Take OpenOffice for example. MS Office power users will miss some features, but the vast majority of students and home users can now use it for all their tasks.
That isn't really a good example. All OpenOffice does is attempt to copy MS Office, and it does it rather poorly. It is slow and bloated, and still doesn't have the entire feature set. It is lagging a few versions behind, and the.doc support isn't perfect. There is no reason anyone would want to switch (on Windows), besides cost.
Take OpenOffice for example. MS Office power users will miss some features, but the vast majority of students and home users can now use it for all their tasks.That isn't really a good example. All OpenOffice does is attempt to copy MS Office, and it does it rather poorly. It is slow and bloated, and still doesn't have the entire feature set. It is lagging a few versions behind, and the.doc support isn't perfect. There is no reason anyone would want to switch (on Windows), besides cost.
Claims people deserve free stuff because an "evil company" screwed up are assinine, if you left your purse in my car am I entiled to keep it? How long after you step away from it do I have to wait before I'm entitled to it? 1 day? 6 hours? 5 minutes? 3 seconds? What the heck is wrong with you that you think people must be punished for mistakes? First of all, no one said anything about an "evil company". And your analogy is not very good. It is more like you and someone else signing a contract you wrote to buy your car, where you accidently put $100 instead of $1000.
But that comparison isn't perfect either.
A better one is a comparison with this same scenario in the real world. If you are buying groceries, and are undercharged, you get them for that price. The cashier does not hunt you down and tell you to give them back or he takes your wallet.
I disagree. After a transaction is done, it is done. The seller can't go back and take more money. They can ask, and perhaps people should accept, but the seller should never, ever, go back and take the money. That is, without a doubt, theft. They also should never try to coerce you into returning the item. They agreed to the transaction (yes, through a computer program as a proxy, but they chose to trust it), you agreed to it.
Even in the brick and mortar world, this applies. If your groceries are undercharged, you get them for that price. In some places, they'll even give them free if you are overcharged. But nowhere does the cashier run out to your car and demand you give them the groceries or they will take your wallet.
Just like you need a competent cashier in the real world, you need a competent program online. If you fail to have this, you can't take it out on the customers.
But employees are less likely to quit when they think the project they are working on isn't going in the direction they would like. It's not their top priority, generally.
If it were up to me, there would be NO taxes and all those Republicans/Democrates would have to go elsewhere. If it were up to me, it would rain marshmallows, and donuts would grow on trees.
Dynamic linking, however, is a more interesting issue. No, it isn't. It has been established that software dynamically linking to a GPL library requires has to be GPL compliant. This is not the case with the LGPL (greater gnu public license).
Um, that would that be a hard sell coming from them. The reason OpenOffice.org has that stupid.org at the end is because OpenOffice is held as a trademark by someone else. If "OpenOffice.org" does not infringe "OpenOffice", then "Office, Open XML" does not infringe "OpenOffice.org".
have an[sic] duopoly on power... with exactly the same kind of power a monopoly grants one That is false. A duopoly is very different from a monopoly. There is still competition.
The definition of political terms such as "democrat" and "republican" have changed alot over the years. Um, no. They mean exactly the same thing, a member of the Democratic or Republican party. (they have other meanings, supports of democracy and republicanism respectively, but those probably aren't what you meant and haven't changed either).
You might be thinking of liberal and conservative.
So like I said, to me personally, he is the modern day libertarian, help the people, not police them Well, if you totally redefine the term he can be anything. I think he's a robot, since a robot is a human being!
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I still don't seem what advantage Ruby has over Lisp or Smalltalk; it is no more expressive, and current implementations generate slower code. It has one main implementation, with those libraries. Maybe it's slow, but at least it's universal.
It could still be Darwin. Apple is the copyright holder, and can do whatever they want with their copyright (unless it conflicts with someone else's, but most of Darwin is BSD).
I am fully open to the possibility that this is not running OS X, but none of the points in the summary are indicative of that. Yes, the APSL requires distribution of source code, but Darwin is copyrighted by Apple. A copyright holder can do whatever they want with their work, regardless of the license they normally release it under.
Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, the APSL only requires releasing modified files, not them and anything linked with them. I.E., if I wanted to use Darwin on another platform, I could replace the platform dependent files with my own for the new platform, and not have to release anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't it be "Ceci n'est pas de sig.", since it is negative?
Take OpenOffice for example. MS Office power users will miss some features, but the vast majority of students and home users can now use it for all their tasks.That isn't really a good example. All OpenOffice does is attempt to copy MS Office, and it does it rather poorly. It is slow and bloated, and still doesn't have the entire feature set. It is lagging a few versions behind, and the .doc support isn't perfect. There is no reason anyone would want to switch (on Windows), besides cost.
But that comparison isn't perfect either.
A better one is a comparison with this same scenario in the real world. If you are buying groceries, and are undercharged, you get them for that price. The cashier does not hunt you down and tell you to give them back or he takes your wallet.
I disagree. After a transaction is done, it is done. The seller can't go back and take more money. They can ask, and perhaps people should accept, but the seller should never, ever, go back and take the money. That is, without a doubt, theft. They also should never try to coerce you into returning the item. They agreed to the transaction (yes, through a computer program as a proxy, but they chose to trust it), you agreed to it.
Even in the brick and mortar world, this applies. If your groceries are undercharged, you get them for that price. In some places, they'll even give them free if you are overcharged. But nowhere does the cashier run out to your car and demand you give them the groceries or they will take your wallet.
Just like you need a competent cashier in the real world, you need a competent program online. If you fail to have this, you can't take it out on the customers.
But employees are less likely to quit when they think the project they are working on isn't going in the direction they would like. It's not their top priority, generally.
Where can I buy one?
We have ways of using the sun, also. I have no idea about their efficiency compare to plants, though.
I propose we just throw cameraphones into the air really hard, so they get into orbit.
I agree. If anyone else does, tag the article "uselessmetric" .
1. Buy CD.
2. Rip.
Wow, this summary is probably the worst I have ever seen. Blatantly untrue.
Please, tag this article 'falsearticle' .
Um, that would that be a hard sell coming from them. The reason OpenOffice.org has that stupid .org at the end is because OpenOffice is held as a trademark by someone else. If "OpenOffice.org" does not infringe "OpenOffice", then "Office, Open XML" does not infringe "OpenOffice.org".
You might be thinking of liberal and conservative. So like I said, to me personally, he is the modern day libertarian, help the people, not police them Well, if you totally redefine the term he can be anything. I think he's a robot, since a robot is a human being!
It would be pronounced meu-tay, and would not necessarily be a verb.
But most of what it's based on is BSD licensed.
It could still be Darwin. Apple is the copyright holder, and can do whatever they want with their copyright (unless it conflicts with someone else's, but most of Darwin is BSD).
I am fully open to the possibility that this is not running OS X, but none of the points in the summary are indicative of that. Yes, the APSL requires distribution of source code, but Darwin is copyrighted by Apple. A copyright holder can do whatever they want with their work, regardless of the license they normally release it under.
Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, the APSL only requires releasing modified files, not them and anything linked with them. I.E., if I wanted to use Darwin on another platform, I could replace the platform dependent files with my own for the new platform, and not have to release anything.
It might be morally stealing, but legally it isn't.