If Stallman had a problem with the preamble, he would have said so.
Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?
It's completely common knowledge that Stallman wants to abolish proprietary software entirely.
It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.
I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".
You're just ignoring it because I've completely decimated your position.
Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge? I don't even have a position - I'm just asking you to back up yours.
This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.
I guess you're going to choose to ignore the part where it says Stallman's goals mean no proprietary software anywhere.
Well, considering that part was in the preamble & not written by Stallman, yes. Yes I am.
Yeah, let's ignore the entire interview I posted! And hell, that was just one at the top of the Google search results.
The quote you posted was from the preamble. Where in the interview (or one of the results from your Google search) can you show me Stallman saying he wants to use regulatory intervention (or whatever) to ban proprietary software?
Next.
Nope. You haven't a hope of substatiating your claim that Stallman wants to force others into not using proprietary software.
Frankly, I suggest you stop digging before you look stupider than you are.
No, what this kid should be doing is community service. Work in a soup kitchen, pick up garbage by the side of the road, help out his common man by distributing clothes in an inner city, something like that.
Indeed, something like that - I'd go for the poetic justice punishment however. Something like cleaning badware off the local library's windows 98 internet PCs. Every day, all day for two months (its the sort of job where when you finish one PC, the last one's allready been reinfected.)
Lennon should be forced to use an iPod Shuffle filled with fantastic music that he is completely unable to identify on account of the absence of a display.He will then have to deal with the paradoxical conditions of being utterly cool (having an iPod-branded player) and being utterly ignorant (having no idea what is playing). He will, in short, learn what it is like to be Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Good idea - you've slipped back to looking really stupid. You haven't used linux recently (I love the way you avoid mentioning which distro you use, can't be too specific when you're bullshitting can you?) If you had used linux recently, you'd know most modern distro's provide meta-packages to install nvidia/ati stuff. No xorg configs, no kernel recompiles, no command line at all.
No, all scenarios are the facets of the same issue - free (beer) software in Linux.
No, one issue is the execution of closed binary blobs on your own system. The other is using information provided by a proprietary system.
One executes code on your system that you have no control over, the other is just obtaining information.
I note that you've changed your argument in every post in this thread - I'm glad you've given up, I'm sick of slapping down your half-baked ideas.
BTW - I suggest you look up the definition of facile before using it in a sentence again. (and yes, they are facile insults - your stupidity makes you easy to insult.)
"NVidia is supporting the development of the open-source NV driver, and ATI has been providing documentation to the gatos project for a long time now."
You're right - I did ignore that. It's nice that nvidia & ati are providing specs for a subset of their card's features - but that's not what I'd call 'support'. Not compared to a _full_ specification and reference driver.
Apple have acted appallingly recently when it comes to unjustified lawsuits. I don't know the ins & outs of the creative patent, but regardless of its merits, I don't feel much sympathy for Apple (they can live by the sword & die by it too).
If you were trying to troll me because of my username, I suggest you read my first journal - I am not the whiney mac fanboy you're looking for;-)
You've UTTERLY failed to explain why you think VIA is supporting OSS, while NVidia is not. Same goes for ATI to a lesser extent.
Dumb. Via releases a reference driver and specs to allow the FOSS community to make their own drivers.
Nvidia do not support the FOSS community at all. You cannot use the linux driver outside of linux, it is useless for PPC linux even.
Even saying 'nvidia supports linux' is not really true, but you're touting the far stupider liine 'nvidia supports OSS' (releasing blobs that interact with specific releases of specific OSS projects is not 'support')
What are you talking about? NVidia supports Linux exceedingly well.
Well, the kernel team (you know, the ones who write linux) disagree with you.
Which linux distro do you use that's so hard to install nvidia drivers on? What problems do you have? Please be specific.
If you disagree I suggest you start lobbying every single distribution and have them remove all of the free (as in beer) functionality.
One scenario is FOSS software on your box interacting with information distrubted over the web, the other is executing closed code on your box. One requires redistribution rights, the other does not. Beginning to see the difference now?
Oh - and congratulations, this post slightly less stupid than your last two.
You should have stopped with your last comment - you've gone beyond stupid now.
You cannot report bugs to the kernel team if your kernel includes third party code
Dumb. They're not third party drivers they're included in the main kernel tree. The rest of your little rant their is based on that first, incorrect presumption.
It is an absolute fallacy that open source automatically means it is being audited by....
Dumb straw man. I didn't say open source automatically gets audited - I said the linux kernel is audited.
And it is. There's the sparse kernel auditing project, the coverity people are doing a free, ongoing audit, the ongoing LKAP (linux kernel auditting project), I could go on and on.
The openness or closedness of code has no bearing on the capacity for an audit.
Beyond stupid. Open code can be independantly audited. Closed code cannot. Do you even read what you write? Tell me how I can run sparse on the nvidia source code.
And I'll stick with the current best video card and driver combination available for Unix and Unix look-alikes.
I think you meant to say 'fastest' rather than 'best'. And nvidia does not release a driver for UNIX that I'm aware of.
What part of "VIA Technologies Inc. does not support or endorse this project in any way." on unichrome.sf.net, do you not understand?
Unbelievable - you answer your own question in the second half of that sentence.
It also says: "Thanks to VIAs code releases, however irregular, entangled and buggy, a lot is known about the unichromes,"
You see - the community can make a good driver because via released a gpled driver, patches for xine, mesa, etc.
I didn't say the company had to release a perfect driver - just specs and/or a reference driver - that's precisely what via did.
NONE of these cards with open source drivers has adequate OpenGL support, with decent performance, however. Only NVidia cards, using the binary driver, are usable.
Bullshit. I use a unichrome card daily, I don't play any demanding games, but its perfectly usable for my needs.
As I said elsewhere on this thread, if you're a gamer, then perhaps an nvidia solution is better for you, but if not, if you want to support FOSS, dont buy nvidia/ati
I don't like software patents (and it doesn't look like z4 have a product, but rather are an 'IP' company). That said however, live by the sword, die by the sword hey MS? Want to enforce your FAT patents? Expect more of this sort of shit in the future.
But either way I don't see why I should have to suffer because NVidia have reasons for keeping their source closed.
You chose to buy from a vendor who does not support linux - what do you expect?
Its quite simple, buy from one of the vendors who support FOSS or expect poor support from FOSS. I don't know why people find that so hard to understand.
BTW - the rest of your little rant shows that:
1) You haven't used linux for years (most distros do offer single click installs for the binary blobs you mention) 2) You don't understand licensing issues at all (WTF do free webservices have to do with anything)?
Aaaah, yes, the summary offense of wasting police time - why, since that law was introduced, we've had no teenagers wasting police time or worm writtens.... how many years has it been? oh wait....:-)
something called 'filing a false police report' or something similar, and as i recall it actually has some pretty scary consequences associated with it
I don't think a worm (or someone prepared to make one) is going to be afraid of the consequences, regardless of the jurisdiction.
Oh yeah, I can't see this being abused at all. Especially by teenagers just screwing around.
Damn straight. We're going to see a story about the dossing of Britains online police services before the dupe of this story appears. (imagine a lol, I'm not a sexual predator worm)
No more than you can report kernel bugs for any kernel issue where you have some random hunk of code involved,
Just stupid. The alternative to the blobs is the intel/unichrome drivers - they are in the main kernel tree - and you can report bugs when they're involved.
Unless you, personally, have audited the code you don't know if it has been audited or not.
Even stupider. If the code isn't open, you know the code hasn't been independantly audited at all. Also, multiple companies, millitary / intelligence institutions, finance companies / code quality software companies have audited (and continue to audit) the linux kernel.
The binary blobs will not get that public audit - the intel/unichrome drivers will.
Slashdot Mirror
If Stallman had a problem with the preamble, he would have said so.
Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?
It's completely common knowledge that Stallman wants to abolish proprietary software entirely.
It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.
I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".
You're just ignoring it because I've completely decimated your position.
Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge? I don't even have a position - I'm just asking you to back up yours.
This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.
Did you read the article? It compromises a whole class of extremely commonly used locks - ones that are used for your home, US mailboxes, etc etc.
I have no idea how alarmist the article is - but if its true, it's disturbing.
I guess you're going to choose to ignore the part where it says Stallman's goals mean no proprietary software anywhere.
Well, considering that part was in the preamble & not written by Stallman, yes. Yes I am.
Yeah, let's ignore the entire interview I posted! And hell, that was just one at the top of the Google search results.
The quote you posted was from the preamble. Where in the interview (or one of the results from your Google search) can you show me Stallman saying he wants to use regulatory intervention (or whatever) to ban proprietary software?
Next.
Nope. You haven't a hope of substatiating your claim that Stallman wants to force others into not using proprietary software.
Frankly, I suggest you stop digging before you look stupider than you are.
Sorry, needed a fix. It's been a while since a Nazi reference on Slashdot.
:-)
I'm taking it you didn't read the Iran's president starts a blog story?
As you say, we have yet to see what Apple's HD/BR implimentations are. I'm pretty sure if MS's rolled over that Apple will too. We shall see.
No, what this kid should be doing is community service. Work in a soup kitchen, pick up garbage by the side of the road, help out his common man by distributing clothes in an inner city, something like that.
Indeed, something like that - I'd go for the poetic justice punishment however. Something like cleaning badware off the local library's windows 98 internet PCs. Every day, all day for two months (its the sort of job where when you finish one PC, the last one's allready been reinfected.)
Diabolical!
"The media companies asked us to do this ..... so we had to do this."
;-)
Interesting - after all, thats precisely the line Apple uses about the DRM in ITMS songs.
Just another way MS is copying Apple
This thread is done as far as I'm concerned.
Good idea - you've slipped back to looking really stupid. You haven't used linux recently (I love the way you avoid mentioning which distro you use, can't be too specific when you're bullshitting can you?) If you had used linux recently, you'd know most modern distro's provide meta-packages to install nvidia/ati stuff. No xorg configs, no kernel recompiles, no command line at all.
No, all scenarios are the facets of the same issue - free (beer) software in Linux.
No, one issue is the execution of closed binary blobs on your own system. The other is using information provided by a proprietary system.
One executes code on your system that you have no control over, the other is just obtaining information.
I note that you've changed your argument in every post in this thread - I'm glad you've given up, I'm sick of slapping down your half-baked ideas.
BTW - I suggest you look up the definition of facile before using it in a sentence again. (and yes, they are facile insults - your stupidity makes you easy to insult.)
"NVidia is supporting the development of the open-source NV driver, and ATI has been providing documentation to the gatos project for a long time now."
You're right - I did ignore that. It's nice that nvidia & ati are providing specs for a subset of their card's features - but that's not what I'd call 'support'. Not compared to a _full_ specification and reference driver.
Feel free to play again.
Hmmmn,
;-)
Apple have acted appallingly recently when it comes to unjustified lawsuits. I don't know the ins & outs of the creative patent, but regardless of its merits, I don't feel much sympathy for Apple (they can live by the sword & die by it too).
If you were trying to troll me because of my username, I suggest you read my first journal - I am not the whiney mac fanboy you're looking for
You've UTTERLY failed to explain why you think VIA is supporting OSS, while NVidia is not. Same goes for ATI to a lesser extent.
Dumb. Via releases a reference driver and specs to allow the FOSS community to make their own drivers.
Nvidia do not support the FOSS community at all. You cannot use the linux driver outside of linux, it is useless for PPC linux even.
Even saying 'nvidia supports linux' is not really true, but you're touting the far stupider liine 'nvidia supports OSS' (releasing blobs that interact with specific releases of specific OSS projects is not 'support')
What are you talking about? NVidia supports Linux exceedingly well.
Well, the kernel team (you know, the ones who write linux) disagree with you.
Which linux distro do you use that's so hard to install nvidia drivers on? What problems do you have? Please be specific.
If you disagree I suggest you start lobbying every single distribution and have them remove all of the free (as in beer) functionality.
One scenario is FOSS software on your box interacting with information distrubted over the web, the other is executing closed code on your box. One requires redistribution rights, the other does not. Beginning to see the difference now?
Oh - and congratulations, this post slightly less stupid than your last two.
You should have stopped with your last comment - you've gone beyond stupid now.
You cannot report bugs to the kernel team if your kernel includes third party code
Dumb. They're not third party drivers they're included in the main kernel tree. The rest of your little rant their is based on that first, incorrect presumption.
It is an absolute fallacy that open source automatically means it is being audited by....
Dumb straw man. I didn't say open source automatically gets audited - I said the linux kernel is audited.
And it is. There's the sparse kernel auditing project, the coverity people are doing a free, ongoing audit, the ongoing LKAP (linux kernel auditting project), I could go on and on.
The openness or closedness of code has no bearing on the capacity for an audit.
Beyond stupid. Open code can be independantly audited. Closed code cannot. Do you even read what you write? Tell me how I can run sparse on the nvidia source code.
And I'll stick with the current best video card and driver combination available for Unix and Unix look-alikes.
I think you meant to say 'fastest' rather than 'best'. And nvidia does not release a driver for UNIX that I'm aware of.
God save me from the nvidia fanboys.
What part of "VIA Technologies Inc. does not support or endorse this project in any way." on unichrome.sf.net, do you not understand?
Unbelievable - you answer your own question in the second half of that sentence.
It also says: "Thanks to VIAs code releases, however irregular, entangled and buggy, a lot is known about the unichromes,"
You see - the community can make a good driver because via released a gpled driver, patches for xine, mesa, etc.
I didn't say the company had to release a perfect driver - just specs and/or a reference driver - that's precisely what via did.
NONE of these cards with open source drivers has adequate OpenGL support, with decent performance, however. Only NVidia cards, using the binary driver, are usable.
Bullshit. I use a unichrome card daily, I don't play any demanding games, but its perfectly usable for my needs.
As I said elsewhere on this thread, if you're a gamer, then perhaps an nvidia solution is better for you, but if not, if you want to support FOSS, dont buy nvidia/ati
Yes, they are - that's why I wrote:
But either way I don't see why I should have to suffer because NVidia have reasons for keeping their source closed.
You chose to buy from a vendor who does not support linux - what do you expect?
Its quite simple, buy from one of the vendors who support FOSS or expect poor support from FOSS. I don't know why people find that so hard to understand.
BTW - the rest of your little rant shows that:
1) You haven't used linux for years (most distros do offer single click installs for the binary blobs you mention)
2) You don't understand licensing issues at all (WTF do free webservices have to do with anything)?
So, in short, your ipod is good, and while you know nothing about this product, you're going to presume it's bad.
Your opinion (based on nothing) is noted.
I guess it depends on who your first party is.
A mac user would consider it to be Apple, so itunes is first party.
An k/ubuntu user would think ubuntu, so amorak/banshee is first party.
A windows user would think MS, so WMP is first party.
Only one first party supports what I described out of the box.
The rest require third party software. Understand now?
Aaaah, yes, the summary offense of wasting police time - why, since that law was introduced, we've had no teenagers wasting police time or worm writtens.... how many years has it been? oh wait.... :-)
something called 'filing a false police report' or something similar, and as i recall it actually has some pretty scary consequences associated with it
I don't think a worm (or someone prepared to make one) is going to be afraid of the consequences, regardless of the jurisdiction.
Oh yeah, I can't see this being abused at all. Especially by teenagers just screwing around.
Damn straight. We're going to see a story about the dossing of Britains online police services before the dupe of this story appears. (imagine a lol, I'm not a sexual predator worm)
As someone else points out, you never have any guarentee that the code has been audited anyways.
And as I replied to that person, the linux kernel & drivers are audited
And to debunk one of you other claims, the new ATI drivers actually support multiple monitors with different resolutions.
Great! One bug down - how about the other problems I mentioned? (some of which are insoluble with closed kernel modules)
No more than you can report kernel bugs for any kernel issue where you have some random hunk of code involved,
Just stupid. The alternative to the blobs is the intel/unichrome drivers - they are in the main kernel tree - and you can report bugs when they're involved.
Unless you, personally, have audited the code you don't know if it has been audited or not.
Even stupider. If the code isn't open, you know the code hasn't been independantly audited at all. Also, multiple companies, millitary / intelligence institutions, finance companies / code quality software companies have audited (and continue to audit) the linux kernel.
The binary blobs will not get that public audit - the intel/unichrome drivers will.
Not to mention, you have to suffer from a poorly-engineered interface, a larger physical size, and far inferior sound quality.
Have you ever used the sandisk mp3 player we're talking about here? Even read a review? Do you have anything to back up what you said there at all?
I suspect you deserve my nick more than I.