Linux is not a commercial product, and would exist regardless of whether or not there were other commercial products in existance.
I'm saying that companies who currently sell software products, would not be writing them if they did not have the ability to sell, and control ownership, of that product.
I don't know... maybe I'm really not making any sense. I really need some sleep.:-)
The idea that _companies_ *must* give software, with source code, away for free doesn't really make sense. If companies were not going to make any (or much) money off their products, then the product wouldn't even exist in the first place.
People have always said that, and people have generally been proven wrong.
People haven't generally been proving wrong about scientific breakthroughs being fiction. People have *sometimes* been proven wrong, and those times are the only times you hear about it.
ftp://ftp.gps.caltech.edu/pub/stone/mdm/pctel.zi p
There's also an open-source Lucent PCI modem driver at http://www.close.u-net.com (not fully functional yet), and a closed source driver at http://linmodems.org/linux568.zip, but it only seems to work with specific kernels at the current time (this will change eventually, I hope).
Re:The Solution is Quite Clear but very unpleasant
on
Living Terrors
·
· Score: 1
Ah I see. Just go ahead and murder every single individual in an entire country just because some idiot member of that country decided it would be a good idea to scare away the U.S. by killing americans.
I find it pretty ridiculous how JonKatz is trying to present his opinions as facts. "The Truth About File Sharing"? There's no proven truth in this article. There's just a bunch of statistics and opinions. Let me know when you start presenting your opinions simply as they really are; opinions, and perhaps I'll start taking your articles a little more seriously.
If you can really "make the internet unusable for the entire nation", then why don't you report the security holes that you are aware of to people who have the ability to fix them?
And, how do you know for sure that you can make it unusable if you've never done it before?
I highly doubt the cost of the CPU was an issue in this case. I mean, a 486 CPU is worth about $10 now. If they were looking for speed, they could have used an Athlon for about $500, so apparently they weren't.
Why would it be a problem if both the Windows and Linux version is installed on the same computer? It's not going to be used at the same time, and it's not necessarily going to be used by more than one user.
Actually the word murder can mean either unlawful killing, or simply killing. Look it up.
Regarding war, whether or not "murder" is justified is very debatable. Different people are going to have very different opinions in specific cases. I agree with you completely that because *anyone* tells you to murder (or promote murder), does not justify the murder.
I don't get the purpose of Intel's cheap CPUs (Celeron and this new kind).
If somebody wanted a cheap CPU they could get a slightly outdated expensive CPU. If the reason for them is that it would be better than the expensive CPU's price equivalent, then why are they cheaper than the expensive CPU's performance equivalent?
> Okay... I just E-Mailed you. Now I own your E-mail box. At least thats what you were saying in your post. Oh wait... You responded to my post. Does > that make my original post yours? I think you have a lawsuit here.
Umm, excuse me? I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was that the difference between spam and television commercials, is that the company owning the television channel is the one showing you ads in exchange for the show you're watching. The person who owns your e-mail account (your ISP, or whoever owns the e-mail server) is not giving permission to the spammer to spam you.
I am in no way promoting spam, nor saying that spammers own your e-mail box. In fact, I'm pretty much saying the opposite.
> And the nine year old thing... you must have some serious mental problems.
You must be misunderstanding me here too. I'm guessing you're infering that I'm saying it's okay for an 8 or 9 year old to recieve spam advertising pornography? I don't see where you're getting that from though. I was simply asking why a 8 or 9 year old would be checking your e-mail, which is what you seemed to be saying.
Just because someone's opinions conflict with yours is no reason to label them as a troll. If you read what he said, you'll see that he's not promoting spam, he just doesn't think the government should regulate the internet.
> Nobody buys stuff when its displayed as an unsolicited irritation. SPAM from either the acutal mail or E-Mail drives customers away from the > spammers products. You are wasting your time. I have never met a person who bought something from a SPAM E-Mail, and I'm sure I never will.
But if one out of every 1,000 people you spam actually buy one of your products, it was worth it for them.
> Now I know people are going to give me crap about things like "What about television commercials! Those are SPAM too!" Well they aren't. You can > change the channel during commercial breaks. Now you say "but you can just delete those SPAMS". Well, it would be a one thing if I got SPAM from > the ford motor company, but most of the spam I get is pornography, and I have almost been fired because data protection at a company I worked for > was wondering why I was getting E-Mail from 'lesbianlove@sexbot.com' or something.
Actually, the difference between spam and television commercials, is that with television, the advertising is being sent to you from the company providing you that TV channel. The spammers aren't providing you your own e-mail account for them to spam you (if they were, then it would be a fair deal).
If television channels you liked had commercials for pornography (or other sex related content), then it really wouldn't be fair to complain either.
> Now I'm not saying pornography is wrong, its just not > supposed to be in my E-Mail when I don't want it to. I could have easily been an 8 or 9 year-old checking my E-Mail.
"checking my E-Mail"? I'm guessing you mean checking *their* e-mail. Why would a 8 or 9 your old be checking your e-mail?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I have been misunderstood.
... maybe I'm really not making any sense. I really need some sleep. :-)
Linux is not a commercial product, and would exist regardless of whether or not there were other commercial products in existance.
I'm saying that companies who currently sell software products, would not be writing them if they did not have the ability to sell, and control ownership, of that product.
I don't know
The idea that _companies_ *must* give software, with source code, away for free doesn't really make sense. If companies were not going to make any (or much) money off their products, then the product wouldn't even exist in the first place.
I guess there wasn't much of a choice. It's either MP3 or RealAudio, and they picked the less evil one.
Actually I think the best way to handle this situation would be to just let John Carmack sue him. John's got $$$. :-)
The difference is that the killer would have a gun, whether or not he's allowed to have a gun or not.
I on the other hand, being a good citizen, wouldn't have a gun because I'm not allowed to.
I know this was meant as a joke, but why is it that people who are dumb deserve any less than people who are smart?
As far as I can tell, most dumb people are born dumb, and it's not in their power to change that.
In my opinion, intelligence is not a valid way to determine the value of a person.
People haven't generally been proving wrong about scientific breakthroughs being fiction. People have *sometimes* been proven wrong, and those times are the only times you hear about it.
Here's a Linux driver for the PCtel PCI modem.
i p
ftp://ftp.gps.caltech.edu/pub/stone/mdm/pctel.z
There's also an open-source Lucent PCI modem driver at http://www.close.u-net.com (not fully functional yet), and a closed source driver at http://linmodems.org/linux568.zip, but it only seems to work with specific kernels at the current time (this will change eventually, I hope).
Ah I see. Just go ahead and murder every single individual in an entire country just because some idiot member of that country decided it would be a good idea to scare away the U.S. by killing americans.
That makes a lot of sense.
I find it pretty ridiculous how JonKatz is trying to present his opinions as facts. "The Truth About File Sharing"? There's no proven truth in this article. There's just a bunch of statistics and opinions. Let me know when you start presenting your opinions simply as they really are; opinions, and perhaps I'll start taking your articles a little more seriously.
If you can really "make the internet unusable for the entire nation", then why don't you report the security holes that you are aware of to people who have the ability to fix them?
And, how do you know for sure that you can make it unusable if you've never done it before?
I highly doubt the cost of the CPU was an issue in this case. I mean, a 486 CPU is worth about $10 now. If they were looking for speed, they could have used an Athlon for about $500, so apparently they weren't.
Why would it be a problem if both the Windows and Linux version is installed on the same computer? It's not going to be used at the same time, and it's not necessarily going to be used by more than one user.
What about hackers? What happens to technology?
It can only be run on Windows, for one thing ...
(And maybe MacOS?)
Actually the word murder can mean either unlawful killing, or simply killing. Look it up.
Regarding war, whether or not "murder" is justified is very debatable. Different people are going to have very different opinions in specific cases. I agree with you completely that because *anyone* tells you to murder (or promote murder), does not justify the murder.
Have you tried gnome-apt? It's available in potato, it may not be available in slink though.
I don't get the purpose of Intel's cheap CPUs (Celeron and this new kind).
...
If somebody wanted a cheap CPU they could get a slightly outdated expensive CPU. If the reason for them is that it would be better than the expensive CPU's price equivalent, then why are they cheaper than the expensive CPU's performance equivalent?
Am I making any sense here?
To me it seems like it's all about marketing
> Okay... I just E-Mailed you. Now I own your E-mail box. At least thats what you were saying in your post. Oh wait... You responded to my post. Does
> that make my original post yours? I think you have a lawsuit here.
Umm, excuse me? I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was that the difference between spam and television commercials, is that the company owning the television channel is the one showing you ads in exchange for the show you're watching. The person who owns your e-mail account (your ISP, or whoever owns the e-mail server) is not giving permission to the spammer to spam you.
I am in no way promoting spam, nor saying that spammers own your e-mail box. In fact, I'm pretty much saying the opposite.
> And the nine year old thing... you must have some serious mental problems.
You must be misunderstanding me here too. I'm guessing you're infering that I'm saying it's okay for an 8 or 9 year old to recieve spam advertising pornography? I don't see where you're getting that from though. I was simply asking why a 8 or 9 year old would be checking your e-mail, which is what you seemed to be saying.
If you don't mind me asking, how exactly do you calculate $2-3?
Spam does take time, bandwidth, and CPU which equals money (potentially), but not anywhere near $2-3 per user (average).
No, ISPs should not *require* this, but it would be nice to have it as an option.
Just because someone's opinions conflict with yours is no reason to label them as a troll. If you read what he said, you'll see that he's not promoting spam, he just doesn't think the government should regulate the internet.
I don't think it would be illegal to write it, but it would certainly be illegal to use it.
> Nobody buys stuff when its displayed as an unsolicited irritation. SPAM from either the acutal mail or E-Mail drives customers away from the
:-)
> spammers products. You are wasting your time. I have never met a person who bought something from a SPAM E-Mail, and I'm sure I never will.
But if one out of every 1,000 people you spam actually buy one of your products, it was worth it for them.
> Now I know people are going to give me crap about things like "What about television commercials! Those are SPAM too!" Well they aren't. You can
> change the channel during commercial breaks. Now you say "but you can just delete those SPAMS". Well, it would be a one thing if I got SPAM from
> the ford motor company, but most of the spam I get is pornography, and I have almost been fired because data protection at a company I worked for
> was wondering why I was getting E-Mail from 'lesbianlove@sexbot.com' or something.
Actually, the difference between spam and television commercials, is that with television, the advertising is being sent to you from the company providing you that TV channel. The spammers aren't providing you your own e-mail account for them to spam you (if they were, then it would be a fair deal).
If television channels you liked had commercials for pornography (or other sex related content), then it really wouldn't be fair to complain either.
> Now I'm not saying pornography is wrong, its just not
> supposed to be in my E-Mail when I don't want it to. I could have easily been an 8 or 9 year-old checking my E-Mail.
"checking my E-Mail"? I'm guessing you mean checking *their* e-mail. Why would a 8 or 9 your old be checking your e-mail?
But in any case, I agree with on that point.
> Do these people include ISP's like AOL who standardize on Internet Explorer?
Don't forget that every version of Windows starting from Windows 95 includes Internet Explorer.