If my work is dependent on an application that no longer runs on modern operating systems, then I have a problem. I will make the application work, and/or try to find a way to not be dependent on unsupported software that will leave me up shit creek in future. Luckily VMs make it easy to run various operating systems as needed, even if modern hardware is poorly supported by them.

Well, that took long enough.

Did the PulseAudio problem ever get solved? I remember putting up with problems in 8.04 (ended up hacking out PulseAudio I think), 8.10, 9.04 (IIRC it worked okay-enough) and then having PulseAudio problems on 9.10. That was the last straw, and my laptop has been running Sid since. At least that's reasonably stable.

If I understand it correctly, that is not what "fair use" in US copyright law covers, however it seems to be permitted by the first sale doctrine (i.e. selling or giving away a copy does not constitute infringement because a copy has not been made).

In this case though the bill was passed through the final stages. It wasn't like the bill was introduced and pushed through entirely under urgency with no select committee. The language of the bill has been changed a lot in response to public submissions etc. and compared to the previously passed "three strikes" law it is an improvement.

I should have been more careful with wording:
"and sells to someone who can then _effortlessly_ and freely make and distribute copies of the hotrod"

Digital information duplicates readily. If I want one of those hotrods, I need to supply the material and labour or pay someone to do it for me.

I went to the links you provided, but I couldn't find a download link

I love car analogies and free software as much as the next Slashdot poster, but I don't think I could make a living as someone who copies a car, turns it into a hotrod and sells to someone, who can then freely make and distribute copies of the hotrod.

As a former Ubuntu 'devotee' I switched to Debian to escape from Ubuntu's retarded technical decisions.

DirectX helped to standardise the feature set of graphics cards, as well as provide a partially hardware-independent programming model. Without that it would be expensive for developers (have to develop for many different hardware configurations and quirks) and gamers (cheaper hardware, choice of manufacturer doesn't affect games that can be played, older cards stay useful longer).

Developing games is still hard; DirectX doesn't make everything cushy, but it does limit the variance in device capabilities across generations.

I have no experience in console games development, but I suspect that modern console SDKs have graphics APIs available to them that are higher level than hardware access. I believe the Xbox consoles use a DirectX-like API.

From "The Free Software Definition":

I think the common assumption is that the freedom to run the program is guaranteed by free software licenses by virtue of them not restricting it. If I obtain the source code for an iOS port of an app, in order to exercise the freedoms the original software developer required to be passed on to me, I need to get an iOS developer license. The contract for receiving this license is not made public by Apple, but the EFF published one at some point (https://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf) which seems to indicate that you can register "authorised test devices" to run individual apps, but it does not seem to be the case that a developer phone is essentially unlocked:

Basically, it appears to me that getting a developer license as Tjp($)pjT suggested is not a valid approach for using free software on an iPhone. Furthermore the contract requires you to agree that the license of your app, or any third party code within it does not conflict with the digital signing requirements (so the GPLv3 is out of the question); and that the app store is the sole distribution channel for your application.

The GPLv2 and GPLv3 both require that you pass on the right to redistribute the software in modified or unmodified form to recipients of the software, thus by distributing a GPL licensed program via the app store would be in violation of the GPL and your rights under the license revoked.

The GPL does not limit "usage" in the sense of using the software. It limits distribution; there is a big difference. The problem with app stores are vendors that want to have complete control over what the OWNER of the device can do with it. The Android Marketplace is far from perfect (it probably needs better filtering for apps to avoid spammy shit or malware) but most Android devices I have seen still allow you to elect to run code from third party sources. This is not incompatible with the idea of free and open source software.

It's a violation of the fundamental principle of free software. If I stop paying Apple for the developer license, then I stop being able to USE the software on my phone. They hold the power over the owners of the phones to stop them from using the apps they compiled; and that restricts your freedom to use the software.

This doesn't seem to be a direct violation of the GPLv2 (the license claims no restrictions over using the program, but doesn't seem to require the distributor to ensure modified versions can be used). It is a violation of the GPLv3, which requires that object code distributed for a "user product" (something that is primarily used by a person; consumer electronics fall into this category) must also be distributed with:

If you distribute software covered by the GPLv3 in the Apple App Store, you cannot satisfy the requirement of the license to also distribute whatever is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of the modified software; as Apple holds that power. The problem wouldn't exist if Apple allowed users to elect to run applications that are not authorised in the app store (such as with the Android market).

I have neither an iPhone nor Mac, so I'm not sure what the details of the developer license are, but from what I can tell it seems like that would also make it impractical to distribute modified copies -- chances are the app would be rejected from the app store on the grounds of being too similar to another app if it were merely an improved version; or you'd only be able to run it on other developer devices (and I'm not sure what restrictions are on that too).

I suspect the GP was referring to Android when he said "you can install anything you want"