Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 March 26

= March 26 =

Freedom251
Are they being delivered? Aryan  ( है?) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Freedom 251 seems to suggest that it's scam of some kind. So...probably never. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Some sources confirm this: and . The red flags point to a massive scam. However, at first I thought it was a kind "cheap printer, expensive printer ink cartridges" pricing strategy.  After all, they could bundle other services to this smartphone like many other companies do. Indeed, they could even offer it for free, and recover the cost through the cell phone plan. --Scicurious (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gotten cell phones from TracFone during promotions for free (with minutes purchase) or for US$5. The minutes purchase can be as low as $7 a month/7 cents a minute, and included a smart phone with camera (I am amazed that Apple manages to sell smart phones for a hundred times more).  The $5 phone was an older flip phone.  Presumably these were phones they wanted to clear out of their inventory.  So, it's not impossible to make offers like Freedom251, at least in the US, but that doesn't mean this particular offer is legit. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there's an relationship with the FreedomPop cell phone company. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any link between these two, besides the name. I also couldn't find any indication that FreedomPop is a scam.Scicurious (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As our article states, they did have undisclosed fees, but they seem to have stopped doing that. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Open Source software and actually accessing the source
If someone releases software under an Open Source license, is he also forced to take care that the source is actually accessible? What happens if he uploads it to some platform but it gets deleted, for whatever reason? Would the license still be considered an Open Source license? Has the author the obligation to take care that the source is accessible? Or is it enough when the author does to try to block access to the source?--Scicurious (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should not confuse the copyright with the physical access to the source code. They are two orthogonal to each other concepts. Ruslik_ Zero 19:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The author of the software, who holds the copyright, is not obliged to comply with the terms of their own license. They could choose a license that forbids redistribution of binaries without source, and then never release the source, and the effect would be the same as if they'd just forbidden redistribution. If the software incorporates third-party libraries copyrighted by others, the author is obliged to follow their licensing terms, which might require distributing source code of the entire program, not just those libraries.
 * Whether a license is considered an open source license doesn't depend on how people use it. If you apply the GPL to software for which no source code is available, the GPL is still the same license it always was. -- BenRG (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The GPLV2 actually does not require giving public access to the code - if you don't distribute the source with the binary, one of the options is to provide "a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". If you cannot satisfy this offer, you are in breach of contract. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was that license conditions, such as offering source code if you distribute binaries, only apply to people who accept the license, and if you're the sole copyright holder then you don't need to accept the license because you can't infringe on your own copyright. If there's a contract, that's different, but I don't think the GPL was meant to function as a contract . -- BenRG (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that if you do not provide the offer (or the source), you are in breach of license. But if you provide the offer, but renege on it, you are in breach of contract. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you don't understand how licenses work, so I'll go into more detail. If you create software on your own time, by default you own the copyright and anyone else can't redistribute the work without your permission, except for the limited exceptions in copyright law (such as fair use). If you say "anyone may redistribute this software as long as they bundle the source code", that's a license. Its only effect is that people may now do the thing you licensed them to do, namely distribute the software with source code.
 * In particular, if you distribute the software without source code, that's fine, because as the copyright holder you always had the right to do whatever you want with the work; the license doesn't affect that. If someone else distributes the software without source code, that has nothing to do with the license, because the license only gives people the right to do a different thing. So the consequences are the same as if the license didn't exist. That is, it's copyright infringement unless you separately gave permission for it or it's covered by something like fair use.
 * The GPL is a license. It does nothing except permit people to do things that they otherwise (under copyright law) aren't allowed to do. It's not a contract; it doesn't commit anyone to doing anything that they wouldn't have had to do if the work weren't licensed under the GPL. This is also true of other common open source licenses (e.g. the MIT and BSD and CC licenses). -- BenRG (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement about most things, in particular about how a license works - at least, I agree (and think I always did) with your description. But the point is that the GPL does not require you to provide the source - that is just one of the options. It's enough to provide a written offer that you will provide the source. If you chose that option, but then not honour that offer, I think you are in the same situation as a cereal manufacturer who promises "a brand new Ford Pinto for everyone who sends in 3 empty cartoons of Hearthealthy Sugarbombs", but then fails to hand out cars. That is, he is not in breach of the license (he did provide the offer), but in breach of contract (or is this "breach of promise", which I think is more specific?) with respect to whoever wants to take up that offer --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dual-channel memory and CAS latency
I've searched for the answer to this but couldn't find it.

If a Windows computer has four DIMM slots in dual channel memory, the DIMM slots are in pairs, making a bank. I know that the two DIMMs in a bank should be the same. But what if you have DIMMs with one CAS latency in one bank and a different CAS latency in the other bank? Doe each bank run at its highest speed or is everything slowed down to the slowest one? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the chipset. Ruslik_ Zero 19:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Three are Intel Q67 chipsets (Sandy Bridge) and one is an Intel P75/B75 (Ivy Bridge). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On a computer that had four 1GB sticks with 7/7/7/20 CAS latency, I replaced two of them with 8GB sticks of 8/8/8/24. Speccy still shows 7/7/7/20. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Network speed test says my download speed is 2.10 Mbps but my torrent download speed is 280kbps max
Anybody know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.12.77 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Things like that send at a very slow rate. I tried one once, and it was going to take 40 days to download, so I gave up.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Torrents speeds depend on the speed of the people uploading it to you (seeders), which can vary wildly. You have a higher chance of getting a higher speed with more seeders. In regards to the speed test, are making sure to convert your results from bits to bytes if applicable? In this case, 2.1 megabits = 268.8 kilobytes [(2.1/8)*1024], which is very close to your stated torrent maximum. -- 143.85.169.19 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

PS - be careful with anything on Bit Torrent, etc. Much of it is illegal and from unreliable sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And much of it is legal and from good sources. Just as with http, or Tor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

CCleaner
I recently collected a program file of v5.11.5408 which works without a formal installation. When I re-enter to the browser after CCleaning, my blue links still stays dark blue. What is the cause? Also, what box(es) should 'not' have a tick on? Apostle (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest dowwnloading the free version of it from their website, http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner and doing a proper install. I've used it on many computers for several years but I haven't seen the problem you describe.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How to install Windows 10 via pendrive
Apostle (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A step by step guide is sought.
 * An extremely short video would also be helpful.


 * You could follow Microsoft's instructions here (under "Using the media creation tool"). -- BenRG (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Something to think about is that if your computer came with 8/8.1 Home and you upgraded to Professional using an activation code and then upgraded to Windows 10 (which preserves your Windows 10 Professional) and then you clean install from a flash drive, you might go to Windows 10 Home (possibly because the UEFI only knows about the Windows 10 home that it came with). A Windows 8 professional key may not upgrade you from Home to Professional in 10. Kushal (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)