Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Can you tell a 15kHz sine wave from a 15kHz sawtooth wave? A CD can't, because there are only three samples per crest and almost every teenager can easily hear 15kHz.
Even a teenager cannot tell the difference between a 15kHz sine wave and a 15kHz sawtooth wave. The first harmonic of a 15kHz sawtooth wave above the fundamental frequency is at 30kHz. Please don't tell me that you believe that any human can hear frequencies that high.
Please make standard-compliant shell-scripts, use #!/bin/sh
Something in freetard-land is standard? Oh please, do tell. Which standard? Who has to follow the standard? If no one has to follow it, then it's not a standard. Freetard fail.
All standards are optional. By your logic, there are no standards.
In this particular case of using a hash-bang with
You telling your computer to fetch the data you have no license to and make a copy of it (in memory or on permanent storage) is a copyright violation. Like it or not.
Wait, are you telling me that the way my DVD buffers in vram before being displayed is illegal? Because it's technically copied into vram before being displayed
No, because the drive/software are licensed to do that. Try harder!
No, because copyright law explicitly allows this type of copying!
Not necessarily a bug, it could be just a way the memory is used, with data and instructions not being properly separated, then maybe you could access instructions by overwriting memory, and normal buffer overflow, but it doesn't have to be a bug, just lack of security features.
In my day (and I'm not that old) we would call that a bug.
Some courts have held that copying from a hard drive to RAM counts as a copy, for the purpose of copyright infringement. When you're already on the losing side for breach of contract, I wouldn't want to be on the side who may have to file potential appeals about copyright infringement.
Interesting, considering that copyright explicitly permits making copies of software as part of the installation/execution process. See USC chapter 1, section 117:
Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful
However, you would be in breach of the software license, so you would have to delete the iBook software from your machine, or else you would be liable for copyright infringement of their software.
Why would you be liable for copyright infringement on their software? You're not redistributing it or anything else prohibited by copyright law. At the most you'd be liable for breaking a contract (the EULA), but in the absence of the contract you have full rights, as far as copyright law is concerned, to use the software (copyright law doesn't cover the use of software, hence the name copyright).
As I recall, the MySQL server install is only free for non-commercial use. Read the license agreement. Non-profit may not mean non-commercial so check with your lawyer. I also recommend using postgresql. The online documentation (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/index.html) is great so no need to pay for any training. I last used postgresql four years ago for a GIS application.
I think you recall incorrectly. MySQL is licensed under the GNU GPL, which means it can be used for any purpose (the GPL covers only the redistribution, not the use, of software). Since the OP intends to use MySQL in-house, its license is irrelevant.
That's a good, concise distinction between the two.
For a while now I've maintained that EULA's (but not free software licenses because, as you pointed out, are different from EULA's) are bunk anyway, in the vast majority of cases. Copyright law explicitly grants to end users the right to make copies of software as necessary to use the software, so what other rights or permissions does an EULA grant to the end user? If you (as an end user) don't agree to the EULA, then you can still legally use the software and are not bound by any of its terms and conditions*. Requiring the user to accept the terms before installing the software is merely a technical hurdle, not a legal one.
* Copying and distributing software is covered by copyright, so an EULA doesn't add any protection in that area that isn't already in law.
No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.
Not entirely. The EULA (that is, the GPL) is why I can make copies of my Linux install CDs and give them to friends. It is legal and it is not piracy because of the "EULA". You don't have to be a developer for this to apply to you.
You're stating the exact same thing as the parent you replied to. What are you doing when you "make copies of my Linux install CDs and give them to friends"? You're DISTRIBUTING it. The GPL (which is not a EULA because it doesn't apply to the end-user but to anyone distributing it) gives permission to distribute the software with a few conditions on such distribution.
Whereas with the EULA that comes with Windows, no such right is granted and doing that would be illegal piracy and could land you in court.
Even in the absence of an EULA, it's still illegal. (Of course, an EULA almost invariably does not grant the user any additional rights (eg, to use the software) beyond what they already had in the absence of the EULA. But I'll save that discussion for another time.)
As a Linux outsider, it seems that the OSS community is hostile to people who want to make their living developing apps. It looks like support is an acceptable way to make a living, but being paid for the software you programmed is not.
Dick Stallman, better known as RMS, does not speak for all of us.
Even RMS is not opposed to people being paid for writing software. Employees at Redhat, Google, and many other companies are paid to write free software, and neither RMS nor the GNU GPL are opposed to that. Don't you think that the GPL would restrict selling software or being paid for writing software if RMS were opposed to it? It doesn't, and he is not.
Welcome to the year of the linux desktop, where stuff breaks if you don't keep everything local. If you remove structure it is really hard to get it back if not impossible. It isn't hard to maintain that structure, but apparently many many programmers don't even bother with the output from or input to autoconf/automake whatever. This isn't a problem with the filesystem hierarchie, but with programmers that don't even know how the tools of their choice works. The 'user' isn't even using $PATH anymore: Programs land in a database and/or menu and are launched by click.
Last time I checked, most of my shortcuts that are "launched by click" don't specify the full path to the executable. Take a shortcut to Firefox as an example. The command is just "firefox" (plus possibly some switches and options). When I click on the shortcut, the underlying system (Gnome or whatever) searches the PATH environment variable for that executable and runs the first instance that it finds, in the same way a shell would do (of course, Gnome technically is a shell too). This means if I install a different version of Firefox under
I hope people will start to remember why such a structrure was introduced and keep the old functionality. My last personal oh crap moment came when debian changed their libc and people could no longer write to directories they only had group write rights to. How about regression tests?
How would a change in the libc affect whether users can write to directories? The C library doesn't determine file/directory access; if it did, it would be extremely easy for a program to get around file permissions by using a different C library, or by not using a C library at all. It sounds like either the permissions or groups changed (see
F-Spot, Shotwell, and Darktable
Compared to Lightroom. Like a tricycle compared to a reliable Ferrari. Give me a break.
It's more like comparing a family sedan to a Ferrari (which relatively few people can afford). They're reasonably priced (free!) and have all the basic features needed for PERSONAL photo management. Besides, what CRITICAL features are these photo managers, combined with other software like Rawstudio, missing that Lightroom has (for personal use, mind you)? It can't be noise reduction; Rawstudio has decent noise reduction. Lens correction? Rawstudio has that too. It can't be ease of use either; Rawstudio Shotwell, and F-Spot are all pretty easy to use.