It varies. Some countries ( a lot of Europe, Canada, and Australia ) are much better than the US ( ie you can export crypto ) but a few countries are as bad as the US ( eg France )
You make it sound like he is prolonging a terminal illness. Actually, his contributions will help improve health standards, and the immunizations will save a lot of people. You might say it doesn't matter. I'd say it matters to the people that don't get sick because they were immunized. As for the "agonizing existence of being in poverty"... well at least they have a fighting chance of building the country if they live to adulthood.
We'd like to avoid having to ship a CD-ROM of source code with each product,
The GPL doesn't require you to do so. As long as the source is available.
Obviously, for GPL programs that we have modified, we are going to have to release the source code on our website. That is pretty much clear.
No, it isn't. As long as the source is available to anyone who asks for it, you're in the clear. For example, cheapbytes ( www.cheapbytes.com ) sell Linux CDs that contain binaries only. However, you can also purchase the source CD for $2-. If you have a CD burner, you can just burn and ship the source for anyone who asks for it, and charge a modest fee.
If we used (for example) Red Hat Linux, it is my understanding that we can not just link to the source on the Red Hat website, as Red Hat is a "commercial" distribution. Is this correct?
No, it's not at all correct. The problem is that it is woefully insufficient because you are not distributing it. The fact that someone else has the source on a public ftp site doesn't exhonerate you from your obligation to make the source available.
Section 3c is discussing a situation where Joe user gets a binary-only CD from, say Cheapbytes. He wants to loan it to his friend for copying. 3c says he's allowed to do that. This doesn't really apply to you, because you are distributing it commercially. It's not fair for you to expect Redhat to provide ftp services for your commercial venture. However, it would also be unfair to require Joe user to order the source from Cheapbytes (just in case his friend wanted it two years later), or to require Joe User to set up an ftp service.
If you already have an ftp/webserver, you could use that. Otherwise, you could just ship a "written offer" as outlined in the GPL, and burn/ship a CD for anyone who wants one ( probably almost noone, judging by the nature of the product )
Sun don't have to port java to anything, but until there's an acceptable version of Java available on my platform(s) of choice, it's useless as far as I'm concerned. All the hype about "portability" is meaningless to me if I can't run a decent JVM on my platform(s). Far from being "write once, run anywhere", Java is looking more like "write once, run on Windows/Sys V UNIX".
"Failed -- dependancy/bin/sh" Which DOES exist (symlink to/bin/bash)
Bzzzt. As far as RPM is concerned, it doesn't exist. RPM uses its database to check for dependencies. It's irrelevant that you have a file called/bin/sh on your system -- you need to tell RPM that you have the "/bin/sh" dependency taken care of. The same is true for your perl dependency. The best thing to do is either start with a distribution that uses RPM, or create your own "dummy" RPM that creates a list of "dependencies" that have been fulfilled. You should try subscribing to rpmlist@redhat.com if you're interested.
RPMs.. I hate them.
Well that's hardly surprising given that you don't understand how to use them. Not that it's hard -- but it does take a little bit of work to get Slackware to work with them.
Also used by SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake, TurboLinux, linuxPPC, ultrapenguin. A defacto linux standard.
directories in different places,
Different from what ? they aren't that different.
What we end up with is a distro of Linux that you must know in order to administer; e.g. you can't be a Debian admin and just walk off the street and admin a Red Hat box.
Not really. There's always the command line as the lowest common denominator. Someone who relies on the GUI tools isn't really a "UNIX admin" IMO. Speaking for myself, I've used SuSE, Slackware, Redhat, and OpenBSD. All of them were similar enough that you could get by ( possibly with a small users manual )
Good point. Those who have a problem doing free labor for Sun could work on Kaffe ( which has done a much better job on getting ports to all platforms btw ). I hope that Kaffe can catch up to the point that it's interoperable with Sun's JDK, otherwise, it's as good as dead as a viable java platform.
Kaffe is insufficient, it leaves you stuck in the dark ages (awt) and it is not interoperable with the JDK, which has become a defacto standard. Platforms that are not supported by the JDK are kind of dead as viable java platforms.
As for blackdown, they're doing their best, but they're always playing catch up to Sun who seem to change java every week. Once the language stabilises, blackdown will probably have something in due course.
This is not really true. Sometimes, establishing a motive isn't that hard. For example, if someone paints a Schwastika on a Jewish families door, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do, and it is certainly more than just another act of vandalism.
nstead of allowing him to merge it back into the code tree, or even offering to host it, www.openssh.com takes credit for it by adding a link labeled "Linux/Solaris"
Wait a minute...
The OpenBSD crowd are a small team, and they've been working their butts off on OpenSSH. They can't integrate the fixes into the source tree overnight ( remember, they will need/want to audit every line of code ).
Do they really "take the credit" ? If all contributor's names are in the credits file, then they are playing fair. If not, you may have a point. ( It looks like they do give credit - see this thread )
I don't think the OpenBSD people are being exclusivists. And I think you should be a little patient. I think they will cooperate. However, the OpenBSD place emphasis on quality development, not "rapid development". Don't expect everything to happen overnight.
It's kind of sad that supposedly "portable" java doesn't run on enough platforms for it's portability to be terribly useful. Basically, the JDK works with Win32 and (some of ) System V UNIX. As an OpenBSD user, I am locked out of java just as I'm locked out of a Visual Studio app. Except at least Microsoft don't pretend that their products let you write "portable" code.
In my opinion, the value of a mans life isn't based on the murderers' motive, bottom line, he is dead. Why should the punishment vary?
Because a "non-hate" murder is a murder, but a "hate crime" is additionaly an act of terrorism against a group. To clarify, it is certainly not enough that the victim is a member of such a group. The offender's motive has to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
What I don't understand is why should the particular reason you hate someone make a difference in the punishment.
It's not a question of "the reason you hate someone", it's a question of whether or not your crime was committed to send a threatening message to a certain group ( effectively an act of terrorism ) or not. For example, painting a schwastika on a Jew's door is worse than vandalism -- it's not just an act of harassment that targets the victim, it target's the Jewish community. Because the offender is intimidating an entire community, the punishment needs to take this into account.
In the instance of a "hate-murder", the crime is not about the attacker hating someone, it's about the attacker threatening the community.
A classic example of a "terrorist" style act is a lynching ( or a public execution ). This is undoubtedly more barbaric than a "quiet" murder ( which explains why public executions do not happen in civilised countries ). As such, it is reasonable that the courts view it differently.
singling out someone to kill based on prejudice of a certain population group does have a strong negative effect.
Exactly. It's more or less an act of terrorism, and it's making a threat to that entire population group.
Although I think that the legislation should be worded strongly to prevent abuse and making every case into a hate crime.
This is important. The burden should be on the prosecution to show that the offender had a certain motive. This would be clear in some cases ( ie a Schwastika painted on a Jewish families house ) but very difficult to establish in others ( eg murders )
Aren't you impeding their right to free speech to send a message with their crime?
No, I am not. This kind of "message" is a threat, and making threats is not protected under the banner of "free speech". In many cases, making threats carries criminal penalties, especially if you make it clear that you are not making an idle threat.
Hi. Any CHinese reading this ? I am trying to find some CHinese software for linux. So far, I can read fonts in Netscape and edit text/send mail ( cxterm/pine ) but I am having trouble printing. I tried cprint and it segfaults. I've tried Chitex but I am not having any luck with it. Any ideas ? What software do Chinese linux users use to print ( or write latex ) ?
Ironically, you've brought up the issue that hate crimes address -- a hate crime is terrorism + ( insert crime )
and here I've always thought that the purpose of the death penalty was either to apply the most grievous possible punshment to those who commit the most heinous crimes or to ensure that those who have (repeatedly) killed innocents are deprived of the opportunity to do so again.
Bzzzt. Why not life without parole ? The point of the death penalty is to give the public the blood that they want.
There's also the matter of inequity intoduced by hate crime laws themselves. If a white man kills a random person who just happens to be black, in many cases, the hate-crime-believing prosecutor would try to bill that as a hate crime.
I believe the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to establish the motif -- that the victim was targetted precisely because s/he was black. The legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
If, OTOH, a black man decides to kill someone solely because they're white, that would generally not be construed as a hate crime.
"Did he kill this guy? Yes"--ok, fact. Did he kill him because he was gay? well i don't know, who cares, he was gay so its a hate crime--let 'em hang!"
This is wrong, and it's a straw man. The burden is ( or certainly should be, as required by the "innocent until proven guilty" ethic ) on the prosecution to show that it's a "hate crime".
criminal laws exist to punish criminal behavior, and possibly rehabilitate the criminal into a useful society member. They are not there to exact vengeance.
I don't believe this interpretation is consistent with US criminal law ( though I agree with your point of view )
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers,
In the meantime, there's a ton of good linux hardware shops ( such as http://www.tcu-inc.com )
Why on earth did you buy it with "Bill's junkware" installed if you wanted to run linux on it ?
The GPL doesn't require you to do so. As long as the source is available.
Obviously, for GPL programs that we have modified, we are going to have to release the source code on our website. That is pretty much clear.
No, it isn't. As long as the source is available to anyone who asks for it, you're in the clear. For example, cheapbytes ( www.cheapbytes.com ) sell Linux CDs that contain binaries only. However, you can also purchase the source CD for $2-. If you have a CD burner, you can just burn and ship the source for anyone who asks for it, and charge a modest fee.
If we used (for example) Red Hat Linux, it is my understanding that we can not just link to the source on the Red Hat website, as Red Hat is a "commercial" distribution. Is this correct?
No, it's not at all correct. The problem is that it is woefully insufficient because you are not distributing it. The fact that someone else has the source on a public ftp site doesn't exhonerate you from your obligation to make the source available.
Section 3c is discussing a situation where Joe user gets a binary-only CD from, say Cheapbytes. He wants to loan it to his friend for copying. 3c says he's allowed to do that. This doesn't really apply to you, because you are distributing it commercially. It's not fair for you to expect Redhat to provide ftp services for your commercial venture. However, it would also be unfair to require Joe user to order the source from Cheapbytes (just in case his friend wanted it two years later), or to require Joe User to set up an ftp service.
If you already have an ftp/webserver, you could use that. Otherwise, you could just ship a "written offer" as outlined in the GPL, and burn/ship a CD for anyone who wants one ( probably almost noone, judging by the nature of the product )
Cheers,
(a) is generosity inherently communist, or do there exist generous capitalists ?
(b) are you saying that generosity is an inherently bad thing ? Or is it merely a bad thing, because it is "communist", and therefore "bad" ?
Bzzzt. As far as RPM is concerned, it doesn't exist. RPM uses its database to check for dependencies. It's irrelevant that you have a file called /bin/sh on your system -- you need to tell RPM that you have the "/bin/sh" dependency taken care of. The same is true for your perl dependency. The best thing to do is either start with a distribution that uses RPM, or create your own "dummy" RPM that creates a list of "dependencies" that have been fulfilled. You should try subscribing to rpmlist@redhat.com if you're interested.
RPMs .. I hate them.
Well that's hardly surprising given that you don't understand how to use them. Not that it's hard -- but it does take a little bit of work to get Slackware to work with them.
Also used by SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake, TurboLinux, linuxPPC, ultrapenguin. A defacto linux standard.
directories in different places,
Different from what ? they aren't that different.
What we end up with is a distro of Linux that you must know in order to administer; e.g. you can't be a Debian admin and just walk off the street and admin a Red Hat box.
Not really. There's always the command line as the lowest common denominator. Someone who relies on the GUI tools isn't really a "UNIX admin" IMO. Speaking for myself, I've used SuSE, Slackware, Redhat, and OpenBSD. All of them were similar enough that you could get by ( possibly with a small users manual )
As for blackdown, they're doing their best, but they're always playing catch up to Sun who seem to change java every week. Once the language stabilises, blackdown will probably have something in due course.
Wait a minute ...
- The OpenBSD crowd are a small team, and they've been working their butts off on OpenSSH. They can't integrate the fixes into the source tree overnight ( remember, they will need/want to audit every line of code ).
- Do they really "take the credit" ? If all contributor's names are in the credits file, then they are playing fair. If not, you may have a point. ( It looks like they do give credit - see this thread )
I don't think the OpenBSD people are being exclusivists. And I think you should be a little patient. I think they will cooperate. However, the OpenBSD place emphasis on quality development, not "rapid development". Don't expect everything to happen overnight.Only works if their clients support "secure" connections.
Cheers,
Because a "non-hate" murder is a murder, but a "hate crime" is additionaly an act of terrorism against a group. To clarify, it is certainly not enough that the victim is a member of such a group. The offender's motive has to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
It's not a question of "the reason you hate someone", it's a question of whether or not your crime was committed to send a threatening message to a certain group ( effectively an act of terrorism ) or not. For example, painting a schwastika on a Jew's door is worse than vandalism -- it's not just an act of harassment that targets the victim, it target's the Jewish community. Because the offender is intimidating an entire community, the punishment needs to take this into account.
In the instance of a "hate-murder", the crime is not about the attacker hating someone, it's about the attacker threatening the community.
A classic example of a "terrorist" style act is a lynching ( or a public execution ). This is undoubtedly more barbaric than a "quiet" murder ( which explains why public executions do not happen in civilised countries ). As such, it is reasonable that the courts view it differently.
Exactly. It's more or less an act of terrorism, and it's making a threat to that entire population group.
Although I think that the legislation should be worded strongly to prevent abuse and making every case into a hate crime.
This is important. The burden should be on the prosecution to show that the offender had a certain motive. This would be clear in some cases ( ie a Schwastika painted on a Jewish families house ) but very difficult to establish in others ( eg murders )
No, I am not. This kind of "message" is a threat, and making threats is not protected under the banner of "free speech". In many cases, making threats carries criminal penalties, especially if you make it clear that you are not making an idle threat.
Any good websites about linux/Chinese software ?
Cheers,
Is "thinking" planning, and is "thinking" doing ?
That's called terrorism.
Ironically, you've brought up the issue that hate crimes address -- a hate crime is terrorism + ( insert crime )
and here I've always thought that the purpose of the death penalty was either to apply the most grievous possible punshment to those who commit the most heinous crimes or to ensure that those who have (repeatedly) killed innocents are deprived of the opportunity to do so again.
Bzzzt. Why not life without parole ? The point of the death penalty is to give the public the blood that they want.
I believe the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to establish the motif -- that the victim was targetted precisely because s/he was black. The legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
If, OTOH, a black man decides to kill someone solely because they're white, that would generally not be construed as a hate crime.
It certainly would/should.
This is wrong, and it's a straw man. The burden is ( or certainly should be, as required by the "innocent until proven guilty" ethic ) on the prosecution to show that it's a "hate crime".
criminal laws exist to punish criminal behavior, and possibly rehabilitate the criminal into a useful society member. They are not there to exact vengeance.
I don't believe this interpretation is consistent with US criminal law ( though I agree with your point of view )