SELinux is not needed for sudo to work (sudo was created about 18 years before SELinux). And "sudo -i" is preferable to "sudo su", by the way.

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.

All standards are optional. By your logic, there are no standards.

In this particular case of using a hash-bang with /bin/sh, I don't know of any actual written standard, but it's pretty well-known for the sake of portability (and POSIX defines the shell language for sh, not bash).

That address is a link-local address. The number following the percent sign is the zone index, which specifies which network interface the address is on. If it were not there, the address may be ambiguous with multiple interfaces (imagine if two hosts on two different network segments had the same IP address; neither host can talk to the other but the machine you're on can talk to both through separate interfaces). I don't think IPv4 handles this case at all. Indeed, RFC 3927 discusses address ambiguity but provides no real solution for it. IPv6 provides a solution in the form of zone indices.

No, because copyright law explicitly allows this type of copying!

In my day (and I'm not that old) we would call that a bug.

I'd consider those "ads" to be more accurately described as "credits". If an organization writes a driver (or pays someone else to do so), don't you think they are allowed to be credited?

Interesting, considering that copyright explicitly permits making copies of software as part of the installation/execution process. See USC chapter 1, section 117:

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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 /usr/local/bin, the system then runs that version instead, just as it should (because /usr/local/bin comes before /usr/bin in PATH).

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 /etc/groups), or SE Linux stuff (which I don't believe is necessary for most users) is getting in the way.

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.