Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... (Score 1) 739

by SharpFang (#47555975) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Yes. We are restricting your freedom to restrict freedoms of others.
In particular, we are imposing a very small restriction, which prevents you from imposing arbitrarily large restrictions on others.

Are you going to cry foul that the government is restricting your freedom to force people into slavery?

Comment: Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... (Score 2) 739

by SharpFang (#47547845) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

You're calling 'more liberal' 'more free'.
Doesn't work like that. How free is OS X (based upon BSD-licensed software)?

BSD is very permissive - to the point of permitting software being based on it ceasing to be free.

GCC is more restrictive, assuring both the license and the source spreads "virally" with the program, so the program never ceases to be free.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 739

by SharpFang (#47547809) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Amen to that.

Professionalism is primarily doing your job correctly.

Stuff like good behavior, dress code or good relations are all secondary to that.

If you lack in the latter cases, you may be in for a mild reprimand. If you regularly fuck up the former - oh well, Linux is unable to fire a GCC developer, so he goes for the next best thing in that situation.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 739

by SharpFang (#47547791) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Without root privleges, and with properly set up security?
Because of course there are things like 'drivers in the userspace' where the user can create a blocking function where one that's supposed to return immediately should go, and obviously these can hardlock the kernel. But you need root to do that.

Comment: Re:Recent allegations... (Score 1) 210

Let's imagine a mod for your_newest_game: giving it anisotropic antialiasing x4.
In your game, you can enter "Options", click "Graphics", "Advanced", and drag the anisotropic filtering slider to "x4". Then click "Apply" and it's saved in a config file in the game directory.
Meanwhile, the mod finds the configh file and changes the line that reads "GFX_Anisotropic_Filtering=0" to 4.

Would you agree that's rather silly, considering this is within skill of about every user?

Well, now remove the option from game menu. Pack the game files with an obscure compression program.
It took some smart modder to figure out the compression program and be able to create an automated tool that applies modifications inside the archive - without need to repack the multi-gigabyte archive. He released the tool, and another one that allows you to browse the game files, as if they were unpacked.

Now someone else finds the config file, and uses the program to change "GFX_Anisotropic_Filtering=0" to 4 within the archive. Anyone with access to the tools can do this. The actual modification of the game is completely trivial. It's just that even most trivial tweak to the game must be packaged in the same, complex tool as a mod.

Comment: Re:Recent allegations... (Score 1) 210

Actually - not so much "modders" as "tweakers". Back in the day, it was editing an .ini file, and what they do is nothing else. They don't add external shaders, they don't add or replace any content, they just enable content that is there, in game, disabled by settings. The only reason this is done through mods and not plain config file edit is that the config file is buried within proprietary archive of the game, and can be modified only through a mod.

Comment: Re:Enlightenment (Score 1) 611

by SharpFang (#47111261) Attached to: Which desktop environment do you like the best?

I truly found Enlightenment - at least the early version - ridiculously cumbersome.
Imagine this: you stop your mouse cursor over any UI element and a tooltip about that element appears. Reasonable? Not quite. the desktop is considered an UI element, and if you leave the cursor anywhere over it, it opens a tooltip. With rich borders and description of every single action you can perform by clicking, right-clicking, shift-clicking etc - the tooltip was the size of your average terminal window, and "always on top" meaning it covered a sizable chunk of the screen. You'd have to carefully "park" the cursor over some inactive area, because just leaving it around opened huge tooltips obscuring the content.

What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

Working...