People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”. One of its criteria says “The license must allow modifications and derived works” which this license does not allow.
People often use the OSI’s Open Source Definition when using the term “open source”. One of its criteria says “The license must allow modifications and derived works” which this license does not allow.
Ctrl-Shift-N restores closed windows
Sorry, i said it was a mersenne prime, then realized it wasnt, so edited it and deleted it. It was a mess
That is what it means. Any detail in the waveform that is not captured by a 48kHz sample rate is due to frequencies that humans can’t hear.
Yeah, it’s like saying I can “compress” a png of the Mona Lisa to just the string “Mona Lisa” because I have a database of art.
Now my question is, how should I deal with these pacnew files? should I always remove them, always replace them, always read them and decide?
Always read them and decide what to do. However, what to do usually isn’t too remove or replace them, but to update them with the changes instead. Most text editors have a way of looking at a diff of two files. This will highlight the differences and you can decide based on the individual changes (maybe it’s something you purposefully changed, maybe it’s a change to the default). If you use vim
, vimdiff
will do this.
I’d rather not read these things everyday, it’s a bit boring, so I hope there’s a better solution. How do you deal with these?
After you make your decisions on what to do, delete the pacnew
, otherwise you’ll keep getting messages about it. They don’t get updated all that often (except mirrorlist
, I usually just delete that and run reflector
every once in a while).
cd
without arguments takes you to $HOME
, so it’s the same as cd ~
You might want to check out microMathematics Plus. I last used it a few years ago. I remember being impressed by it, but thought it was way overkill for something I’d need on my phone.
No, when talking about open source software, people typically refer to a definition along the lines of the Open Source Initiative’s Open Source Definition. To distinguish this from software that you can only see the source (but don’t have rights to copy and modify it), they’ll use the term Source Available Software.
I don’t really know about the software you guys were talking about, but the repositories I looked at used the MIT license, which is OSI approved. However, that might not be all of the code they use. It’s not uncommon for a company to open source a “base” version, but they deploy a version that’s altered from that (I’ve got no clue whether they do or don’t).