Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:KDE is really good now.. (Score 1) 105

> KDE has improved *greatly* since its 4.4.x days. It is a lot snappier, less buggy and doesn't clutter up your desktop like it used to.

[snip]

So, from the 4.0 days that made me curse it after how nice 3.5 was, I have to say, they have me hooked again.

4.0 is what made me ditch KDE. Now running gnome-based LinuxMint and loving it. I might try KDE again in a few years, but I was badly burnt by moving from 3.5.x to 4.0 so there will have to be a compelling reason to go back.

Comment Re:The will to be free (Score 1) 648

The letter isn't the issue - the issue is at the device should be at the absolute root of the file system. I don't care if you call the pen-drive G:, pendrive or bubblegumpopannoyingnamesomething, but don't put it somewhere that isn't *immediately* visible...

The only place where it is *immediately* visible is if it appears as an icon on the desktop or opens in a new file manager window as soon as you insert the storage medium. Both Windows and Linux (gnome/KDE) can be set up to do this.

In Windows, to find the drive letters I have to go to "My Computer" or something like that. In Linux, KDE and gnome both have an equivalent to "My Computer" that shows all mounted storage media.

Both are equally visible.

Comment Re:The will to be free (Score 1) 648

Aw, c'mon. Any user who has only used Linux systems will call the Windows method weird. At least the Linux FIlesystem Heirarchy is logical.

Bullshit. My computer file systems are based on the storage devices they're hosted on - the storage devices ARE the root of the system. How is making an imaginary / root directory and then putting the storage media in some folder more logical than directly showing the drives?

How is some random letter more logical than /media/pendrive or /media/dvd, which is where a pendrive or DVD get mounted automagically on any modern linux distro?

Science

Submission + - Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 writes: Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.
Android

Submission + - Pirated Android App Shames Freeloaders (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes: "A pirated version of an Android app is actually a Trojan that shames someone who installs it by sending an SMS message to all his/her contacts telling them of his/her piracy. The original app is called Walk and Text, and costs $2.10 in the Android Market. The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks. The pirated version is available from unofficial Android app markets, and once installed redirects the pirate to the legitimate app in the Android Market, while also sending the SMS message to the phone's entire contact list."

Comment Re:Good for US economy (Score 1) 617

I am opposed because it moves the burden of policing software licence compliance to businesses who may have little or no control over their overseas suppliers and who are not in the business of law enforcement.

It doesn't affect me personally. I live in New Zealand. In addition to my full time job (linesman for the local phone company) I also have a small organic market garden. Our accounts are done in OpenOffice running on Linux, so no compliance issues for us. In any case, we supply local supermarkets and do not export to the USA.

Comment Re:Good for US economy (Score 1) 617

Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.

I think there are similarities, namely the ones that I highlighted

This is where I have to disagree.

Scenario 1: I buy bolts from a manufacture that has stolen the raw materials (eg steel) in order to make the bolts.

Scenario 2: I buy bolts from a manufacture that uses stolen software to track their stock.

You are lumping these two scenarios together. In reality they are totally different.

Yes I agree I should return bolts made from stolen materials, but the second scenario is nothing at all like that. If you are the legal owner of said stock tracking software and you come to me demanding redress for the actions of the manufacturer, with whom my only relationship is buying bolts to use in my product, I think you can guess where I'd tell you to go. Any law that lets you go after me in the second scenario is lacking in common sense.

Comment Re:Good for US economy (Score 1) 617

And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith.

It would probably afford some possibilities for suing / reneging on payments to those foreign suppliers. If I purchase stolen goods, I still have to give them back when the police show up, but I can seek redress from the person that sold me those goods. If I were knowingly receiving stolen goods, then I am liable myself however.

Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.

And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.

You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?

I'm not sure if your lack of comprehension is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm saying that if Microsoft is going to sponsor a law protecting copyright holders, then there should not be exceptions in that law for certain classes of copyright holders.
I am not saying that Microsoft should sue GPL violators. I am saying that a Microsoft sponsored law change should not exclude GPL vendors from suing under the same circumstances that Microsoft can sue.

Comment Re:Considering how software licensing works curren (Score 1) 617

I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.

Except by over-licencing, buying more cover than you actually need.

If you're prepared to accept this, then laws such as this start to sound dangerously close to legalised extortion : "Nice company you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

Exactly.

Comment Re:"An offer you cannot refuse" gamut (Score 1) 617

How difficult is it to show that the software used is pirated or not? It is not like auditing thousands of pages of financial records. The company just has to show that it acquired a genuine license from Microsoft.

The law isn't that unreasonable

It would be more reasonable if the law provided the same protection to Open Source licence-holders.
So far none of the pro-microsoft comments on this article address this issue, which is adding weight to the astroturfing theory.
I'm not saying that you are astroturfing. I'm just waiting for your reply that you agree or disagree that Open Source licence-holders should also be protected. Just because I release software with an Open Source licence, doesn't mean you can mis-appropriate my code. Open Source licences have conditions too and the authors of the code retain their rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Working...