In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> writes: >> In comp.unix.solaris Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote: >>> I disagree with that, having compared them this morning. The first section >>> that I noticed had paraphrased (changed a few words here/there) in a page >>> of discussion. Since that was the _first_ section I turned to, it's likely >>> that there's more of it.
>> I started looking at it more systematically, and can see that what I noticed >> first was not an isolated case.
>> (considering how much time I should devote to proving my point ;-) > Can you be more specific (page numbers etc.)?
I simply started walking through the two, side-by-side. It helps that the chapter names also are similar...
In comp.unix.solaris Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >> Can you be more specific (page numbers etc.)? > I simply started walking through the two, side-by-side. It helps that > the chapter names also are similar...
To clarify somewhat, I started making a map to show the parts which are rephrased, their corresponding sections. A half hour's comparison got plenty of material; comparing the two books in detail would take a day.
>> This indicates not just a widespread use on renderfarms, and occasional, >> rare use on workstations, but that Linux is rather common both on the >> renderfarms *and* on workstations both. It certainly doesn't indicate that >> Irix is king, if anything, it indicates that Linux is now the de facto >> standard in Hollywood.
> Actually, what that indicates is that you have no first hand experience.
> What are you, an unfinished student of computer science? Or perhaps just > an enthusiast? Either way, it is evident you've never worked as a system > engineer or an animator in any movie studio.
> If you had experience, you wouldn't be pasting links. You people always > have the same modus operandi.
What a moron you are.
If he actually has firsthand experience then he is subject to NDA's and referencing anything concrete but links will get his ass FIRED.
Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> writes: > In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >> Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> writes:
>>> In comp.unix.solaris Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote: >>>> I disagree with that, having compared them this morning. The first section >>>> that I noticed had paraphrased (changed a few words here/there) in a page >>>> of discussion. Since that was the _first_ section I turned to, it's likely >>>> that there's more of it.
>>> I started looking at it more systematically, and can see that what I noticed >>> first was not an isolated case.
>>> (considering how much time I should devote to proving my point ;-)
>> Can you be more specific (page numbers etc.)?
> I simply started walking through the two, side-by-side. It helps that > the chapter names also are similar...
Page numbers please...
Dragan
-- Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Page numbers please...
For example, the one that first caught my eye (and once you see the pattern there's no need to ask for more):
Stevens 360, section 11.13 is rephrased in Teer starting bottom of page 504, 4 paragraphs
The wording of the final paragraph of section 11.13 sticks out, since it was not to my eyes (re)written by the same person (there's a shift in the type of idioms used).
Thomas Dickey <dic...@saltmine.radix.net> writes: > In comp.unix.solaris Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Page numbers please...
> For example, the one that first caught my eye (and once you see the pattern > there's no need to ask for more):
> Stevens 360, section 11.13 is rephrased in > Teer starting bottom of page 504, 4 paragraphs
> The wording of the final paragraph of section 11.13 sticks out, since it was > not to my eyes (re)written by the same person (there's a shift in the type of > idioms used).
Ah, terminfo vs termcaps. Is there a different way to describe that?
Dragan
-- Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
Kadaitcha Man wrote: > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *FOOM*
Next time you get an urge to do that, go to your local library instead, become a member, promptly borrow "Think and grow rich" by Dr. Napoleon Hill, and read it.
Drazen Kacar wrote: > However, if you sell me your car, would you still think that you'd have > the right to tell me how to use it, because it was once yours?
No, unless we make such a contract.
However, no vendor is going to sell you anything these days, if that is what you're alluding to. Sun doesn't sell you the OE, they license it to you. And so does everybody else, including Linux, even though "it doesn't come into effect unless you want to distribute".
Tim wrote: > Restricted deeds are common in real estate, so there's some precedent > for that.
Exactly. Except that restricted deeds are a fairly rare occurence in Croatia (barring communist times), so you might have to explain to him, in little more detail, as to how it works in Anglo-Saxon countries.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > The GPL doesn't restrict what you can modify nor does it tell you > how to modify the code. The GPL _only_ kicks in when you want > to copy and distribute modified or unmodified GPLed works.
Which I would define as usage. Or doesn't distribution of the product fall into one of the possible ways of using the product?
Rich Teer wrote: >>The GPL doesn't restrict what you can modify nor does it tell you >>how to modify the code. The GPL _only_ kicks in when you want >>to copy and distribute modified or unmodified GPLed works.
> In other words, the GPL DOES place restrictions on what an end user > may do, and by using a piece of GPLed software, one is implictely > agreeing to those terms and restrictions. Therefore Linux, as a GPLed > product (those bits that are GPLed, anyway), places restrictions on what > an end user may or may not do--restrictions that users implictely > agree to respect. Therefore, the statement that "Using Linux places > NO restrictions on end users" is false. QED.
That's what I thought, too. So, the whole notion of GPL not restricting users as to how they may use the software turned out to be one huge farce.
OK, since the whole point was a farce, is anybody from the Linux camp be so open minded as to give Solaris a chance?
