Great point. Maybe we can take over tablets and cell phones with Linux, er, Android, er, whatever... It's not like Microsoft is making much of a play for these... (Windows 8, 8.1, and 9 not withstanding)

In true Torvalds fashion, he blames Linux's failure to take the desktop on.... What exactly?

Now that's a shocker.. It cannot be HIS fault.

Just so it's clear, I'm not suggesting you see the film, unless you have the two hours to waste. I don't think most kids would enjoy it today. It's not relevant to current events anymore, has horrible special effects compared to today, and would be in an unfamiliar style.

My point was that the quote rated "insightful +5" was actually from a previously well known "B" movie. It had been popular with the younger crowd, back when I was part of that crowd. The comment wasn't all that insightful, it was more "funny" given it's source.

Right... Like having an internet link means it's a real story...

Look on the bright side, there is a story to link to now: http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

You clicked though? Going anyplace?

Uh, WAKE UP dude! They just changed the license on Qt!!!

Depends on what you want from Qt.

If you are the developer, it's great! You can now static link your application into one file if you you use only Qt libs without being forced to license your code using GPL or buying a commercial license. You still *can* give your code away, but you don't have to.

If you are an end user of a Qt application, nothing really changes for you, except that subsequent software deliveries get simpler to install. Now you don't have to make sure all the necessary shared libs are available when the application needs them. You may or may not be entitled to get source code, but that's not changed.

For Qt it means that more people will use it for all sorts of things because now developers can protect their code using any license they choose.

Except for the end user, who really won't see any difference, Seems like an upgrade to me. Developers get to choose what license suits their business model and Qt get's used more.

If they are dealing with you, a private party, there are and should be limits on what is public information. If you have an employment contract with the City, some information about you the city has is not public and should not be public.

So, I'm saying that there are limits on what can be made "public" information. This also means that not all government activity is going to be in the public domain. There is information that must be protected. I.E. the government should be able to keep secretes in some cases. Contracts with private parties can be one of these cases.

That is not even close to being true. If I have a contract with you that I break, it's NOT the state that files the lawsuit to enforce the contract, it's you. The function of the state is to make sure the litigation process is fair, but it's not in their wheel house to do the actual enforcement of contracts between two other parties. They have no standing, no vested interest in such contracts.

Now if I loose in court, then you have the legal right to demand that the judgment be collected, and have the right to request help from the state to secure a civil judgement, but it's still up to you to see that it is enforced. If you don't take me to court, or don't try and collect, the state doesn't care and won't take it upon themselves to enforce the contract or collect the debt.

The state doesn't enforce contracts between two parties (Unless one of the parties is the government).

So there ARE private contracts. And the state is not involved in them.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for disclosure of contracts let by the city for city business. I'm saying that there are things which are NOT subject to disclosure. City employee discipline records, utility bills, income tax receipts and a whole host of things fall into this category. Out of court settlements where "do not discuss publicly" clauses are in effect seem to be one of those things.

There are things that need to be kept private too.

I'm not arguing that disclosure of contract terms for building roads, buildings and conducting other city business shouldn't be public, only that there is a subset of that information that needs to be kept private. A court settlement might fall in that category.

Before you go and say *everything* needs to be public, think about what you are saying. There is no way that the city should be compelled to disclose the contents of say it's employee files, or if it has a water utility department, who is delinquent on their bills or what the customer may have agreed to repay and how. You don't need to know who's paying their local income taxes (in places where they are collected). Obviously, not *everything* is subject to disclosure.

BTW, kickbacks usually are NOT in contracts, and cronyism should be readily apparent by who's doing the work. Disclosure doesn't really fix these issues.

The main difference between fission and fusion is the cost of clean up. Fission is really messy, with radioactive materials in abundance. Fusion still has waste, but not nearly as much.

Do you *really* mean this? Think about the kinds of things City governments know about you, you want it to all be public information? You want them to publish the names and addresses of everybody who applied for a business license or is behind on their water bills? Filed a police complaint, got put into collections? How about those who live in cities that tax income, you want to make who's paying taxes and their SSN's public data?

I don't think you've thought this all though very far.

I only need to know in broad terms what they are doing, not the specific details. There are things I am not entitled to know about government and how they interact with other individuals. So I don't agree with your premise.

IF you think you have a right to know, file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. See what they will give you.