance.
I'm curious as to why anyone would buy the "lifetime" plan. It's not going to last your lifetime, you know, only the lifetime of your box, or of the company, whichever comes first - and from what I've heard it seems a decent bet that will make the monthly fee cost you less in the long run.
If their source links to the Gnucleus source, either statically or dynamically, it must be GPLd. If they want to keep their source closed, but rely on Gnucleus for functionality, they'll be doing a lot of message-passing, and they'll of course have to GPL the changes made to Gnucleus to get it to work that way.
Actually it is $19.95/month if you pay them for a year at a time, upfront. There are not supposed to be any "roaming fees" either way though.
Unfortunately AOL avoids USPS regulations by using UPS instead.
However, that is not likely to save them, legally.
Supposedly, the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2 contains that rule, according to a previous poster, but I wasn't able to find the section in question. However, many states in the US do have such rules (see this Colorodo law for instance) as do many foreign countries that AOL does business in (Australia, for instance) and I am fairly sure this is the case at the federal level too, even if I can't find the relevant statute at the moment.
The problem, of course, is that AOL will claim that the shipment was solicited, and thus that their claim is correct, and they have the lawyers, credit card companies, credit reporting agencies, etc. behind them, so short of a class action suit like this the average Joe has very little chance of asserting his rights successfully against them.
I'm inclined to say that this is a perfectly legitimate business, based on your post, however there is one thing you didn't make quite clear. You say they require clients to run opt-in lists only. Do they require true opt-in procedures, what spammers call "double opt-in?" Or, to put it another way, do they require a procedure that prevents one of these lists from being used to spam by a third party - i.e. if I go to a client of theirs and sign you up for the "opt-in" list, do they immediately start spamming you, or do they simply send you a confirmation mail and wait for you to confirm that you really did want to subscribe, sending nothing more until and unless you do?
This is a very important distinction. If it is permitted to use unconfirmed "opt-in" procedures, then it's really permitted to spam. However, if you insist on a true opt-in system, then it's a perfectly legitimate business and a good netizen, not a spammer at all.
Yeah, strictly speaking that's true. But you're probably reading way more into that than reality warrants.
The kernel (particularly a DOS kernel, a true micro-kernel if ever there was one) doesn't need any more memory. Now I'm not one of those who will tell you they used MSDOS 1.0 (when MSDOS 1.0 came out, I was using a computer, but it sure as hell wasn't an x86 toy) but I started using MSDOS at version 3, and I've never seen a version of it that didn't allow applications to access more memory.
EMS allows any application program to access several megs of ram, very easily, through a sliding address translation frame located in high memory, with minimal overhead. This was apparently old hat among the more experienced x86 hands when I joined the club, in the DOS 3.x days, so it's hardly fair to claim that 1mb barrier as a limitation of the architecture.
Nice troll though, most of the readers are obviously completely ignorant of the actual mechanics of DOS.
*sigh* You made me feel old, you suck.
Hey, sorry for the late response but I just found this post via meta-mod.
Any way to remap that ctrl-t to ctrl-n? Not that it's a huge deal, but if you can do that it would catch you up to Opera on that issue.
Well, a good point, to a degree. I certainly would never advocate using IE. But Mozilla is hardly more commendable.
The fact is, as a pro-mozilla poster made extremely clear to me a little earlier, Mozilla is not a browser. Mozilla is, as bwt informed me, a cross platform GUI toolkit which happens to have a (very bloated) browser as sample application.
Now I am a Free Software advocate from way back, but I'm not blind or stupid. Give me a program that does the job passably, but is proprietary (Opera) versus a bloated ugly toolkit demo app like Mozilla, and I'll choose the one that's functional. Gecko itself is a great contribution though. Maybe one day a real browser will arise using it (Galleon is cool, but hardly complete the last time I checked.) I personally have no interest in XUL, and I don't know anyone that does, so that means that to the best of my knowledge the Mozilla project is about 98% tragic waste. And if you are trying to imply that "being a Free Software advocate" means supporting non-functional bloated stupid code, simply because it's free, then I'm just happy you can't force us to comply with your definition. Fortunately your implied definition is not a requirement, if it were then the troll's parodies of us would be accurate. Also fortunately, the KDE folks have produced a wonderful bunch of actual browser (not UI toolkit, but browser) code under the name of Konqueror. So the future for Free browsers is pretty bright.
However, the future for Mozilla is about as dull as it gets. At best, a project like Galleon may preserve the small portion of that work that actually has to do with a browser. XUL is dying a long, slow, richly deserved, and painful death.
On my game partition, I'm using 98SE with the 95 explorer.exe just to avoid the overhead of IE integration, and it works great too. Nearly 50% faster in realistic benchmarks than another system with slightly faster hardware running stock ME. 98lite rocks - integration sucks.
Clearly absurd, and unfortunately typical of NuSphere so far as honesty goes. Which is why I am NOT in any way angry at MySQL AB on this case - if you've followed it at all you know that NuSphere have been arses to them repeatedly, while relying on their code to sustain their business, so it's hard to criticise MySQL for just saying enough's enough, cease and desist you dumb f*ckers.
The Lesser GPL is indeed so phrased, and that is why Stallman recommends its use only when a pre-existing proprietary library beat us to the punch so far as functionality goes. If there is a reasonably priced proprietary library that gives you function X, then a GPL library that gives you function X isn't particularly attractive. So in that case it should be LGPL instead.
As to the rest... I think it's pretty clear to anyone with a small fraction of a clue that a statically linked program is a derivative work. The question remaining is whether a dynamically linked work is a derivative work as well. That's really the only area where FSF interpretations are likely to face any significant court challenge, and the FSF is and has been aware that their view may not prevail from the beginning - their publications make this clear.
The "official" FSF interpretation, if memory serves, is that dynamically linking a GPL library creates a derivative work. Yeah, that's a period.
Before the peanut gallery starts raving about the FSF being hypocritical here, let's just remember that this is a standard tactic in any legal or political arena, and the FSF would be selling us all short if they didn't use it.
Based on legal history, if it came down to the wire a court would be unlikely to uphold that claim in the event of a program which was dynamically linked against a GPL library but would also function if dynamically linked against another library instead. However, if there was no non-gpl library it could be dynamically linked against instead, the courts would likely side with us. Courts may not understand code, but they do understand pretty easily the difference between a work which has no value without X and a work which can work identically with X or Y.
Even if there is a non-GPL library now, if the work in question was distributed before the non-GPL library was available, the courts would likely call the work a GPL-derivative. Just one more reason to license your library under GPL NOT LGPL unless you are certain your library simply duplicates functions already available.
While you are essentially correct, copyright infringement is NOT theft. It's copyright infringement. Courts have traditionally interpreted copyright in a different light from fee-simple property rights, so this shouldn't be any big news.
Are YOU going to be the one that pays to buy RMS a box that can take that many hits?
Oh yeah, a P.S. just for those that moderate this kind of crap up because they think Stallman is an egomaniac, a religious nut that wants everything to run on Gnu/Linux and all that rot.
Stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD.
So there. Get over it.
Normally, yes. However, it's important to note that the offended party has no requirement to forgive such violations, and that is intentional.
If this were a simple, onetime mistake I would agree with you. However NuSphere has been making an arse of themselves and being a thorn in MySQLs side for years. There is a lot of history here, and NuSphere's part is VERY blamewourthy. Given the history, I don't blame MySQL in any way for this - if I were them I'd do the same damn thing. Make no mistake, NuSphere picked this fight, not MySQL. MySQL just happens to have section 4 on their side.
First we've gotta get Cox to reveal his identity...
Just goes to show the level of technical (in)comprehension among suits and reporters. Both groups seem to have a difficult time using simple words like "originate" properly.
Most of the spam I get comes *via* asia (with a rising amount coming from Spain and Portugal lately too) because there are a lot of abusable relays in those areas. But the actual *origin* for most of it seems to be some guy with a cable modem in Arizona.
Oh, btw, it's just as annoying getting spam for it when you are here in the USA, spam is just annoying period. The most annoying spam I think is when it's for something I might actually be interested in - because there is no way I'd buy ANYTHING that's spamvertised, so a spammer could actually cause me not to get something I want. That's pretty rare though. I think the last time that happened was probably when I got spammed by a BeOS distributor a year or more back.
If that's what you want, feel free to work on it, or to pay someone to work on it. Don't feel free to tell volunteers where they can and cannot put their time and effort. It's rude and stupid.
Don't like a product? Don't use it. Simple as that.
Trying to tell someone that doesn't give a crap about "Desktops" that they must work on one only works when you are willing to pay them a salary.