Re: apt-get joke
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:49:18PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 04:57:39PM +1000, Rich Healey wrote:
> > Owen Townend wrote:
> > > On 25/05/2008, Sjoerd Hiemstra <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 25 May 2008 03:11:05 +1000 Owen Townen wrote:
> > >> > On 24/05/2008, Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
> apt-get -b source wife
>
> is nice because you're not getting the binary... whatever that means,
> but instead the source code required which can be easily
> modified. THen you can build, test, modify to your heart's
> desire. Though what you do with the builds that you don't want is a
> problem. I'm sure glad my mk1mod0 wife doesn't read this
> list... Though I'd not trade her for any flashy features that may come
> in newer versions...
Actually, since apparently one in five human genes is patented in the
US, you may be breaking copyright if you use apt-get to get the source.
To get around the patents, you'd have to go back in time and get two
people to make your (to them, future) wife the old-fashioned pre-patent
way. Of course, they'd have to brain-wash her so that by the time the
present comes along, she will forgo all others and wait for (anticipate)
and settle for you.
:)
Some of us believe that this happens already on our behalf and we get a
better half upon which we can't apt-get update or upgrade.
LOVE
YOU
WIFE
(remember that from The Abyss?)
Doug.
Reply to: