Think about that. If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it? Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT. They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it?
I think this highlights a small but important problem with the "FOSS" name - the fact that I need approval from RMS to label my program as "free and open source software" despite the fact that it is in fact "free", "open source" and "software". Compare to a company calling themselves "Userfriendly Software" and forbidding anyone else to label their software as such.
You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, and I say that with the deepest respect for the people involved in Chanology and nothing but contempt for the Cult of Scientology.
The big difference is that those religions are founded upon religious beliefs. Scientology at its core is a criminal organisation that at a certain point changed its image to reflect that of a religion in order to get tax exemption and to be able to hide behind religious beliefs and claims of hate speech. The late L. Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, once wrote very specifically that it is not a religion. Of course, you'll have a hard time finding that quote in Scientology books these days, since they've long been altered to reflect the new truth. 1984 much?
Let me repeat that. Scientology is not a religion, it is a hardcore criminal organisation.
If you call "relying on side effects" "using undocumented features", then yea, maybe. Like that time developers thought everyone runs XP as administrator. Oh wait...
As someone who installed Vista 2 years ago, updated to the Windows 7 RC when it came out and then to the final, allow me to say - what the heck are you talking about? The only thing that broke was Daemontools. This includes but is not limited to Firefox, Chrome, mIRC, Sony Acid, Sony Soundforge, Photoshop, GOM player, uTorrent, Emule, FTPrush, video codecs, and, as you already stated, numerous MS applications I run. They've all been there from Vista to the RC to the final.
Really, what do you guys run that causes all these problems?
>> How do you know that you've installed every patch. MS doesn't even TELL you about ever patch, let alone include them in Windows Update.
> First of all, no serious business is using Windows as a server. Sorry but you just discredited yourself with that alone.
Good thing you're posting as AC so you can't discredit yourself by saying something stupid like that, right?
Science gives you answers that can be proven. Religion gives you stories.
It's true that there are questions that science (currently) cannot answer - but religion does not answer them either.
What he's actually saying is "The performance of the runtime environment is not the only thing that has impact on performance of the custom software". But you're free to interpret it as you want, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista and Windows 7 don't use IE for Microsoft Update, but nice try.
Exactly how do you see this whole "Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME" thing happening? FUD much?
Think about that. If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it? Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT. They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it? I think this highlights a small but important problem with the "FOSS" name - the fact that I need approval from RMS to label my program as "free and open source software" despite the fact that it is in fact "free", "open source" and "software". Compare to a company calling themselves "Userfriendly Software" and forbidding anyone else to label their software as such.
I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_Internet answers your question.
I think you meant to say "schadenfreude". Relax, cowboy!
Thank you. You saved me the time it would have taken me to type all that myself.
You must be looking at another Internet than I am sir.
Yes, because obviously we haven't had a decent piracy hub since Napster and Audiogalaxy went down. I think you just answered your own question :-)
You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, and I say that with the deepest respect for the people involved in Chanology and nothing but contempt for the Cult of Scientology.
You mean Republicans?
The big difference is that those religions are founded upon religious beliefs. Scientology at its core is a criminal organisation that at a certain point changed its image to reflect that of a religion in order to get tax exemption and to be able to hide behind religious beliefs and claims of hate speech. The late L. Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, once wrote very specifically that it is not a religion. Of course, you'll have a hard time finding that quote in Scientology books these days, since they've long been altered to reflect the new truth. 1984 much? Let me repeat that. Scientology is not a religion, it is a hardcore criminal organisation.
But nobody actually uses ReactOS!
Zero-day refers to the age of the exploit.
Hang on, we're writing an angry letter to let the volcanic activity know how we feel about this.
By your logic, it's time we start outlawing Usenet.
MOD PARENT UP. The Church of Scientology has repeatedly used copyright to stifle free speech.
You're welcome to, but you'd be wrong. I could explain myself, but your ad hominem attack at the end makes me think it's not really worth the effort.
Why so RIAA, Slashcrap?
Cool story, bro. What does this have to do with the crappy summary though?
If you call "relying on side effects" "using undocumented features", then yea, maybe. Like that time developers thought everyone runs XP as administrator. Oh wait...
As someone who installed Vista 2 years ago, updated to the Windows 7 RC when it came out and then to the final, allow me to say - what the heck are you talking about? The only thing that broke was Daemontools. This includes but is not limited to Firefox, Chrome, mIRC, Sony Acid, Sony Soundforge, Photoshop, GOM player, uTorrent, Emule, FTPrush, video codecs, and, as you already stated, numerous MS applications I run. They've all been there from Vista to the RC to the final.
Really, what do you guys run that causes all these problems?
>> How do you know that you've installed every patch. MS doesn't even TELL you about ever patch, let alone include them in Windows Update.
> First of all, no serious business is using Windows as a server. Sorry but you just discredited yourself with that alone.
Good thing you're posting as AC so you can't discredit yourself by saying something stupid like that, right?
Science gives you answers that can be proven. Religion gives you stories. It's true that there are questions that science (currently) cannot answer - but religion does not answer them either.
Yup, I am. With a mouse attached, because I don't really like the touchpad...
Because we all know the MAFIAA are so technically capable!
What he's actually saying is "The performance of the runtime environment is not the only thing that has impact on performance of the custom software". But you're free to interpret it as you want, of course.