That isn't moot at all! If a bunch of evidence comes out that would be grounds for impeachment but it doesn't happen just because the House of Representatives has a majority of Republicans, I don't call that "moot" I call that a "major election issue."
You seem to have strangely-colored glasses. Wave your hands all you like, but issues matter to enough voters to, uh, matter.
OK smartypants, you're going all "vocabulary" on us with your terminology analysis, and that's nice but I'm wondering...
How many definitions of "hacked" are there, and do any apply?
OK, so they probably didn't hit it with a large bladed weapon.
They probably didn't break into a computer to do it.
What about finding an unusual but creative solution using whatever tools were at hand? Are you really sure that doesn't fit? It seems to me that even if no crime occurred for there to be "evidence" of, this one still might be true.
What about social engineering, also known as social hacking? It seems like that one fits the worst of the accusations. And with that type of thing you don't expect there to be strong evidence until late in an investigation. And indeed, intelligence officials and members of congress with security clearance have said that there is significant circumstantial evidence of this already. That doesn't mean that there was automatically a crime, but it seems rather specious at this point to deny that there is any evidence at all. It seems more accurate to say that the specific details of evidence uncovered so far has not yet been made public because the investigation is still ongoing.
Your accusation is false in multiple demonstrable ways, and your vocabulary sucks.
Online game cheating prevention is one of the things that Intel is including in their marketing information for chipset security features. It isn't clear if this is going to be popular or unpopular with the masses.
Yes, you mentioned pcc. Check the wikipedia page for it. Maybe you know more about pcc than the BSD guys or anybody else. But you would still know the reasons it isn't considered a viable alternative. Go and re-start that battle and win that war. But pcc is what gcc replaced, and the people who had talked about wishing it was good enough to use for real have already moved on to clang.
You seem to think the world is just filled with idiots who didn't know why they were making the compiler choices they were making. GCC is good, good enough that people who don't want to use it keep using it anyways. The libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny. It is not a close call or a matter of wild theory; it is a tiny amount of work to replace the parts of gcc that benefit from a GPL exception. The exception only prevents downstream users from having an incentive to more heavily re-package gcc. It does not change anything about who would be using what compiler, or if the compiler license affects the license of the code that gets compiled with it.
But if it doesn't have any atmosphere or soil or fuel, why land a rock and make it more expensive? It would make more sense to select an appropriate orbit for the backup pods.
The only advantage of being on a rock is psychological for the backup units. But that can be solved by putting a "helmet" on the station, so that when you look out the window it appears to be something larger with mass underneath.
But yeah, we definitely need a basic backup of critical genetic systems.
You misunderstand the history, there was not a reasonable alternative to GCC, and the parts of GCC that get linked in would be easy to replace. That's why they made the exception, because without it people would be linking BSD-licensed parts in and it would weaken FSF's sociopolitical efforts.
It wouldn't be any maintenance burden because it would have already been the traditional practice by the time modern distros were created. It would be more work now because GCC is so much more optimized than it was 25-30 years ago.
GNAT is an Ada compiler, and is part of GCC. So that is an example of exactly what I was saying; if they don't provide it with an exception, it is easy to write dual-licensed stuff that works with GCC. Allowing that is a compromise of the core FSF principles that takes into consideration the reality that they can't stop proprietary software from existing and letting people compile it with GCC benefits GCC and the FSF. But remember, the FSF only believes in Free Software, they don't believe in Open Source, and they'd actually prefer to live in a world where GCC didn't need any exceptions.
Much more difficult than the library bits we're talking about is the C standard library, which is already available in BSD versions for all sorts of platforms including niche embedded platforms with very few users. If GCC didn't have an exception, there would be platforms like x86_64-distro-nongnulinux-gcc. For the distros and compiler users it wouldn't matter, but for FSF that would suck! And considering that a lot of compiler features are donated by companies who use GCC, the alternative might end up as the typical one. Distros already provide me with a wide variety of platform targets. The only reason that nongnu GCC-compatible libs aren't one is that there is no use case because of the exception.
You're just a new kid, how would you have any idea if the slashdot culture had lived or died?
There was a time before you were born when we would have downvoted that shit just for mentioning a video and not a manual, book, or transcript. But even now we're at least sophisticated enough to downvote a reference to some pop culture shit that you point at to try to look cool.
You didn't even say wtf your stupid video is about. So don't talk about it. Don't make hanging references to pop culture bullshit because this isn't a website full of that. There is nothing in your statement that leads me to believe it has anything to do with technology or stuff that would be interesting to computer nerds. So kudos to the mod who downvoted you.
Oh, I think consumers did in fact ask for silly resolution that looks "as good as real life." They don't have a use case for it, but they've been asking for that since we were drawing with our fingers on the cave walls by firelight.
Personally, what I want is electronic tools that designed are designed as tools with features targeted at my use cases. I'll just go ahead and laugh at myself for that and save the manufacturers the trouble!
While I do use ogg and FLAC for my own purposes, AAC is really useful for talking to various devices. Same with mp3. Being able to play media on standard consumer devices is sometimes useful. I can live without them, sure.
GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
Well, and without any exceptions it would be no problem, distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I mean, cross compilation is one of the reasons gcc is used so much. It isn't hard to create a different toolchain that links in a different library with the same API/ABI.
It not only isn't true, if it had been true it would have stopped being true very very quickly.
I don't mind the lawyers, what I hate are the assholes who don't understand what the lawyers said, who didn't take the time to learn that language, and yet they pretend they just care so much about legal issues and they're going to edujumacate me.
A) If these companies were in fact large, and would benefit from access to windows source code, they would probably already have it. Proprietary isn't exactly the same thing as secret.
B) Either your lawyers are idiots, or (more likely) you didn't understand any of their words.
C) What keeps linux from being competitive with Microsoft is that one is that one of those things is a company, and the other isn't. Linus gets the same salary if you use linux, or if you use something else. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a different amount of money if you buy their OS, or if you don't.
UAE gives out free trees and shrubs to anybody willing to plant them, even though they can't grow naturally in that climate.
In the American West, governments encourage water conservation and the use of landscape plants that don't require watering. When there is a drought, people get fined for watering.
UAE actually doesn't irrigate a lot of farms. They mostly irrigate artificial urban forests and luxury parks and yards.
Activating services when a network connection comes, and without sucking at it, is a hugely good feature. And just a tiny example.
People whine and cry, whine and cry about loving their SysV init scripts. Personally, I think they're disgusting. Almost everything about SysV is disgusting and that was always true. That was even true when it was the best option, which is simply no longer true.
Systemd is modular and anybody who tells you differently is an idiot who didn't check, or can't comprehend how software is built and distributed. Yes, the different modules are in the same source code repository. No, that doesn't mean it is monolithic.
And even funnier, I'm still using all the SysV init scripts that I was actually using before. All the major distros support using both systems together, and if I already have a customized init script, I'm still using it! But those scripts are disgusting, I'm unlikely to want to create new ones when I need custom behavior in the future.
No coding or porting is needed, it is only a matter of package management.
None of the systemd-haters who claim on the internet to be sysadmins are really sysadmins. There are lots of complainers who claim to have technical Special Needs that systemd doesn't meet, the problem is none of them are technical enough to manage a fancy zipfile that holds the configuration they want together. If only they had a Jr sysadmin or web programmer among their numbers, they could just maintain a PureGUIwithNOsystemdPackageDependency.rpm or whatever.
But if they understood how to create what they want, and how easy it is, they'd also accidentally learn that they don't have to run systemd at all to use any of those window systems, all they have to do is let a small part of it get installed to meet the requirements of the package manager.
Gnome and KDE don't want to have to know which init system you have installed, and they have to make sure various support files get installed for various use cases. That is why there are package dependencies. Because distro maintainers have experience with which dependencies need to be installed all the time so that features can be activated from config files, and which ones don't. Which ones create extra work if you want to leave them out, and which ones don't. For the same reasons, when I install GCC on x86-linux and I also install a cross-compiler for ARM, I end up with support for all sorts of CPUs in addition to the one I actually have. Maybe I'm only trying to target one ARM microcontroller from Texas Instruments, but I end up with SPARC support at the same time. It is not actually a problem. Things are grouped into packages for reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't moot at all! If a bunch of evidence comes out that would be grounds for impeachment but it doesn't happen just because the House of Representatives has a majority of Republicans, I don't call that "moot" I call that a "major election issue."
You seem to have strangely-colored glasses. Wave your hands all you like, but issues matter to enough voters to, uh, matter.
OK smartypants, you're going all "vocabulary" on us with your terminology analysis, and that's nice but I'm wondering...
How many definitions of "hacked" are there, and do any apply?
OK, so they probably didn't hit it with a large bladed weapon.
They probably didn't break into a computer to do it.
What about finding an unusual but creative solution using whatever tools were at hand? Are you really sure that doesn't fit? It seems to me that even if no crime occurred for there to be "evidence" of, this one still might be true.
What about social engineering, also known as social hacking? It seems like that one fits the worst of the accusations. And with that type of thing you don't expect there to be strong evidence until late in an investigation. And indeed, intelligence officials and members of congress with security clearance have said that there is significant circumstantial evidence of this already. That doesn't mean that there was automatically a crime, but it seems rather specious at this point to deny that there is any evidence at all. It seems more accurate to say that the specific details of evidence uncovered so far has not yet been made public because the investigation is still ongoing.
Your accusation is false in multiple demonstrable ways, and your vocabulary sucks.
So how are you supposed to debug your bug without bugging it? And if you do bug the bug with a debug log don't you risk bugging it anyway?
At least some of the bugs are before you even get to the keyboard, and I know those ones are bugged about being bugged because the bug leaked.
Online game cheating prevention is one of the things that Intel is including in their marketing information for chipset security features. It isn't clear if this is going to be popular or unpopular with the masses.
Fake Headlines normally end with ?
It isn't fake, it turns out it really is a headline after all!
Right, you're just repeating words.
Yes, you mentioned pcc. Check the wikipedia page for it. Maybe you know more about pcc than the BSD guys or anybody else. But you would still know the reasons it isn't considered a viable alternative. Go and re-start that battle and win that war. But pcc is what gcc replaced, and the people who had talked about wishing it was good enough to use for real have already moved on to clang.
You seem to think the world is just filled with idiots who didn't know why they were making the compiler choices they were making. GCC is good, good enough that people who don't want to use it keep using it anyways. The libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny. It is not a close call or a matter of wild theory; it is a tiny amount of work to replace the parts of gcc that benefit from a GPL exception. The exception only prevents downstream users from having an incentive to more heavily re-package gcc. It does not change anything about who would be using what compiler, or if the compiler license affects the license of the code that gets compiled with it.
I agree with the first part.
But if it doesn't have any atmosphere or soil or fuel, why land a rock and make it more expensive? It would make more sense to select an appropriate orbit for the backup pods.
The only advantage of being on a rock is psychological for the backup units. But that can be solved by putting a "helmet" on the station, so that when you look out the window it appears to be something larger with mass underneath.
But yeah, we definitely need a basic backup of critical genetic systems.
That settles it then, we need another space station!!!
repeated head desking from dealing with Microsoft products for so many years
They have meeting you could go to where they teach you that if you keep using it and expecting a different result, it means you're crazy.
If you want to regain your sanity, either stop expecting windows to work, or use something else. Either way, no head desking required.
You misunderstand the history, there was not a reasonable alternative to GCC, and the parts of GCC that get linked in would be easy to replace. That's why they made the exception, because without it people would be linking BSD-licensed parts in and it would weaken FSF's sociopolitical efforts.
It wouldn't be any maintenance burden because it would have already been the traditional practice by the time modern distros were created. It would be more work now because GCC is so much more optimized than it was 25-30 years ago.
GNAT is an Ada compiler, and is part of GCC. So that is an example of exactly what I was saying; if they don't provide it with an exception, it is easy to write dual-licensed stuff that works with GCC. Allowing that is a compromise of the core FSF principles that takes into consideration the reality that they can't stop proprietary software from existing and letting people compile it with GCC benefits GCC and the FSF. But remember, the FSF only believes in Free Software, they don't believe in Open Source, and they'd actually prefer to live in a world where GCC didn't need any exceptions.
Much more difficult than the library bits we're talking about is the C standard library, which is already available in BSD versions for all sorts of platforms including niche embedded platforms with very few users. If GCC didn't have an exception, there would be platforms like x86_64-distro-nongnulinux-gcc. For the distros and compiler users it wouldn't matter, but for FSF that would suck! And considering that a lot of compiler features are donated by companies who use GCC, the alternative might end up as the typical one. Distros already provide me with a wide variety of platform targets. The only reason that nongnu GCC-compatible libs aren't one is that there is no use case because of the exception.
You're just a new kid, how would you have any idea if the slashdot culture had lived or died?
There was a time before you were born when we would have downvoted that shit just for mentioning a video and not a manual, book, or transcript. But even now we're at least sophisticated enough to downvote a reference to some pop culture shit that you point at to try to look cool.
You didn't even say wtf your stupid video is about. So don't talk about it. Don't make hanging references to pop culture bullshit because this isn't a website full of that. There is nothing in your statement that leads me to believe it has anything to do with technology or stuff that would be interesting to computer nerds. So kudos to the mod who downvoted you.
Oh, I think consumers did in fact ask for silly resolution that looks "as good as real life." They don't have a use case for it, but they've been asking for that since we were drawing with our fingers on the cave walls by firelight.
Personally, what I want is electronic tools that designed are designed as tools with features targeted at my use cases. I'll just go ahead and laugh at myself for that and save the manufacturers the trouble!
Marketing fashion over function to the ignorant masses who love that shit.
So much for common sense design.
Sounds fine to me, what do the masses need a bunch of function for?
If you can't find a module's makefile, try in its folder!
While I do use ogg and FLAC for my own purposes, AAC is really useful for talking to various devices. Same with mp3. Being able to play media on standard consumer devices is sometimes useful. I can live without them, sure.
GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
Well, and without any exceptions it would be no problem, distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I mean, cross compilation is one of the reasons gcc is used so much. It isn't hard to create a different toolchain that links in a different library with the same API/ABI.
It not only isn't true, if it had been true it would have stopped being true very very quickly.
I don't mind the lawyers, what I hate are the assholes who don't understand what the lawyers said, who didn't take the time to learn that language, and yet they pretend they just care so much about legal issues and they're going to edujumacate me.
A) If these companies were in fact large, and would benefit from access to windows source code, they would probably already have it. Proprietary isn't exactly the same thing as secret.
B) Either your lawyers are idiots, or (more likely) you didn't understand any of their words.
C) What keeps linux from being competitive with Microsoft is that one is that one of those things is a company, and the other isn't. Linus gets the same salary if you use linux, or if you use something else. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a different amount of money if you buy their OS, or if you don't.
Funny, I run linux and I can use brand new hardware that came in a package.
It could work without most of those problems if he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the many.
Maybe they didn't want any off-topic cultural references? Perhaps it simply shows the quality of your character.
If I was modding, I'd mod down your whine, too. Never whine about mods.
The American West grows meth-heads.
It turns out you don't grow zombies, you grow humans, and then you infect them once they're grown.
If you infect them prematurely, grown nearly stops.
UAE gives out free trees and shrubs to anybody willing to plant them, even though they can't grow naturally in that climate.
In the American West, governments encourage water conservation and the use of landscape plants that don't require watering. When there is a drought, people get fined for watering.
UAE actually doesn't irrigate a lot of farms. They mostly irrigate artificial urban forests and luxury parks and yards.
I'm pro systemd and proud!
Activating services when a network connection comes, and without sucking at it, is a hugely good feature. And just a tiny example.
People whine and cry, whine and cry about loving their SysV init scripts. Personally, I think they're disgusting. Almost everything about SysV is disgusting and that was always true. That was even true when it was the best option, which is simply no longer true.
Systemd is modular and anybody who tells you differently is an idiot who didn't check, or can't comprehend how software is built and distributed. Yes, the different modules are in the same source code repository. No, that doesn't mean it is monolithic.
And even funnier, I'm still using all the SysV init scripts that I was actually using before. All the major distros support using both systems together, and if I already have a customized init script, I'm still using it! But those scripts are disgusting, I'm unlikely to want to create new ones when I need custom behavior in the future.
No coding or porting is needed, it is only a matter of package management.
None of the systemd-haters who claim on the internet to be sysadmins are really sysadmins. There are lots of complainers who claim to have technical Special Needs that systemd doesn't meet, the problem is none of them are technical enough to manage a fancy zipfile that holds the configuration they want together. If only they had a Jr sysadmin or web programmer among their numbers, they could just maintain a PureGUIwithNOsystemdPackageDependency.rpm or whatever.
But if they understood how to create what they want, and how easy it is, they'd also accidentally learn that they don't have to run systemd at all to use any of those window systems, all they have to do is let a small part of it get installed to meet the requirements of the package manager.
Gnome and KDE don't want to have to know which init system you have installed, and they have to make sure various support files get installed for various use cases. That is why there are package dependencies. Because distro maintainers have experience with which dependencies need to be installed all the time so that features can be activated from config files, and which ones don't. Which ones create extra work if you want to leave them out, and which ones don't. For the same reasons, when I install GCC on x86-linux and I also install a cross-compiler for ARM, I end up with support for all sorts of CPUs in addition to the one I actually have. Maybe I'm only trying to target one ARM microcontroller from Texas Instruments, but I end up with SPARC support at the same time. It is not actually a problem. Things are grouped into packages for reasons.