I think open software licenses should be more fine grained, and specify what "interfaces" to the work are ok to leverage without your work being considered derivative. so a library can specify the api's that it exports, a program can specify its inputs and outputs as non derivative, etc...
If its using the same X session (the same user login), then this is possible. I have 2 monitors, both running 2 different "deskstops". The wm lets me switch workspaces on each one seperatly. xmonad so does enlightenment 17. I bet there are a few more wms that can do this as well, those are just the two that i've tried.
BTW, i can't believe this made it to the front page, its really a question that just belongs to your favorite distro's forums. Since we are on the topic, does anyone know how to get printers working in linux
Pull a stunt like that and you'd strike out if I was interviewing you. To each their own, but fer christ sakes it is an email client not your main development tool!
Once you start asking religious questions like the ones in your post, you start to look like a person who will be very difficult to work with. After all, if you have major demands for extremely minor things like your email client, what kinds of demands are you going to asking for when it comes to actually doing your job?
are you kidding me? on any project with customers (open source or commercial) it would take less then a year for you to starting writing more emails then code. forcing outlook is just as bad for efficiency as forcing visual studio.
Putting the blame all on Firefox when there's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux's less good compiler is just lame. How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems? Finally, what "linux" build was this? Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla's official Windows build system? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.
its an exponentially harder problem to do performance analysis at the compiler level then at the application level. Plus firefox + wine runs over 10% faster then firefox on linux, so very likely its not the tools. My guess its just because there are more windows hackers working on firefox since its a more important platform (to mozilla) then linux, so more optimizations are done.
Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?
It depends on how much ownership society gives you to the works that you create. We collectively descided to give some protection to creators of intellectual property, be it books or music or patents. Ideally the amount of ownership should maximize the amount and quality of works created.
Too much ownership will stifle innovation, too little doesn't give enough insentives to create. So its not really your choice, and the laws that we have chosen to be in effect at the moment aren't very clear. Like the previous resposne said, libraries are not opt in or opt out, why should it be any different for digital libraries.
What I would like to see is a "healthy" market for health care. I would like to be able to see what prices each doctor charges for each service, regardless of how i pay for it. I would like to be able to limit the doctors malpractice liability, by my choice, in exchange for a reduced cost of service. I think this would promote some healthy competition for doctors.
I would also like to have every insurer required to charge the same cost to everyone that they insure (this can be teared by deductible and doctor liability, or limits on treatment costs), and require them to except everyone without any prerequisites, and have no control over the doctors that i want. I think this would promote some healthy administrative cost reductions from the insurers.
Both of these together would encourage the consumers to be healthy, doctors to cut procedure costs and insurers to cut administrative costs, which is what we want.
The end goal should be a that everyone can afford some level of healthcare, maybe with limited liability for malpractice and a high deductible, but would still be covered for most life threating things that they couldn't pay themselves. ultimately the country needs to realize that we cant afford to put everyone in the US on a dialysis machine when they get diabetes. someone is going to have to make the decision to let that person die, and i believe its up to that person to make that choice with the lifestyle that they live.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton