Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software

Catching up with Wine 229

Posted by CmdrTaco from the now-isn't-that-strange dept.
An anonymous reader writes "TransGaming's announcement of the availability of WineX 3.0 got a lot of pixel dust, but that wasn't the only recent news about WINE. The Microsoft monopoly also reached out to touch the project when Whil Hentzen, a leading proponent of Visual FoxPro (VFP) development on Linux, was contacted by an Microsoft manager and told it was a violation of the VFP EULA to run it on Linux." I guess thats one way to stop emulation. update Oh well, its a dupe. Whatever, it gives people something to complain about I guess ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Catching up with Wine More

Catching up with Wine

Comments Filter:

  • This story is a duplicate. (Score:3, Informative)

    by thesolo ( 131008 ) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:10AM (#5780281) Homepage
    This was posted yesterday afternoon, right here:
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/21/20 45200&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=125 [slashdot.org].

  • Stop Emulation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:12AM (#5780293)
    But but but..
    Wine
    Is
    Not an
    Emulator

    ????

    • WINE is also not a properly licensed MS OS. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:25AM (#5780370)
      Some of the EULAs require that the software be run on a fully licensed microsoft operating system. IIRC some of the EULAs even go as far as to require that you access the software *from* a fully licensed microsoft operating system.

      Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like. Towel boy.

      • Re:WINE is also not a properly licensed MS OS. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:32AM (#5780405)
        Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like

        No, they say you can't use it anyway you want. Whether or not that is legally enforceable is another question.

        • "Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like"

          No, they say you can't use it anyway you want. Whether or not that is legally enforceable is another question.

          They go a lot further, and say you can't even talk about how to use it in a particular way, of which they disapprove.

          Pure lawyer chill. Say, it's great to see how well the DoJ's remedies are working.
        • No, they say you can't use it anyway you want. Whether or not that is legally enforceable is another question.

          IANAL.

          I would bet that these tying clauses might be illegal Microsoft has an acknowledged monopoly in one area and this may make it less than enforceable (because it would be a way of protecting their monopoly). Of course, follow at your own risk but if I really liked Microsoft dev software that much, I would run it on Linux.
      • What about VMWare which lets me install windows and run it inside linux?
        What about VirtualPC which lets me run windows on my powerbook?
        Those aren't even technically emulators for windows. VMWare is a virtual machine emulator: it simply lets you boot an opearing system inside another. It doesn't have to be Windows. Likewise VirtualPC is an x86 emulator. I could just as soon install BeOS in VirtualPC last i checked. And now the final response, WINE (as we all should know WINE Is Not an Emulator, it's a
      • IANAL, but I do keep up with court cases; AFAIK there are very few valid EULAs (which appear solely online, BTW). Since the license is not presented to me until after the exchange of money for product, the doctrine of "First Sale" trumps many of the onerous "can't do that" clauses in EULAs. (See Softman v. Adobe [freerepublic.com].) When the fair use copying (to include space-shifting) is included, one can argue that an EULA is not required for use of software, despite the fact that copying or stated agreement-implying actions may take place. Since I bought the product to use it, my use of the product is not consent to an agreement (likewise, my exercise of fair use space shifting does not imply consent); therefore, since I have neither clearly stated an agreement to the license nor do I believe the EULA listed by boxed software (neither print nor digital) is valid, I do not feel bound by their conditions. (My actions are instead regulated by traditional copyright law, which still forbids redistrobution, modification, and multiple simultanious users.)

        Even were the above false, VFP is produced by Microsoft. I would argue that this clause represents illegal (monopolistic) tying of the application product to Microsoft's operating systems.

      • Re:WINE is also not a properly licensed MS OS. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:35AM (#5781386)
        This isn't about a EULA.

        The problem is in order for this guy to get FoxPro to run under WINE he had to copy system DLLs from Windows.

        It's a pure copyright violation.
      • Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like

        Sure I can. What are they going to do about it? What are *you* going to do about it? Whine? It won't change anything on my end. Well, I'll get a laugh out of the idea that some individual, or group of individuals, or corporation thinks it can scare me with a completely unenforceable contract or piece of legislation, but other than that nothing will come of it....

        Max
    • yes, and

      SLAshdot
      Seldom
      Has
      Dupes
      On a
      Topic

    • more like this (Score:3, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 )
      It's more like they decided not to call it a "WINdows Emulator", but anyone can see that it is.

      You will have a hard time convincing anyone that they should not be able to use the software they purchased under another OS. Monkeyshines like this from Microsoft are just another good reason to not make the purchase in the first place. I got my junky old win98 sitting in the corner and it is rarely used.

      • (a) Its not an emulator because it does not have to emulate anything, when you run a windows program its the actually program doing its thing. Relevant Example: Freebsd does not have a Linux Emulator, it has Linux binary compatibility much like how Wine works.

        (b) Doesn't Oracle say something like you can't run Oracle for Linux on any other operating system (mainly to stop people from running it on FreeBSD)? I remember this the case a few years ago...

        -dk

  • Life EULA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lexcyber ( 133454 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:12AM (#5780299) Homepage
    There is in the life EULA a section about not beeing a prick against your fellow humans. I think working at MS violates it.


    Christ.... It is a sick sick world when you 1. pay many dollars for your software 2. after paying many dollars, not allowed to use it in new innovative ways.

    • Re:Life EULA (Score:3, Funny)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 )
      Forunately, I never pay for software. Or books. Or movies. Or games. Or music. Thank god for p2p :)

      • Re:Life EULA (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kombat ( 93720 )
        Now that's something to be proud of. I like the smiley you put at the end, too, as if being a theif is funny. Let's see if you're still laughing when your car is stolen. You see, I never pay for cars. Or food. Or gas.

        Question though - assuming you eventually leave elementary school, where's the money to pay you going to come from if everyone is like you, and is just stealing everything? Who's going to make new movies, computer games, or CDs if everyone is just stealing them online, like you do?

        Bah,

        • Re:Life EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

          by __past__ ( 542467 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:12AM (#5780674)
          God, how many times do we have to hear this stupid argument again.

          Copying is not stealing. If you steal my car, I cannot drive it any more. If I copy a song, the original owner still can listen to it. Even if in both cases the victim sufferes financial losses, they are different - if I burn your house down, I'm still not a thief, even if you'd loose lots of money and other property because of it.

          Not that "filesharing" would be legal, it's just that modern legal systems are advanced enough to feature more than one kind of crime.

          • You're argument is flawed in that your examples are all physical objects. If I owned a car, found a way to easily duplicate it verbatim and then started giving those duplicates away I would be denying the car manufacturer money that is rightly theirs. I'd probably also get sued to high heaven for trade secret infringement look-n-feel copyright infringement, and a whole host of other infringements. It takes money to conceive, promote, build, and market objects, be their cars, boats, books, software, whateve
            • I completely agree with everything you wrote, except for the last-but-one sentence (well, not that completly - let's say I consider it a valid point of view). I didn't say that breaking copyright is something good, or even tolerable - just that it's not theft, just like murder or selling drugs is not theft.

              And I think the difference matters if we are to discuss such matters seriously, which unfortunatly neither of the involved sides seem to want most of the time.

            • You're argument is flawed in that your examples are all physical objects. If I owned a car, found a way to easily duplicate it verbatim and then started giving those duplicates away I would be denying the car manufacturer money that is rightly theirs.

              I'd question whether the money in my wallet is "rightly theirs" if they're not paying for the material to make those new cars. Copying only steals a potential dollar, a planned dollar. I, the hypothetical Bikke the Car Pirate, never agreed to be a potential m
            • If I owned a car, found a way to easily duplicate it verbatim and then started giving those duplicates away I would be denying the car manufacturer money that is rightly theirs.

              What the fuck?? Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby?

              I'm so flabbergasted by this sentence that I can't even think of a coherent response to it! Excuse me while I weep for the future of my country.
          • Copying is not stealing.

            In this case, it's theft of value. A piece of software it not a tangible item (like a car), but it does provide value, and you're suggesting that this value should be provided free and clear of any compensation- a notion with which I strongly disagree.
        • I never pay for online entertainment, and it's all legal. I don't watch movies online. Music: check out etree [etree.org]. Books: check out Project Gutenberg [promo.net]. Games: check out nethack [nethack.org]. Software: keep reading this site.

          Most of my entertainment does come in the "real" world though, and does cost money.

        • Regardless of whether stealing is OK or not, the truth is that money for apps comes mostly from corporations, not from individuals. I mean, come on, how many of the average income people honestly have enough money for 3DStudio MAX, or even Photoshop? Those are very expensive programs. Even microsoft Office is a lot of money. Most people just use whatever came with their computer, I.e. Word 6.0 or microsoft works, and paint (Or Paintshop pro! What a great cheap program! I love that program.) Only if you

    • Re:Life EULA (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
      1. pay many dollars for your software

      That's how they rape consumers who don't understand the deal - you aren't really 'buying' the software, like you buy a box of soap - only a 'license' to use it in certain ways, like renting a car. The software is still the property of the Msft Corp. It's like XYZ Oil Company also leases cars, and part of the contract is that you will only use XYZ brand gasoline in it, and they can test for 'foreign' gas and charge you a fine if you put ABC gas in (even tho it works ju

      • Re:Life EULA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:02AM (#5780584) Homepage
        Except, of course, that whole license crap is a load of horseshit. It's looks like a sale, it's treated as a sale, it's LISTED as a fucking sale in FCC documents, it's a sale. It's not a licenseing. There's no license. There's no signatures (EULA dialogs don't meet federal standards for electronic signatures by a long shot). There's no contract (there has to be consideration in contracts, and there's none in an EULA). If they want to license software, they need to do it right - and that means that every single person who buys software from you needs to be offered an agreement, agree to it, SIGN it (copies for both of you), and THEN, and only then, gets the software.

        The commercial software industry is fucked up. It wants excemptions from responsibility that would be the envy of any other industry, while at the same time making it's own laws about the allowed use of it's products - with no chance for competition, because you're (supposedly) bound by the agreement AFTER you've paid! It's a travesty. At some point, there WILL be a shakedown and this sort of nonsense will either go away or be codified in real law - at which point we'll all be felons, and the bottom will drop out of the personal computer industry - because at that point we're essentially allowing anyone who sells software to write law, and you WILL start seeing things like EULAs that require you to give up your children.

        Don't think that all the lawyers at MS don't know this, either. It's why they consistently shy away from cases involving EULAs, either winning them on other points or settling out of court. They KNOW that if push comes to shove, the concept of the EULA as a legally binding document can't stand.

        Here's something to consider - there's not 1 single thing that makes it illegal for you to bypass an installer and just avoid an EULA entirely. Not even the DMCA - although you'd (probably) run afoul of it if you tried to distribute tools that did such a thing. Not that an installer is a copy protection device by any stretch of the imagination, but there you go.

        • There's no contract (there has to be consideration in contracts, and there's none in an EULA).

          I agree with the rest of your post, but the basis for the legality of EULAs is that you are creating a copy of the work when you install it (or copy it into memory), I think. In other words, you have to agree to the EULA, or you are infringing on their copyright - it's the same way the GPL works if you consider installing software to be copying it (I don't).

          So, that is the consideration right there - you

          • Copyright law makes it specifically clear that copying neccesary for use is not infringment(as it should not be). I can't cite the exact code but I'm sure you'll find it if you look. It was added in 1977, so while EULAs before then may have had some legal power then (not likely) they don't now.

            I suppose I should clarify that this is US law I'm talking about :P

          • Re:Life EULA (Score:3, Insightful)

            by arkanes ( 521690 )
            Oh, and the GPL makes it even MORE clear - it's not copying, it's distribution that's affected by the GPL. In fact, the gist of copyright law is also distribution, not just copying - I can make all the copies of a book I want, as long as I don't give them to anyone else.
          • Acceptance of the GPL isn't required to use software. The only time you have to accept the GPL is if you want to distribute GPL'd software (either the original or a derived version). Even then, you don't have to accept it because of an EULA; you have to accept it because if you don't, you have no right to distribute the software (since in absense of the GPL or any other license grant, copyright reverts to "All Rights Reserved" status).

            • I think that both you and arkanes have misunderstood me. I know how the GPL works. I was specifically referring to the fact that, under the axiom that installing == infringement on copyright, the EULA has the same basic mechanism as the GPL - it grants rights in return for consideration on your part.

              I'm not trying to argue that the licenses are the same, just using the GPL as an example that people might be more familiar with.

              • I see what you're saying now, but I don't think it works successfully for an EULA in the same way it does for the GPL. For it to work for an EULA, you would have to be commiting a default copyright violation by using the work without a license; however, you're not, since your are not making any copies, and only are in possession of one copy that was given to you by an authorized distributor. The GPL can work because it prevents you from making further copies (which invoke copyright law), but in absence of
          • > I agree with the rest of your post, but the basis for the
            > legality of EULAs is that you are creating a copy of the
            > work when you install it (or copy it into memory), I think.

            Nah, you can make as many copies of a copyrighted work as you please for your OWN personal use. And there was a special addendum/clarification to copyright law regarding computers, backups and working copies back in the late 70s. (Not being a lawyer type I can't quote an official cite or know now many times the congressc

        • and you WILL start seeing things like EULAs that require you to give up your children

          I've seen this at the top of an EULA (quote from memory so it's probably not completely accurate:

          It's important that you read this, especially the part about your firstborn child

          I think it was for the crossover plugin. I laughed so hard I almost splurted coffe all over my keyboard. And for once I actually read the complete EULA to see if there was any more fun in there, sadly it wasn't

      • ...That's how they rape consumers who don't understand the deal - you aren't really 'buying' the software, like you buy a box of soap - only a 'license' to use it in certain ways, like renting a car...

        Hmmm. Perhaps in the future there may be some truth to the notion that you can't buy beer, only rent it.

  • Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:14AM (#5780311)
    Make the software capable of emulating VFP, but leave it up to the user to violate the EULA. Doesn't the user "agree" to the EULA anyway? The people involved in making the emulator have nothing to do with the end user breaking the EULA.
    • he was going to demonstrate it, thus, he would have been doing it in public.

      he should have just said that 'fuck you mister' and done it still, by some loophole, like, run a pc virtualisation software inside windows that he would have run linux on to run that software in wine. the eulas aren't fair, why should one _NOT_ read them like the devil rtfm's?
  • This Story Is Not New
  • ..by telling him he is an idiot, and he doesn't understand it.

    Or by calling your software X IS _NOT_ Y, and people still call it Y.

    Again, WINE is translating windows system calls to X11 equivalents.
    • emulate Audio pronunciation of emulate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-lt)
      tr.v. emulated, emulating, emulates

      1. To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
      2. To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
      3. Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achiev

  • What monopoly? (Score:3, Informative)

    by dsz ( 93759 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:15AM (#5780320) Homepage
    Hmm. If that's not a big hunk of evidence in an anti-trust case against Microsoft, I'm not sure what would be.


    But seriously - here's a perfect example of the software-side of Microsoft preventing other companies from competing with the OS-side. How is it possible that they're still pulling this crap after years and years?


    Bah! Is it even worth getting riled up anymore?

  • From comparing the two emulators, I find them to be slow and cumbersome when using apps on them. I recommend that people use a dual boot system, or have two machines on a switch box.
    • Hmm, depends on the `emulator' I suppose. I use win4lin on my laptop (an AMD K6-2 475 with only 89MB of RAM) and it runs like a charm. Of course, I don't open a lot of windows to avoid swapping but Delphi for instance is quite fast in an emulated windows 98-session.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Not a dupe come on.. give taco credit (Score:5, Funny)

    by Monofilament ( 512421 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:16AM (#5780325) Homepage Journal
    I mean look.. the icon on the right is clearly shows that this current article is not about wine.. (i.e. there is no Wine Icon).. and is really about the quip about MS using EULA violations to stem emulators of windows. The CD icon must mean comedy or something.. i'm not too sure.. not about WINE though.. definately not.

    Ok maybe its just taco feeling his article post rate was lowering and need to throw something in.
  • just my 2 cents :) I never wanted to join the bash-taco-for-putting-up-a-dupe-dept., but this time it was just too tempting...

    the german-halfgeek-in-sweden-reading-slashdot-dept.
    • > -- All sentences beginning with "All" are wrong. Even this one, because it's correct. Paradox?

      No, it's not a true paradox, just a false statement. All sentences beginning with "All" are wrong, makes the current sentence false. Thus: Not All sentences beginning with "All" are wrong. Which is true. If it were a paradox the false version of the statement would make the statement true, which would then make it false, etc.

      However the point can be made that if you negate the "wrong" instead of the "all" th
  • Slashdot articles having anything to do with MS have been heavily..well, slashdotted. Coupla' days back, I posted something to the Oregon bill stuff, and within 5 minutes, there was a databse crash at Slashdot...took a whole hour before the site was up, and then way too slow, as well.\

    Interestingly, my post which was a reply to a 'Good' post, mostly made of styrofoam peanuts, got relegated 5 pages down, by clever manipulative modding! Getting very curious these days. Should be interesting to see how long t

  • Wowza (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) <evanNO@SPAMmisterorange.com> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:25AM (#5780372) Homepage
    Is it me, or have more dupes been posted in the past 3 months than in the past 4 years? I'm not trolling, I'm just generally curious if the editors actually read their publication (if it can be considered a "publication" or site or whatever).

    This story [slashdot.org] was big news, at least, I thought so. I thought it was insightful and telling (especially of MS monopolistic practices), and that it got a lot of (deserved) attention, even more so that it's been on /. But now, another dupe, and CmdrTaco is so oblivious to this it's really just sad.

    It's okay if you don't agree. I can take the -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll if you wish. I can hear the karma sizzling...
    • Anecdotally, I think you're probably correct.

      I suggested some time ago that the editors do something useful, like change the departmental listings to something informative, and that was ignored (not that I expected them to give a shit, really, but... you don't want to troll before at least contributing something useful).

      The editors continue to hope that subscriptions will go up to make some money for OSDN - the problem is, if they can't be bothered to check the site for simple errors like these, how do th
    • But now, another dupe, and CmdrTaco is so oblivious to this it's really just sad.

      You want to know what's sad? Really really sad? The amount of mindshare devoted to trashing slashdot for posting duplicate stories.

      This is your favorite technical web site. Admit it. It is. Mine too. Forgive the occasional dupe, k?

      Your comment itself is a duplicate - it's been posted at least 10 times for every duplicate the editors post. That's what's sad.
      • Your comment itself is a duplicate - it's been posted at least 10 times for every duplicate the editors post. That's what's sad.
        ... And *still* the editors say nothing about improving the site to catch these kinds of errors. Despite all the complaints. Despite the repetitive nature of the complaints, even.

        You might forgive the occasional duplicate; I would too. But as the parent poster pointed out, it's getting worse, not better, because the editorial board of Slashdot does not care.

        Look, I'm not a geek
      • This is your favorite technical web site. Admit it. It is. Mine too. Forgive the occasional dupe, k?

        You're absolutely right it is. That's why I strive for the editors of said site to care about it as much as I do. Considering there's only so many stories that can be posted per day, a dupe represents a missed opportunity.

        And to continue...

        Your comment itself is a duplicate - it's been posted at least 10 times for every duplicate the editors post. That's what's sad.

        Yes, it is sad that people must conti

    • I can take the -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll if you wish. I can hear the karma sizzling...

      Don't worry.. if your karma gets burned too badly, just cut'n'paste some 5-rated comments from the original story, they're sure to get modded up again in the dupe story. Presto! Your karma is restored!

  • violations? I'm violated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:27AM (#5780382) Journal
    was contacted by an Microsoft manager and told it was a violation of the VFP EULA to run it on Linux

    Isn't poroduct tieing a violation of anti-trust laws? Not that that's ever stopped Microsoft, of course.
  • ...I really must WINE about how this post emulates yesterday's [slashdot.org] post.

  • Hmmmm (Score:3, Troll)

    by TheGreenLantern ( 537864 ) <thegreenlntrn@yahoo.com> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:43AM (#5780458) Homepage Journal
    Maybe if we repeat this horrible, horrible news about Microsoft being mean and nasty, someone will actually give a rats ass about Visual FoxPro?

    .........

    Nope, guess not.

  • Connectix? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Didn't Microsoft purchase Connectix [connectix.com] a windows emulat^H^H^H^H^H^H Virtualised Environment. Hmm something seems strange if you ask me
  • The others:
    1. MS will continually introduce gratuitous and non-documented changes to the APIs to keep it from being fully functional

    2. Even if it worked perfectly, it just lets you continue to give money for applications to MS and to keep your data in closed formats dictated by Microsoft.
    For these reasons, WINE is ultimately losing proposition IMHO. It's not the way to go Open Source. The criticial apps (browser, office suite) now exist in mature forms in open source.

  • Codeweavers got Access working too... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yoda2 ( 522522 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:00AM (#5780571)
    link [greatmindsworking.com]

  • Subscription? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nochops ( 522181 )
    update Oh well, its a dupe. Whatever, it gives people something to complain about I guess ;)

    Oh yeah...and please, pretty please with a cherry on top....please subscribe to Slashdot. We need your money in order to bring you these wonderful posts again, and again, and again....

  • if only we could apply those lessons learned to /. , perhaps we wouldn't spend so much time reading the results of /. emulating /. of the past week.

  • Oh well, it's a dupe. (Score:3, Funny)

    by danielpavel ( 243201 ) <daniel.pavel@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:37AM (#5780919) Homepage

    Whatever, it gives people something to complain about I guess ;)

    Yeah, like complaining about it being a dupe...
    Oh, wait, was my post self-redundant?

    -Daniel.

  • Visual Fox Pro??? Please!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by ayjay29 ( 144994 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:18AM (#5781238)
    It MUST be a double bluff. MS want to create a stink about it so MORE people will run Visual Fox Pro on Lenux, thus delaying the development of several OSS projects.

    True Story:
    I was at a MS seminar, and a MS employee was presenting a demo on .net and data access. One guy asked a question starting:

    "I'm a developer with Visual Fox Pro..."

    The MS guy just replied:

    "I'm sorry."

  • "There never have been any repeat postings!"

    TheInformationMinister.com [theinforma...nister.com] Simply hysterical.

  • Off-topic On-topic post. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Karn ( 172441 )
    What's interesting is how so many people spend so much time and effort bitching about duplicates when it's so much easier to just ignore it. Anyone have any theories on why people act this way?

    The only theory I can come up with is that it gives some people a feeling of superiority when they point out errors of people who they consider to be 'above them' (Slashdot editors), and in an effort to try to cover up their true intentions (which is to inflate their ego), they make claims that it is just *sooo*
    • (Just Kidding.)

      No I agree with you. The net is full of really dumb people who can't really seem to see the forest for the trees. Hell, I pop onto slashdot every couple of days, at most, and so I never even SEE that the article is duplicated.

      Hell, go onto Yahoo news, or FARK, you'll see duplicates right there on the home page. I don't hear people bitching. Fuck, how times have you see the same commericial play multiple times during a station break?

      These are probably the same numbnuts who walk through a

  • Here's how you do it.

    Get a text search package.

    Load the text of all stories into the search system.

    Use the text of a potential story as a query into the system. Give additional weight to recent stories. Make this weighting function exponential, (1 - recency)^2, or something.

    If a story passes a certain threshold weight, you probably have a dupe.

    Easy.
  • Best way to get stories actually posted -- submit a duplicate!
  • That you can't run FoxPro on Wine is such bullshit. This Microsoft complaint against Hentzen shows as much as anything else does that they indeed do abuse thier OS monopoly to affect the products, a key argument that they denied in the antitrust trial.

    Personally, I think he should just ignore M$, the claim is bigus. But on the chance that he doesn't have the billions it would take for an honest man to stand up against these crooks in court, the solution here is obvious. FoxPro wasn't always a Microsoft pr

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Close