So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.
No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.
That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence. Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.
We believe these changes will make Windows 7 Starter an even more attractive option for customers who want a small notebook PC for very basic tasks, like browsing the web, checking email and personal productivity.' Small consolation, of course, if you want to watch a DVD natively
Wow. Microsoft basically took a market where Linux and Apple excel in (customers who just want to do basic tasks with minimal hassle) and crippled the features that make Windows even slightly attractive in that arena. Now they un-crippled one of those features. That's not "even more attractive"; That's "somewhat less ridiculous".
I have a new bullshit meter. It measures in units of "picosofts".
I am sick and tired of yet another patch that hoses the system requiring a bare-metal install to fix.
I don't know what you are talking about. I'm running Debian unstable, and I've never had to do a bare-metal install to fix any problems on my machine, which I set up 8 years ago. (I've moved my filesystem from machine to machine over the years as I upgraded the hardware.) Maybe once or twice, I've booted Knoppix to fix a kernel upgrade that I botched, but that's it. In 8 years.
Seriously, if your distro is so screwed up that you need to do bare-metal installs to fix things, you need to switch distros.
How do you ease their concerns about the FSF dudes going after companies like Tivo or Cisco? I mean, if I was a hardware guy right now, I'd be *very* concerned about touching GPL stuff. Almost like they dont want me at the club.
The FSF is really quite predictable, especially with respect to the GPL. As RMS says it, the goal of the GPL is to ensure that "where the software goes, the freedom goes with it". If your interests are aligned with that goal, then you really have nothing to worry about. If not, then the FSF probably *doesn't* want you at the party.
In a way, the FSF is just like any other business. They provide goods and services in exchange for something they value in order to further their goals as an organization. The difference is that while cash is a great way to further the goals of a publicly-traded company, GPL compliance is a better way to further the goals of the FSF, which are basically to ensure that all people are ultimately in control of the software they use. Like with anything being sold, it's up to each potential buyer to decide whether what they get is worth the price.
There's less incentive to create if someone else will just profit from it freely... right?
There's another side to that coin: When copyright expires (especially if it expires early) in a particular work, there's more of an incentive for hundreds of new authors to create hundreds of derivative works that they can profit from. We can presume that authors motivated by money will tend to produce works that society values (so they can get paid).
In order for society to benefit just as much from the original author, the original copyright would have to encourage him to produce hundreds of new or derivative works.
There's a balance here, and people often only talk about one side of it.
Re:"at war with my parents over who is in control"
on
Bringing Up Bill
·
· Score: 2, Informative
cooperative multitasking
Huh? Windows used pre-emptive multitasking since Win95. Of course, you could still disable interrupts if you wanted to...
The problem isn't really patents per se, but patent infringement lawsuits and the resulting court orders. It would make more sense to continue to issue patents as usual, but to amend patent law so that it's unenforceable under certain circumstances deemed problematic (e.g. mere software). Similarly, you could have different durations of enforceability depending on the type of infringement.
Patent law can be useful, but it needs to be far more carefully controlled than it is right now.
Apparently we sometimes have to pay for studies to confirm what common sense and logic already told us. Just don't ask me why, I think it's just the way of the world.
Maybe "common sense and logic" are often mistaken? You can learn a lot when you find out that your hypothesis was wrong.
"Free software" and "open source" are not development models. They are licencing regimes. They are only related to development models in the sense that they enable certain development models that are otherwise difficult to execute.
Here's an example. The US government probably prevents you from selling your open source software to Cuba or Iran. If I read section 7 correctly, that counts as a "condition imposed on you". So really you lose all rights to using that code?
What section in the GPL prohibits you from refusing to distribute anything to Cuba? At worst, this might cause some trouble for people who take the "written offer" approach instead of distributing sources alongside binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.
No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.
That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence. Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.
Next up: how this crash is actually the fault of RIAA and Airbus should have used Linux.
Wow. I've been reading Slashdot long enough that I know exactly what arguments could be made to advance those two statements.
(only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
Not only: Occasionally people need the term to distinguish between GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD. :)
Tradition...
Linux users want to do things with minimum hassle? Have you used it?
Yes, and I've also used Mac OS X 10.5, and I find that it's on par with Debian lenny in terms of hassle and yak-shaving:
...and any actual problems it might touch upon have been solved better by SSL certificates years ago.
Wow. Is DNSSEC that bad? It's hard for me to imagine any serious crypto protocol being worse than SSL certificates.
Try reading this.
How does this affect people who want to offer free Wi-Fi?
We believe these changes will make Windows 7 Starter an even more attractive option for customers who want a small notebook PC for very basic tasks, like browsing the web, checking email and personal productivity.' Small consolation, of course, if you want to watch a DVD natively
Wow. Microsoft basically took a market where Linux and Apple excel in (customers who just want to do basic tasks with minimal hassle) and crippled the features that make Windows even slightly attractive in that arena. Now they un-crippled one of those features. That's not "even more attractive"; That's "somewhat less ridiculous".
I have a new bullshit meter. It measures in units of "picosofts".
Without RMS's approval, this could never have happened. The FSF wrote a clause into GFDL 1.3 specifically to allow this to happen.
what are the chances of Word replacing LaTeX as the editor of choice in academia?
$$ 1 + e^{\pi i} $$
I am sick and tired of yet another patch that hoses the system requiring a bare-metal install to fix.
I don't know what you are talking about. I'm running Debian unstable, and I've never had to do a bare-metal install to fix any problems on my machine, which I set up 8 years ago. (I've moved my filesystem from machine to machine over the years as I upgraded the hardware.) Maybe once or twice, I've booted Knoppix to fix a kernel upgrade that I botched, but that's it. In 8 years.
Seriously, if your distro is so screwed up that you need to do bare-metal installs to fix things, you need to switch distros.
I call Godwin's on this thread.
*facepalm*
Part of Godwin's Law is that it only works when you don't explicitly invoke it.
However, AdBlock is illegally manipulating the author's content to remove ads designed to produce revenue
No, but you might be libelling them.
How do you ease their concerns about the FSF dudes going after companies like Tivo or Cisco? I mean, if I was a hardware guy right now, I'd be *very* concerned about touching GPL stuff. Almost like they dont want me at the club.
The FSF is really quite predictable, especially with respect to the GPL. As RMS says it, the goal of the GPL is to ensure that "where the software goes, the freedom goes with it". If your interests are aligned with that goal, then you really have nothing to worry about. If not, then the FSF probably *doesn't* want you at the party.
In a way, the FSF is just like any other business. They provide goods and services in exchange for something they value in order to further their goals as an organization. The difference is that while cash is a great way to further the goals of a publicly-traded company, GPL compliance is a better way to further the goals of the FSF, which are basically to ensure that all people are ultimately in control of the software they use. Like with anything being sold, it's up to each potential buyer to decide whether what they get is worth the price.
There's less incentive to create if someone else will just profit from it freely... right?
There's another side to that coin: When copyright expires (especially if it expires early) in a particular work, there's more of an incentive for hundreds of new authors to create hundreds of derivative works that they can profit from. We can presume that authors motivated by money will tend to produce works that society values (so they can get paid).
In order for society to benefit just as much from the original author, the original copyright would have to encourage him to produce hundreds of new or derivative works.
There's a balance here, and people often only talk about one side of it.
cooperative multitasking
Huh? Windows used pre-emptive multitasking since Win95. Of course, you could still disable interrupts if you wanted to...
[citation needed]
That pretty much sums up religion in a nutshell.
"Free Software" means the enforced-freeness of the GPL, which is a subset of Open Source.
Not according to the FSF, which lists the 3-clause BSD license as a "GPL-compatible free software license".
What you describe here is called "copyleft".
Patent law can be useful, but it needs to be far more carefully controlled than it is right now.
Apparently we sometimes have to pay for studies to confirm what common sense and logic already told us. Just don't ask me why, I think it's just the way of the world.
Maybe "common sense and logic" are often mistaken? You can learn a lot when you find out that your hypothesis was wrong.
THANK YOU.
Cool; where can I download the source for the Sun JVM to see what such an awesome VM implementation looks like? ;)
Here, and it's licensed under the GPL.
"Free software" and "open source" are not development models. They are licencing regimes. They are only related to development models in the sense that they enable certain development models that are otherwise difficult to execute.
The POSIX standard is just fine.
Using POSIX semantics, how does the operating system distinguish between the following two requests?
Here's an example. The US government probably prevents you from selling your open source software to Cuba or Iran. If I read section 7 correctly, that counts as a "condition imposed on you". So really you lose all rights to using that code?
What section in the GPL prohibits you from refusing to distribute anything to Cuba? At worst, this might cause some trouble for people who take the "written offer" approach instead of distributing sources alongside binaries.