Girlfriends tend to outperform Spouses though. When they get their nice cosy contract they do far less work. Shows exactly why amateurs are better than life time employed professionals. Spouses also tend to generate children which is a problem that only they can reasonably solve, this ensures that you don't fire them to look for a better performing model.
In the end the professional looks to do everything to make themselves irreplaceable, they leave you in a situation where it would cost you a lot of money and time learning to unravel their work if you opt to go for that young thing on a hot streak. For this reason you should always stick with amateurs to begin with.
Out of interest do you consider RHEL to be OSS. It has non distributable art work as well that has to be replaced before the product will work (admittedly much less and many/most sections of the product will work perfectly without their copyrighted art work).
I think a hard separation between source and artwork makes sense. I'd be more interested in the tools than in a particular use of them and I don't think art work can often be done well in collaboration (at least not in the bazaar sense). In either case we gain the benefit of being able to run the game on Linux and access to a game engine for those who want to make a game. Can't be a bad thing.
Content is more important than implementation in this case. They can release source but it's the content that makes a game. Of course when ID opened their engines they had equivalent games come out and found themselves competing with their own product. Wait a minute, that never happened.
You can't put any power behind a front wheel drive car and still expect it to handle. I'm sorry but if you care about engineering then it goes, in order: 1. Mid-engined 2. Rear-engined 3. Front-engined
and
1. 4WD 2. Rear Drive 3. Front Drive
Now for convenience most cars are front engined but rear drive is certainly better than front drive.
What he means is not that the bar is infinite (which is just confusing) but that you can move the mouse a theoretically infinite amount and it still won't go pass that point. It's really just a hard limit where a floating menu can be overshot. Then again I don't think I've ever missed a menu item.
Personally I've had situations where I've used multiple menus at once (depending on your window focus model it can be done without even bring a window to the front). If you cascade your windows then you can click on a menu without first switching to its window. If you only have one app open then it's slightly better though.
Of course there have been absolutely no developments since 1980 and as a result Gnu/Linux hasn't produced anything. AFAIK no commercial Unix has anything like apt.
We're actually reading the articles now. When did this happen?
Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
It was a cheap shot at GPLv3, a license that seems to have lots of people that dislikes it, people that aren't even affected by it in the first place. GPL doesn't cover use, only distribution. I'm not affected by the people in Gitmo either, perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about that.
Not being affected by something is the weakest reason not to hold an opinion about something ever.
I bet if you did that you'd get a bunch of whiny teenagers posting endless articles about Ubuntu, the iPhone, Ron Paul and a variety of top ten lists (top ten reasons Lolcode should replace C in the Linux kernel). With all meaningful comments and Soviet Russia jokes buried beyond all comprehension.
You should call it bury or something. Totally original idea.
GPLv3 is incompatible with the most dominant OSS license on the planet. It is comparable.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It also allows any old author to come along and strip those permissions away. It is not and cannot be a replacement for LGPL. The FSF knows this and made it intentionally so, they want to end the mixing of free and proprietary software. Linus explored this, if he moved the kernel to GPLv3 with an exception for Tivo then someone can fork it and make sizeable contributions under vanilla GPLv3 and he'd end up with the license he dislikes.
This is the problem with the exceptions. It gives too much power for individual or small groups of authors to force the majority down a path they don't like. Better not to get into that sort of contract.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If they make a sizeable enough contribution under GPLv3 or later then the entire project falls under that even if large sections could be taken out and released under GPLv2. Same situation as with the kernel where large sections are GPLv2 or later but the majority is GPLv2 only.
There's a simple problem with software patents in the EU. The EPO hands out software patents for fun but the EU has refused to ratify them.
The problem is that the EPO pre-dates the EU and is independent from it. It is a body for European countries outside of the EU. It is recognised as the official body for EU patents but all patents concerning software are considered null and void legally in the EU. However they have convinced many companies to pay up 'just in case'.
There is a fear as to what happens if the EU allows software patents. Do the patents handed out then become active. Do they then become, worryingly, retroactive (I've seen some laws passed retroactively recently). A lot of concerns that haven't been dealt with.
Just abolishing copyright would not be enough. Even without it there is nothing to compel somebody to release source code. Just becomes a trade secret then.
Gnu has abandoned the HURD project for a new kernel called HIV.
HIV is an acronym for HURD Is Vapourware.
To get with modern programming practices Gnu have abandoned recursive acronyms for object oriented acronyms. HIV has a HURD. Of course HURD is itself a recursive acronym combining the power of both naming conventions to form an almighty and indecipherable acronym.
Expected date of completion for HIV is January 42nd 2075.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Thank you for not smoking.
People do realise that the first law means that robots will take control of people's lives and anything that could harm a person would be prevented.
I mean, it's possible that you could get a little wild and break some bones during sex. Therefore it is vital for robots to stop people ever having sex. Humanity dies without harming anyone.
I'm sorry but no judge is going to recognise the 'spirit of the license' argument. All they care about is
1.Is it an FSF license 2.Is it called GPL 3.Does it have a bigger number than the one in question
If the spirit of the license argument was valid then what Novell did was illegal and they should have gone to court over it. Of course the FSF know that spirit means exactly balls in court.
A license is a technical thing, not a spiritual or moral one. They can be put in place for moral reasons but all the courts will recognise is the technical.
Again you miss the point. You are taking a BSD angle on this and the point of the GPL is very different.
The point of the GPL is that the code stays free. That any improvements made and distributed are also free. If GPLv4 was an evil MS license then MS can use all previous GPLv2 and GPLv3 or later code in a totally locked up proprietary product.
The other problem is if any license change drastically alters *the implementation* of the license which certainly happened with GPLv3. Now I don't disagree with the FSF's motives over this* but there are still plenty of untested and unaccounted edge cases where the tivoisation clauses could cause a problem, the LKML came up with plenty in a recent debate. In essence the FSF isn't infallible and could make a mistake. The 'or later' language means you are horribly exposed to that.
It is still possible to relicense after the fact. If a project is GPLv2 only and decides GPLv3 is a bit iffy then they can hold out until it proves otherwise. All that is needed is the appropriate legal work outside of that, either centralising copyright (as the FSF does with all it's projects) or giving a limited right to one or a few people for re-licensing. This wasn't done in the kernel and that's why the issue exists. It's more work than 'or later' but has far fewer drawbacks.
*I personally believe that Tivo is a side issue. Distasteful but not really relevant, all the doomsday scenarios people come up with done that line are less likely than a chair surviving an encounter with Steve Ballmer. The focus should have been on dealing with patents. The Tivoisation situation could have been dealt with elsewhere, by providing alternatives, with far fewer gotchas than the current setup.
Slashdot Mirror
Girlfriends tend to outperform Spouses though. When they get their nice cosy contract they do far less work. Shows exactly why amateurs are better than life time employed professionals. Spouses also tend to generate children which is a problem that only they can reasonably solve, this ensures that you don't fire them to look for a better performing model.
In the end the professional looks to do everything to make themselves irreplaceable, they leave you in a situation where it would cost you a lot of money and time learning to unravel their work if you opt to go for that young thing on a hot streak. For this reason you should always stick with amateurs to begin with.
Out of interest do you consider RHEL to be OSS. It has non distributable art work as well that has to be replaced before the product will work (admittedly much less and many/most sections of the product will work perfectly without their copyrighted art work).
I think a hard separation between source and artwork makes sense. I'd be more interested in the tools than in a particular use of them and I don't think art work can often be done well in collaboration (at least not in the bazaar sense). In either case we gain the benefit of being able to run the game on Linux and access to a game engine for those who want to make a game. Can't be a bad thing.
Content is more important than implementation in this case. They can release source but it's the content that makes a game. Of course when ID opened their engines they had equivalent games come out and found themselves competing with their own product. Wait a minute, that never happened.
Simple, use Plan 9. Then all your problems will go away.
You can't put any power behind a front wheel drive car and still expect it to handle. I'm sorry but if you care about engineering then it goes, in order:
1. Mid-engined
2. Rear-engined
3. Front-engined
and
1. 4WD
2. Rear Drive
3. Front Drive
Now for convenience most cars are front engined but rear drive is certainly better than front drive.
Ever heard of MMORPG's? What's to stop one of them being driven by FOSS. Still a service model and can make money as a result.
Yes the FOSS coders are mediocre. It's just those in the proprietary sector are crap. FOSS code generally outperforms that in the proprietary sector.
Lexus. They never break down but you'd wish they would.
Mercedes are really screwed up right now though, officially the worse service on the planet.
What he means is not that the bar is infinite (which is just confusing) but that you can move the mouse a theoretically infinite amount and it still won't go pass that point. It's really just a hard limit where a floating menu can be overshot. Then again I don't think I've ever missed a menu item.
Personally I've had situations where I've used multiple menus at once (depending on your window focus model it can be done without even bring a window to the front). If you cascade your windows then you can click on a menu without first switching to its window. If you only have one app open then it's slightly better though.
Of course there have been absolutely no developments since 1980 and as a result Gnu/Linux hasn't produced anything. AFAIK no commercial Unix has anything like apt.
We're actually reading the articles now. When did this happen?
Not being affected by something is the weakest reason not to hold an opinion about something ever.
I bet if you did that you'd get a bunch of whiny teenagers posting endless articles about Ubuntu, the iPhone, Ron Paul and a variety of top ten lists (top ten reasons Lolcode should replace C in the Linux kernel). With all meaningful comments and Soviet Russia jokes buried beyond all comprehension.
You should call it bury or something. Totally original idea.
GPLv3 is incompatible with the most dominant OSS license on the planet. It is comparable.
It also allows any old author to come along and strip those permissions away. It is not and cannot be a replacement for LGPL. The FSF knows this and made it intentionally so, they want to end the mixing of free and proprietary software. Linus explored this, if he moved the kernel to GPLv3 with an exception for Tivo then someone can fork it and make sizeable contributions under vanilla GPLv3 and he'd end up with the license he dislikes.
This is the problem with the exceptions. It gives too much power for individual or small groups of authors to force the majority down a path they don't like. Better not to get into that sort of contract.
If they make a sizeable enough contribution under GPLv3 or later then the entire project falls under that even if large sections could be taken out and released under GPLv2. Same situation as with the kernel where large sections are GPLv2 or later but the majority is GPLv2 only.
In any definition it is more legal than the way most people run Windows to begin with.
There's a simple problem with software patents in the EU. The EPO hands out software patents for fun but the EU has refused to ratify them.
The problem is that the EPO pre-dates the EU and is independent from it. It is a body for European countries outside of the EU. It is recognised as the official body for EU patents but all patents concerning software are considered null and void legally in the EU. However they have convinced many companies to pay up 'just in case'.
There is a fear as to what happens if the EU allows software patents. Do the patents handed out then become active. Do they then become, worryingly, retroactive (I've seen some laws passed retroactively recently). A lot of concerns that haven't been dealt with.
Just abolishing copyright would not be enough. Even without it there is nothing to compel somebody to release source code. Just becomes a trade secret then.
Gnu has abandoned the HURD project for a new kernel called HIV.
HIV is an acronym for HURD Is Vapourware.
To get with modern programming practices Gnu have abandoned recursive acronyms for object oriented acronyms. HIV has a HURD. Of course HURD is itself a recursive acronym combining the power of both naming conventions to form an almighty and indecipherable acronym.
Expected date of completion for HIV is January 42nd 2075.
People do realise that the first law means that robots will take control of people's lives and anything that could harm a person would be prevented.
I mean, it's possible that you could get a little wild and break some bones during sex. Therefore it is vital for robots to stop people ever having sex. Humanity dies without harming anyone.
The GPL isn't law though. That's a different thing entirely. Also the US isn't the only country on the planet.
I'm sorry but no judge is going to recognise the 'spirit of the license' argument. All they care about is
1.Is it an FSF license
2.Is it called GPL
3.Does it have a bigger number than the one in question
If the spirit of the license argument was valid then what Novell did was illegal and they should have gone to court over it. Of course the FSF know that spirit means exactly balls in court.
A license is a technical thing, not a spiritual or moral one. They can be put in place for moral reasons but all the courts will recognise is the technical.
Again you miss the point. You are taking a BSD angle on this and the point of the GPL is very different.
The point of the GPL is that the code stays free. That any improvements made and distributed are also free. If GPLv4 was an evil MS license then MS can use all previous GPLv2 and GPLv3 or later code in a totally locked up proprietary product.
Destroys the entire point of the GPL.
The other problem is if any license change drastically alters *the implementation* of the license which certainly happened with GPLv3. Now I don't disagree with the FSF's motives over this* but there are still plenty of untested and unaccounted edge cases where the tivoisation clauses could cause a problem, the LKML came up with plenty in a recent debate. In essence the FSF isn't infallible and could make a mistake. The 'or later' language means you are horribly exposed to that.
It is still possible to relicense after the fact. If a project is GPLv2 only and decides GPLv3 is a bit iffy then they can hold out until it proves otherwise. All that is needed is the appropriate legal work outside of that, either centralising copyright (as the FSF does with all it's projects) or giving a limited right to one or a few people for re-licensing. This wasn't done in the kernel and that's why the issue exists. It's more work than 'or later' but has far fewer drawbacks.
*I personally believe that Tivo is a side issue. Distasteful but not really relevant, all the doomsday scenarios people come up with done that line are less likely than a chair surviving an encounter with Steve Ballmer. The focus should have been on dealing with patents. The Tivoisation situation could have been dealt with elsewhere, by providing alternatives, with far fewer gotchas than the current setup.