Funny. Running "emerge qt" on my gentoo box does not prompt me for a license, nor does any src.rpm I've ever installed. This leaves two possibilities: 1 - it's possible to compile and install qt without any license idiocy, or, 2 - one or both of us is lying (hint: I'm not).
QT requires you to answer yes to the licensing questions before it will compile
absolute bovine excrement. I've never had to agree to any click-through nonsense to install qt binary packages, or compile the source. Qt has been dual-licensed under the GPL for about two years now, yet this "qt has an un-free license" myth remains. Oh, wait, I forgot the GNOME project motto, "an ounce of license FUD is worth a pound of features"!
Why is this a troll? Because it's an untrue statement carefully crafted to provoke an angry response.
Re:Wrong again (Actually, you're both wrong)
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 2
Skinned apps are the bane of my desktop. The problem is that they change only the look of an interface, and not the underlying function. The interface for XmmS is cramped and akward, and there is no skin that can fix that. Skins can make the buttons any color you like, but they can't make them big enough to be individually recognizable on a high-res display. Furthermore, skinned apps actually make your desktop uglier, because they never quite match the look of whatever windowmanager and GUI toolkit you use. The solution to an ugly UI is not making every app individually skinnable, it is to build customizability into the core GUI toolkit (as GTK+, QT, and Windows XP do).
Re:Why not a partnership?
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 1
But for every cheapskate like you, there is someone who remembers how cool a game it was after playing a downloaded copy. That person will go out and buy a copy of Super Mario Advance so they can play it without emu bugs and on the bus, during coffee breaks, etc.
I find it amazing that *nix users are getting so caught up in this.
What can I say, we don't like the idea of losing the PC platform, our main source of cheap hardware
I would think they would be smart enough to know that MS can't control the whole computer industry.
But they can, and do. Microsoft has manipulated the price of windows licenses to build itself into a position to demand just about anything from OEMs. Read the Findings of Fact from the MS antitrust case.
If users don't like it users won't buy it. If there is a market for components that don't follow palladium specs then someone will fill that market. It's basic economics.
Not if Palladium-disabled hardware (aka DMCA circumvention devices) are illegal!
I just don't understand why I'm not allowed to put a picture to a web server? I'm not selling it, not violating their copyrights i did not sign any NDA's and for the God's sake why some fu@#%ing so-called Director of Global Information Security can require me remove the picture from my web site?!
Actually, yes you are. Handing out copies of someone else's pictures (or words, or music, etc) without their permission is exactly what copyright laws were made to prevent.
This is allowed in most cases, because educational institutions don't have to play by copyright laws like the rest of us do.
Maybe it's that the rest of us (legal system included) value quality education over the nickel you lost in royalties having your photo ripped off for a classroom display. There are more important things in the world than your own profits.
FWIW, I believe it is popular for consumer audio in Japan.
I think you might be confusing DAT with MiniDisc. They both have serial copy prevention bits, but MD is WAY more popular with consumers, especially in Japan.
even so, a quad @480 already sucks ass compared to a current PC for desktop apps.
*Sigh*, another Intel troll. There's more to processor speed than raw clock MHz. Sparc processors (the sort found in Sun hardware) do more per clock cycle than an x86. Quad 480MHz UltraSparcs would blow a 2GHz Pentium out of the water...
an OS does not include a GUI, webserver, or any other userland app.
Way to torpedo your own argument there. The GNU file utils and gcc are userland apps too. The only bit of GNU software you can't blow off as being a mere userland app is glibc, and that's debatable, since it only calls the kernel, and doesn't AFAIK deal directly with the hardware.
Maybe the chip has a unique ID number in it. If the printer sees the same chip back again and reporting a full ink cartridge, it knows you've been refilling cartridges.
MOST people just want to get in a car and get from point A to point B. They don't want to deal with a manual transmission.
That's why I specified a Lamborghini. Capable of mind-blowing performance, but very hard to drive. If you just want to get from point A to point B, a better choice would be a Kia with an automatic transmission (or in computer terms, an iMac)
MOST people don't want to fly a 747. They want to get in one and get from point A to point B. SOMEONE is flying that 747 (we hope). We don't need to hide the arcane bits of the system, we need to train a few people to handle them (the pilots), and let those people administrate the networks for everyone else (the passengers)
A perfect example of the problem with Linux for the average desktop user. Thank you. If not wanting to cater to willful ignorance is a sin, buy me a ticket on the next bus to hell!
Don't condescend to people who want to use linux but can't tell a/dev/hda from/dev/null and who don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to drive a Lamborghini, but can't tell the brake from the clutch and don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to fly a 747, but can't tell the throttle from the flaps, and don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to skydive can't tell the difference between a ripcord and a shroud line, and don't want to.
All these statements are equally ridiculous. If you don't know something, there are plenty of howtos and other users who will answer your questions. If you don't [b]want[/b] to know, I have no sympathy for you.
A useful CD burning tool doesn't need to expose everything the driver can do.
Every little useless (in your opinion) feature you remove from a program will result in someone forking or writing another app. I'd rather see one monsterously complex and overfeatured CD burning program (like cdrecord) than two dozen different little apps (one for audio discs, one for data, one for VCDs, one for gapless audio (DAO mode), one for erasing CD-RW discs, etc, ad nauseum...)
Slashdot Mirror
Funny.
Running "emerge qt" on my gentoo box does not prompt me for a license, nor does any src.rpm I've ever installed. This leaves two possibilities: 1 - it's possible to compile and install qt without any license idiocy, or, 2 - one or both of us is lying (hint: I'm not).
I'll be right behind you going out that window...
QT requires you to answer yes to the licensing questions before it will compile
absolute bovine excrement.
I've never had to agree to any click-through nonsense to install qt binary packages, or compile the source. Qt has been dual-licensed under the GPL for about two years now, yet this "qt has an un-free license" myth remains. Oh, wait, I forgot the GNOME project motto, "an ounce of license FUD is worth a pound of features"!
Why is this a troll?
Because it's an untrue statement carefully crafted to provoke an angry response.
Skinned apps are the bane of my desktop. The problem is that they change only the look of an interface, and not the underlying function. The interface for XmmS is cramped and akward, and there is no skin that can fix that. Skins can make the buttons any color you like, but they can't make them big enough to be individually recognizable on a high-res display. Furthermore, skinned apps actually make your desktop uglier, because they never quite match the look of whatever windowmanager and GUI toolkit you use. The solution to an ugly UI is not making every app individually skinnable, it is to build customizability into the core GUI toolkit (as GTK+, QT, and Windows XP do).
But for every cheapskate like you, there is someone who remembers how cool a game it was after playing a downloaded copy. That person will go out and buy a copy of Super Mario Advance so they can play it without emu bugs and on the bus, during coffee breaks, etc.
It all comes out even in the end.
I find it amazing that *nix users are getting so caught up in this.
What can I say, we don't like the idea of losing the PC platform, our main source of cheap hardware
I would think they would be smart enough to know that MS can't control the whole computer industry.
But they can, and do. Microsoft has manipulated the price of windows licenses to build itself into a position to demand just about anything from OEMs. Read the Findings of Fact from the MS antitrust case.
If users don't like it users won't buy it. If there is a market for components that don't follow palladium specs then someone will fill that market. It's basic economics.
Not if Palladium-disabled hardware (aka DMCA circumvention devices) are illegal!
OK, and why would I want to create this local hole?
I probably don't need to point this out, but that hole is already created for you by Windows or MacOS.
I just don't understand why I'm not allowed to put a picture to a web server? I'm not selling it, not violating their copyrights i did not sign any NDA's and for the God's sake why some fu@#%ing so-called Director of Global Information Security can require me remove the picture from my web site?!
Actually, yes you are. Handing out copies of someone else's pictures (or words, or music, etc) without their permission is exactly what copyright laws were made to prevent.
KDE has it's own window manager I think (kwm ?) but GNOME does not
And metacity? Is it not a windowmanager, or not part of gnome?
Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to upgrade?
If you think it's too unstable, don't download it!
This is allowed in most cases, because educational institutions don't have to play by copyright laws like the rest of us do.
Maybe it's that the rest of us (legal system included) value quality education over the nickel you lost in royalties having your photo ripped off for a classroom display. There are more important things in the world than your own profits.
FWIW, I believe it is popular for consumer audio in Japan.
I think you might be confusing DAT with MiniDisc. They both have serial copy prevention bits, but MD is WAY more popular with consumers, especially in Japan.
A business is just something you do to make money. What you describe is a corporation.
even so, a quad @480 already sucks ass compared to a current PC for desktop apps.
*Sigh*, another Intel troll. There's more to processor speed than raw clock MHz. Sparc processors (the sort found in Sun hardware) do more per clock cycle than an x86. Quad 480MHz UltraSparcs would blow a 2GHz Pentium out of the water...
an OS does not include a GUI, webserver, or any other userland app.
Way to torpedo your own argument there. The GNU file utils and gcc are userland apps too. The only bit of GNU software you can't blow off as being a mere userland app is glibc, and that's debatable, since it only calls the kernel, and doesn't AFAIK deal directly with the hardware.
Maybe the chip has a unique ID number in it. If the printer sees the same chip back again and reporting a full ink cartridge, it knows you've been refilling cartridges.
Just a guess...
I think that in the desktop OS market Microsoft has damn near absolute pricing power.
I'd rather not donate my computer time to fattening the patent portfolio of another already bloated drug company, thanks.
You do in Texas!
Be very careful there, indeed...
What will RCA tell consumers when they ask why they can't record DVD to the hard drive even though they're in the same box?
What will they tell the DVD cartel when some Norwegian hacker enables DVD->TiVo copying and posts the code online?
Anyone who tried to market such a device would get screwed over by both consumers and the MPAA.
MOST people just want to get in a car and get from point A to point B. They don't want to deal with a manual transmission.
That's why I specified a Lamborghini. Capable of mind-blowing performance, but very hard to drive. If you just want to get from point A to point B, a better choice would be a Kia with an automatic transmission (or in computer terms, an iMac)
MOST people don't want to fly a 747. They want to get in one and get from point A to point B.
SOMEONE is flying that 747 (we hope). We don't need to hide the arcane bits of the system, we need to train a few people to handle them (the pilots), and let those people administrate the networks for everyone else (the passengers)
A perfect example of the problem with Linux for the average desktop user. Thank you.
If not wanting to cater to willful ignorance is a sin, buy me a ticket on the next bus to hell!
Don't condescend to people who want to use linux but can't tell a /dev/hda from /dev/null and who don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to drive a Lamborghini, but can't tell the brake from the clutch and don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to fly a 747, but can't tell the throttle from the flaps, and don't want to.
Don't condescend to people who want to skydive can't tell the difference between a ripcord and a shroud line, and don't want to.
All these statements are equally ridiculous. If you don't know something, there are plenty of howtos and other users who will answer your questions. If you don't [b]want[/b] to know, I have no sympathy for you.
A useful CD burning tool doesn't need to expose everything the driver can do.
Every little useless (in your opinion) feature you remove from a program will result in someone forking or writing another app. I'd rather see one monsterously complex and overfeatured CD burning program (like cdrecord) than two dozen different little apps (one for audio discs, one for data, one for VCDs, one for gapless audio (DAO mode), one for erasing CD-RW discs, etc, ad nauseum...)
Re:One email (Score:0)
You only modded that down because you know it's true
A bigger question may be why they don't have any of the Omni Group's [omnigroup.com] [goatse.cx] software in the Dock.
And this is +4 informative, how?
but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I think the US govenment would disagree. That policy is how we ended up with "friends" like Saddam Hussein, Ho Chi Minh and the Taliban...