Apple haven't changed kernels, right? Isn't Apple in the real world? Allow me to explain...
If the people who worked on the kernel that Apple picked up a few years ago had done from the very start what Apple is doing now, and made it proprietary, then Apple would never have been able to take their work, use it in OS X, and build on it.
Apple are not treating others as they would like to be treated. Unfortunately, because the people who developed this kernel didn't copyleft it to protect the freedoms associated with it, Apple is allowed to do this, legally.
This is the exact reason why the GPL and LGPL are the best licenses to use for Free/Opensource software. They ensure freedom.
Ubuntu is probably the easiest Linux for MSCEs to use. That's not a bad thing in itself, but some servers are very complicated, and sometimes it's better to make a user go through a learning stage in order to use a server.
These videos still don't show a plane. There were other video tapes that were confiscated from a gas station and from a hotel on that same day. Where are those videos? Surely a camera somewhere around the pentagon actually got a shot of the plane. Isn't this meant to be a high-security building? If you can't detect a plane coming in, how are you going to detect intruders?
Recently, me and my girlfriend were at the cinemas, looking for a movie to watch. We noticed that there was nothing on except for V for Vendetta (which we had already seen) appealed to us. We almost decided to see a movie just for the heck of it, despite this, but I pointed out that we were seeing a movie even though everything on looked crap.
We ended up not seeing a movie, but we'll surely run into this same problem again. You've inspired me to next time get some books and go somewhere to read those, instead. I haven't read a book in a while.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any current operating systems are "grandma-friendly". While some grandmas may be capable of using computers, I bet most people over the age of 65 can't without specific instructions being given to them.
This isn't even necessarily because the software is bad, but because they're afraid of screwing something up. They're not sure what the terminology means, don't know where to click, and they won't "just try something" because they've heard about viruses and all sorts of other bad things that can happen to computers.
I found this claim interesting: Hilf added that his team has contributed patches to the open-source community, particularly for Samba, which connects Linux machines to Windows networks, the Gaim instant messenger, and the Apache Web server.
Has anyone got any references to support this claim? Were their patches accepted? What did the patches do?
It seems to me that if Microsoft are submitting patches to Free Software projects (Samba is especially interesting), that is a big step forward for them.
Would you mind telling us a bit about your qualifications, please? I'd love a job at Google, but their requirements seem quite high. They seem to want people with Masters degrees or PhDs.
I feel I'm capable, but I don't have a Masters or PhD...
I'm betting on that being a typo. What good is EU work authorization for a job in Sydney, Australia? They probably meant to type "AU", or selected the wrong option from a "job wizard" program's list box.
Google Maps doesn't have map data for Australia, only satellite imagery.
When Australia was colonised by the British, there were already people living here. Most of them were effectively massacred, because the British did not consider them "advanced people" or something. The British effectively stole their land, started "Australia", and the small percentage of aborigines who make up Australia's population would probably like the land to still be regarded as theirs. That isn't how things are, though.
Patents don't scale. There is a limited number of viable solutions to most problems. When the population gets bigger, and bigger... the likelyhood of someone having patented all of the solutions to a problem increases. The end result is that some problems are impossible to solve for 20 years unless you pay someone a license fee, that is, if they're willing to license their patent.
The patent system will eventually make progress impossible and be removed, but it is going to impede progress for years and years before that happens.
Re:I want the patent clusterfuck to get worse
on
Creative Sues Apple
·
· Score: 1
Patents are completely different, though. It can be almost impossible to develop products without violating someone else's patents.
It's not bad software. The software to play MP3s is there, but it's illegal because of silly software patent laws.
This is a long-term problem, and always being submissive will result in always having to adopt non-free file formats and codecs. "Just accepting proprietary software" isn't a good long-term solution.
There's a very good alternative to MP3 called Ogg-Vorbis, and it isn't covered by software patents. Free Software aims to push this alternative. Yes, that requires inconvenience, but those who value their freedom will put up with this inconvenience. Those who don't value their freedom will use Windows or Linspire.
Prior art is when something has already been invented, regardless of whether or not anyone has tried to patent it.
Usually, (I think) inventions are supposed to be kept secret until a patent application has been lodged. I might be wrong about that, and inventors might have some time limit within which they must lodge a patent application after having gone public with their invention.
It is certainly not the case that prior art is only established when a patent has already been applied for, though.
The problem isn't that Linspire is "making Linux easy to use". The problem is that Linspire is rejecting the best part about Linux (as an operating system): it's free as in freedom.
You see, if software requires a patent to be licensed, then it will not be freely distributable since patents are usually licensed on a per-unit-sold basis. That means Linspire is taking parts of Linux (free-as-in-freedom operating system) and bundling it with proprietary software, defeating what many people perceive as the main purpose of Linux.
Anyone who rallies against software that is easy to use is a moron. Anyone who disagrees with the bundling of free and proprietary software has a valid point, though. It defeats the purpose of the free software.
The main problem has changed. The main problem used to be that there simply wasn't good Free Software for what people wanted to do.
Now the main problem is that key elements of what people want to do are blocked by software patents and other legal stuff. People want to play MP3s, but can't because MP3 is not a Free codec. People want to watch DVDs, but can't because any Free Software DVD player program is classified as a "circumvention device" (and is therefore illegal) under US and Australian copyright law.
We've made progress. Software exists for doing everything we want to do, now we just need to get the laws changed so that we can use that software.
It's better that this guy mention to them that it's a violation than some company like Microsoft downloading the distribution and then suing over the violation.
The goal isn't Linux adoption. The goal is free software, everywhere. The idea is making it easy to develop free software, and difficult to develop proprietary software.
NVidia and ATI are a good example. As far as I'm aware, they both insist on proprietary drivers. This makes their drivers more difficult to use with our free software kernel, and so both companies have an opportunity, now. If either one of them were to release a free software driver, that company would suddenly be selling the "highly recommended" video cards for Linux. Eventually one of them will buckle and release a free software driver, for this reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello 99%. This means that Apple software won't be as good as it could be.
Apple haven't changed kernels, right? Isn't Apple in the real world? Allow me to explain...
If the people who worked on the kernel that Apple picked up a few years ago had done from the very start what Apple is doing now, and made it proprietary, then Apple would never have been able to take their work, use it in OS X, and build on it.
Apple are not treating others as they would like to be treated. Unfortunately, because the people who developed this kernel didn't copyleft it to protect the freedoms associated with it, Apple is allowed to do this, legally.
This is the exact reason why the GPL and LGPL are the best licenses to use for Free/Opensource software. They ensure freedom.
It's funny because it's true!
Ubuntu is probably the easiest Linux for MSCEs to use. That's not a bad thing in itself, but some servers are very complicated, and sometimes it's better to make a user go through a learning stage in order to use a server.
These videos still don't show a plane. There were other video tapes that were confiscated from a gas station and from a hotel on that same day. Where are those videos? Surely a camera somewhere around the pentagon actually got a shot of the plane. Isn't this meant to be a high-security building? If you can't detect a plane coming in, how are you going to detect intruders?
Yes, I mentioned that there may be exceptions: "While some grandmas may be capable of using computers..."
Thanks for this post. Allow me to explain...
Recently, me and my girlfriend were at the cinemas, looking for a movie to watch. We noticed that there was nothing on except for V for Vendetta (which we had already seen) appealed to us. We almost decided to see a movie just for the heck of it, despite this, but I pointed out that we were seeing a movie even though everything on looked crap.
We ended up not seeing a movie, but we'll surely run into this same problem again. You've inspired me to next time get some books and go somewhere to read those, instead. I haven't read a book in a while.
Microsoft has been fucking the RIAA *and* the MPAA behind our back!
Don't you get it? She used the word "unambiguously" right before saying something completely ambiguous!
Hahahaha.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any current operating systems are "grandma-friendly". While some grandmas may be capable of using computers, I bet most people over the age of 65 can't without specific instructions being given to them.
This isn't even necessarily because the software is bad, but because they're afraid of screwing something up. They're not sure what the terminology means, don't know where to click, and they won't "just try something" because they've heard about viruses and all sorts of other bad things that can happen to computers.
I found this claim interesting:
Hilf added that his team has contributed patches to the open-source community, particularly for Samba, which connects Linux machines to Windows networks, the Gaim instant messenger, and the Apache Web server.
Has anyone got any references to support this claim? Were their patches accepted? What did the patches do?
It seems to me that if Microsoft are submitting patches to Free Software projects (Samba is especially interesting), that is a big step forward for them.
Introducing the superfast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook.
Finally, a laptop that can do blogging and podcasting. This is exactly what I've been waiting for! Go Apple!
Would you mind telling us a bit about your qualifications, please? I'd love a job at Google, but their requirements seem quite high. They seem to want people with Masters degrees or PhDs.
I feel I'm capable, but I don't have a Masters or PhD...
I'm betting on that being a typo. What good is EU work authorization for a job in Sydney, Australia? They probably meant to type "AU", or selected the wrong option from a "job wizard" program's list box.
Google Maps doesn't have map data for Australia, only satellite imagery.
When Australia was colonised by the British, there were already people living here. Most of them were effectively massacred, because the British did not consider them "advanced people" or something. The British effectively stole their land, started "Australia", and the small percentage of aborigines who make up Australia's population would probably like the land to still be regarded as theirs. That isn't how things are, though.
Patents don't scale. There is a limited number of viable solutions to most problems. When the population gets bigger, and bigger... the likelyhood of someone having patented all of the solutions to a problem increases. The end result is that some problems are impossible to solve for 20 years unless you pay someone a license fee, that is, if they're willing to license their patent.
The patent system will eventually make progress impossible and be removed, but it is going to impede progress for years and years before that happens.
Patents are completely different, though. It can be almost impossible to develop products without violating someone else's patents.
It's great that this argument/debate is happening. It's good for people who want to learn about kernel architectures.
It's not bad software. The software to play MP3s is there, but it's illegal because of silly software patent laws.
This is a long-term problem, and always being submissive will result in always having to adopt non-free file formats and codecs. "Just accepting proprietary software" isn't a good long-term solution.
There's a very good alternative to MP3 called Ogg-Vorbis, and it isn't covered by software patents. Free Software aims to push this alternative. Yes, that requires inconvenience, but those who value their freedom will put up with this inconvenience. Those who don't value their freedom will use Windows or Linspire.
Prior art is when something has already been invented, regardless of whether or not anyone has tried to patent it.
Usually, (I think) inventions are supposed to be kept secret until a patent application has been lodged. I might be wrong about that, and inventors might have some time limit within which they must lodge a patent application after having gone public with their invention.
It is certainly not the case that prior art is only established when a patent has already been applied for, though.
The problem isn't that Linspire is "making Linux easy to use". The problem is that Linspire is rejecting the best part about Linux (as an operating system): it's free as in freedom.
You see, if software requires a patent to be licensed, then it will not be freely distributable since patents are usually licensed on a per-unit-sold basis. That means Linspire is taking parts of Linux (free-as-in-freedom operating system) and bundling it with proprietary software, defeating what many people perceive as the main purpose of Linux.
Anyone who rallies against software that is easy to use is a moron. Anyone who disagrees with the bundling of free and proprietary software has a valid point, though. It defeats the purpose of the free software.
The main problem has changed. The main problem used to be that there simply wasn't good Free Software for what people wanted to do.
Now the main problem is that key elements of what people want to do are blocked by software patents and other legal stuff. People want to play MP3s, but can't because MP3 is not a Free codec. People want to watch DVDs, but can't because any Free Software DVD player program is classified as a "circumvention device" (and is therefore illegal) under US and Australian copyright law.
We've made progress. Software exists for doing everything we want to do, now we just need to get the laws changed so that we can use that software.
It's better that this guy mention to them that it's a violation than some company like Microsoft downloading the distribution and then suing over the violation.
Indeed, for most people, the best thing about Linux is the fact that it is free software.
The goal isn't Linux adoption. The goal is free software, everywhere. The idea is making it easy to develop free software, and difficult to develop proprietary software.
NVidia and ATI are a good example. As far as I'm aware, they both insist on proprietary drivers. This makes their drivers more difficult to use with our free software kernel, and so both companies have an opportunity, now. If either one of them were to release a free software driver, that company would suddenly be selling the "highly recommended" video cards for Linux. Eventually one of them will buckle and release a free software driver, for this reason.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Dish, especially since it was based on a true story... Hrm.