Make easy money dubai22 comments
Mcb seychelles forex rates
Oh wow, that one is going to be fun to watch. Building a container is more an admin job and could always be done privileged. I think docker build is anyway always privileged as it doesn't even have any capability options.
You and the KDE project way back when it published that response are being quite disingenuous here if not outright lying.
I'm glad it did because it lay bare the KDE project's troubling dishonesty. No, with kubuntu you cannot stay at the previous release. Not if last October you updated to Utopic with no indication what so ever of what was coming. And this is really silly. For one who is on utopic they are making it actively easier to preserve their productivity by upgrading to vivid and switching to unity or cinnamon than to keep Plasma 4 by reinstalling Trusty from scratch.
As a side note. If XXX makes a statement of usability and no significant regressions, I think it is a matter of clarity not to call yourself YXXX if you do not want to stick to such statement. Version numbers are version numbers. To claim that something is OK because it is called 5. To some this should have been called 5. For sure the situation is much better than for Plasma 4 that reached feature parity at about 4.
What one expects from a distribution is to never cause significant and gratuitous regressions and unfortunately kubuntu vivid does. Why would they go to KC in that case? That's called "making an example", or scapegoat. Sourceforge hasn't been a supporter of free software for years. Dice Holdings know it's over and are milking it for every last drop of revenue before shuttering it.
As I have said many times before, SourceForge is where open source projects go to die. DevShare, and now this sf-editor1 stunt, is just more evidence to support that point of view. They are now trying to monetize the rotting corpses of those dead and dying projects. The Firefox front-end is interesting: One could probably do some kind of binary patching as was already suggested , but this approach looks kinda fragile.
You can distribute binary packages, that's the GPL. By the GPL they cannot forbid or limit the redistribution of the package, otherwise they would lose the license to use and distribute the package themselves. I don't remember anything about granting permission to re-distribute that trademarked string.
I admit I'm not fond of reading the GPL again Kubuntu project must not associate the redistributed package with any of Canonical's trademark without proper permission. But of course if you produce a DVD and call it Kubuntu or you maintain servers repos and call them Kubuntu, then I would agree that this is you "associating it with the trademarks".
But there is no need to do that to exercise your rights granted by the GPL and redistribute the software. So I still think that calling the Kubuntu distro some other name without trademark implications would make Canonical's argument completely void. The newly named distro could contain original binary packages, because you don't associate them with the trademark. Of course Kubuntu-project might not want that, because changing the name might cause a loss in public awareness and popularity.
That's the value of a trademark. So they might chose to drop all support for any newly named project. Even if Jonathan Riddell has not been on Canonical payroll for a couple of years, I understood the Kubuntu project still uses Canonical resources As said before, I'm not here to make suggestions to projects I have not contributed that much otherwise either, I just try to understand the legal facts behind the issue.
As opposed to what I wrote in my previous comment, Kubuntu is not just risky to conflict with the Ubuntu trademark. Canonical has registered Kubuntu, too. So no room for interpretation, it's a clear case. Canonical owning Kubuntu trademark and Canonical providing resources for Kubuntu project are statements I read in some discussions on the matter yesterday.
They make sense to me, but I have not made any effort to verify them. While interesting numbers I don't think it is as bad in practice as probably the majority of Dockerfiles start with an equivalent to this line: Also curious that mercurial is installed in so many 'library' containers, that doesn't seem like software typically needed in containers. To me this indicates that their selection of containers may be scewed by a minority source with many more tags than the others.
Well usually when one tries to make the punishment private or secret that is as a consideration to the punished and not the punisher. And Jonathan in this case always have the ability to publicize his own punishment, which I guess was what happened here in practice, or at least with his consent.
Sure, the former can also be bad in extreme cases lynchings, largescale shunning etc but we are not talking the antebellum US South here. At least with SSH, folks can't snoop on the fact that you're being hacked. That would be great. Not long after that, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down because people would realize how terribly corrupt this government has become.
George Friedman thinks this is going to be "the century of America. We've losing in space. We're losing credibility everywhere else on the planet. And now, it seems quite possible we will be sold out to the corporate pigs who really run this place if the courts don't do the sensible thing. Maybe a few more cases like this will wake people up. So, yes, if neither the Supreme Court nor the Congress fixes this, maybe the rest of us will have to.