Slashdot Mirror

If you don't like any of the above, run LINUX.

Why would you suggest that somebody only run a kernel as opposed to a complete operating system?
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
I would recommend GNU/Linux instead.

NO, this is not MS flexing its monopoly powers. It is perfectly normal to have different products with different feature sets at different prices. You can see it in other software (Light versions, vs Pro versions etc.) and in other markets. How many different versions of a specific brand of fridge can you buy? You want more features, you pay more.

Your argument is wrong. I can understand the rational for less features and thus less cost, but that isn't what they're doing. Microslop is deliberately adding new malicious code to their system.

Taking away useful code is a lot different from adding negative code.

This situation is yet another example of why proprietary software should be avoided. It's time for the software users of the world to rise up and overthrow the hoarders who try to dominate us, control our lives, and divide us against each other.

People of planet earth, demand the four freedoms of free software!

• The freedom to do what you want.
• The freedom to help yourself.
• The freedom to help your friends.
• The freedom to help your community.

Long live freedom and cooperation!

Philosophy of the GNU Project
Audio Recordings about the Philosophy of the GNU Project

If you don't like any of the above, run LINUX.

Why would you suggest that somebody only run a kernel as opposed to a complete operating system?
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
I would recommend GNU/Linux instead.

NO, this is not MS flexing its monopoly powers. It is perfectly normal to have different products with different feature sets at different prices. You can see it in other software (Light versions, vs Pro versions etc.) and in other markets. How many different versions of a specific brand of fridge can you buy? You want more features, you pay more.

Your argument is wrong. I can understand the rational for less features and thus less cost, but that isn't what they're doing. Microslop is deliberately adding new malicious code to their system.

Taking away useful code is a lot different from adding negative code.

This situation is yet another example of why proprietary software should be avoided. It's time for the software users of the world to rise up and overthrow the hoarders who try to dominate us, control our lives, and divide us against each other.

People of planet earth, demand the four freedoms of free software!

• The freedom to do what you want.
• The freedom to help yourself.
• The freedom to help your friends.
• The freedom to help your community.

Long live freedom and cooperation!

Philosophy of the GNU Project
Audio Recordings about the Philosophy of the GNU Project

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

While listening to the wineconf presentations I heard one guy talking about a scheme using goto statements.

Scheme with goto statements! That would be brilliantly evil!

until 4.0, gcc's backend was entirely and deliberately undocumented

The only thing I could find that even sort of suport your claim was RMS's thing about not wanting the backend to drift into becoming an LGPL black-box (thus chilling the development of new GPL'd front ends).

So, do you care to back your claim up?

--MarkusQ

If you've looked at sun code you can't contribute to classpath.

Show me a Java developer who hasn't studied the implemetation of any of Sun's Java code and you're looking at a IT monkey who wouldn't know how to contribute to classpath anyway. It's shipped with the JDK and people look at it regularly.

Of course this was discussed on the gcc list, the thread starts here.

Links to an implementation of this can be found in this mail, the legality of this implementation is discussed in the followup.

The inevitable prior-art discussion begins here.

Of course this was discussed on the gcc list, the thread starts here.

Links to an implementation of this can be found in this mail, the legality of this implementation is discussed in the followup.

The inevitable prior-art discussion begins here.

Of course this was discussed on the gcc list, the thread starts here.

Links to an implementation of this can be found in this mail, the legality of this implementation is discussed in the followup.

The inevitable prior-art discussion begins here.

Yes yes, I know, I've already read the How all started Stallman story some time ago.

I was talking specifically to the Personal Computers market, and what could happen if MS where not here now as they are.

Maybe the Macintosh would be the defacto standard as they had graphical interface, or IBM with his OS/2 would be the monopolistic beast MS is today.

Sigh.... Do you research anything for yourself or just accept what you read on some anti-OSS site?
"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Selling Software http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Sigh.... Do you research anything for yourself or just accept what you read on some anti-OSS site?
"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Selling Software http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

GNU tools isn't much of a useable OS by itself either.

"GNU tools" isn't a OS. GNU is an OS, which Stallman et. al. started working on in 1984. It was shy only a working kernel when Linux came along in 1991. Poeple put the Linux kernel into the OS that the GNU project had been working to create for seven years and created GNU/Linux.

Linux is a kernel. It is not an operating system.

GNU is an operating system.

It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.

If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.

But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one

Indeed, the problem is big. Some BSDs don't have java, linux ppc users either. Right now Java's "portability" is a joke with Sun's VM, even if it was free as in speech.

That's why GNU classpath & GCJ is important. It will provide us with a free (as in speech & beer) java VM for those who doesn't want to use Sun's VM (linux users, basically). Redhat is putting lots programmers & money behind of GCJ and collaborating with tons of community-based projects - they really want a free java. In fact, Redhat has some people hacking on GCJ to support openoffice's java features.

Actually, GCJ 4 is one of the GCC 4.0 greatest features, here is an article about why it's so great. They've achieved almost all Java 1.4 important features and there's work ongoing to support 1.5.

And GCJ does support, in fact, MORE architectures and operative systems than Sun's propietary offerings - yes, more. It's what will make java truly palataform-independent. GCJ is part of GCC, so it supports the platforms that gcc supports - much more than Sun's VM or other propietary VMs

..Then don't use it! Is it really that hard? Besides, now with the release of GCC4 and it's much improved GCJ/Classpath support, people at RedHat (such as Caolan McNamara) are trying to get OO.o to work nicely with GCJ

It seems that people are getting upset at looking at the imports in the code without realizing that THEY ARE NEVER USED!!! Again, I refer you to the blog entry, but for those of you too lazy:

This gcj request asks for the addition of java.awt.Frame.createBufferStrategy which is all that is missing from gcj to build the java canvas stuff. (Though the canvas module contains a pile of spurious imports of sun.awt which are unnecessary and can be removed, not that there's much point right now, if a createBufferStrategy becomes available then removing the sun.awt from the canvas/java .javas is all that's outstanding)

Nothing to see here, just move along. More jumping the gun rather than investigating things to completion.

Because it depends on undocumented "features" that are only available in the sun JRE, which is THE PROBLEM THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. Wasn't this exactly what sun (quite rightly) criticised MS for doing with java?

Read RMS's The Java Trap. He isn't complaining about undocumented features, he was complaining about using features that haven't been implemented in a 'free' version of Java yet. In essence, he's complaining that GNU Classpath isn't developing fast enough (although he would never word it that way). Once GNU Classpath catches up to Sun (if it happens), then Open Office will work just fine with it.

And this wasn't what Sun was criticizing MS for. MS was adding very well documented (and thoughtful) features to Java. New features like delegates. Sun just didn't want to loose control of Java. They didn't say no one should advance Java past version 1.1. They said only Sun should make changes to the language.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded here, and the latest development version can be downloaded here. And if that's not enough for you, your precious Kaffe, gcj, GNU Classpath, and other "Open Source" projects are working on reimplementing the JVM. I don't particularly care if you like Java or not, but I've had enough of this bullshit about Java being open or not. It's a God damn language/platform with thousands of successful Open Source projects under it, and has been opened up six ways to sunday. Comparing the issue to Linus's predicament is disingenuous at best, is not outright dishonest!

Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT. (I know that's a foreign concept here, since the entire fraking world is supposed to be FREE for the fraking taking.) If you don't like the direction OpenOffice has taken, then go play with KOffice. Oh wait, you alreay pissed them off too. Is there anyone you people won't make an enemy of in your Quixotic quests of stupidity?

Apologies for the abrasiveness of this post, but crap like this deserves it. You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded here, and the latest development version can be downloaded here. And if that's not enough for you, your precious Kaffe, gcj, GNU Classpath, and other "Open Source" projects are working on reimplementing the JVM. I don't particularly care if you like Java or not, but I've had enough of this bullshit about Java being open or not. It's a God damn language/platform with thousands of successful Open Source projects under it, and has been opened up six ways to sunday. Comparing the issue to Linus's predicament is disingenuous at best, is not outright dishonest!

Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT. (I know that's a foreign concept here, since the entire fraking world is supposed to be FREE for the fraking taking.) If you don't like the direction OpenOffice has taken, then go play with KOffice. Oh wait, you alreay pissed them off too. Is there anyone you people won't make an enemy of in your Quixotic quests of stupidity?

Apologies for the abrasiveness of this post, but crap like this deserves it. You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.

Sure looks looks like EULA to me. I bet you may even find the same sentences if you diff it to the other EULAs. I'd post the sections that say we aren't liable for whatever but they are all in caps and i can't get around with the slashdot's filter. And eula can add rights, I could write an eula that say, "this object is free with out any restrictions(like the bsd license)". GPL doesn't add rights, instead of payment in cash, you pay in bandwidth and other work that may get infected with the GPL disease(viral and all). BSD License and similiar adds rights with one restriction, i can't touch the license agreement text.

And here's killer to your arguement for adding rights, MySQL AB. If i need to explain it, you obviously have no clue.

"Programming instructions" for machines that power much of Internet already available.

Apache Software License, version 2.0

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Seems that Harmony will be licenced under Apache License v2.0 so it will not be GPL compatible. So once again Java will not be usable in the free world. Sad to hear.

Gee.. I wonder why you posted that as an AC

Using linux does not have to mean typing in scripts at a bash shell.
Linux can be made to look and act just as point-and-clicky as windows.

Using K12LTSP enables you to quickly set up a large school network where students have access to office applications, web browsing, photo editing, desktop publishing, web publishing,programming languages , etc.
It also centralizes network administration, allows for recycling hardware, and saves a ton of money on software licensing.
It is important to teach computer concepts, not just the nuances of the latest proprietary office suite.

Just remember, It should never under any circumstances be the responsibility of educators to teach brand loyalty.

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

> project, which IS most of the operating system
> (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

GNU C Library
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

GNU Coreutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

GNU Binutils
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

and

Bash
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

These are pretty important programs too:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

Linux is not the begining of anything. Linux is a kernel that works with the GNU OS. It's just one component. Actually the real history of GNU is far, far away from what this guy is telling. It started as a revolution, it didn't recieve economic support, and rms was unemployed.

Please read this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
and specially this: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/

Why people does care so much about creating buffer overflows. Just write programs in C/C++, you WILL create buffer overflows. It seems that most of programmers can't avoid them and "buffer-overflow vulnerabilities" are found all the time. Why not care instead about the methods created to fix (most of) them? The ones that many distros are still not shipping despite of being quite obvious that they're need more than the latest KDENOME shit?

Just check the debian security mailing list and look how many buffer overflow security bugs are there: Too many. Too many for something which is know to be (partially) fixable with kernel/compiler tricks. Did GCC 4.0 included finally that FORTIFY thing that includes both compile-time and run-time "buffer overflow protections" BTW? That is interesting, not learning how to create buffer overflows.

http://edge-op.org/grouch/schools.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/695

Wait a second there. It is an established fact that God uses Lisp.

Because the broadcast flag was so technically feeble, it required "robustness rules" to actually enforce it. In other words, equipment manufactures would have to "weld shut" their devices to prevent user tampering. This would've spelt disaster for GNU Radio, which lets you define an ATSC HDTV receiver in software.

As open source, it fails the robustness rules. Heck, as open source, it even encourages "user tampering." With today's victory the project has some hope, and we can see some future innovations exploiting it.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html:

"The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify. ... The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

* It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other
files which may be entirely proprietary.
* It is incompatible with the GPL."

Debian-legal has reviewed the APSL 2.0, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00 527.html. It seems that the reason it is incompatible with the GPL, is also the reason it can not be considered DFSG-Free: it requires users of its software to distribute the source code available under certain circumstances.

Except it's under Apple's APSL, which isn't DFSG free.

That seems strange, since the FSF say APSL v2 is a free licence. Is the debian judgement about v1, perhaps? Just curious.

Personally, I think Intel has pretty much lost control of the enthusiast segment. The majority of enthusiasts look for value and performance when it comes to hardware and quite honestly, the Intel platform definitely doesn't have any "value" attached to it.

From the performance numbers published on numerous online publications, Intel has lost the Dual-Core War. The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget. And before I end this column, I would like to forward a special note to Intel: Please make sure your next generation of processors isn't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.

Since when is protection of a company's intellectual property considered a start of a "big brother campaign"?

Please do not use the confusing term "intellectual property" to refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and publicity rights, which are more different than alike. Let's try that again:

Since when is protection of a company's copyrights considered a start of a "big brother campaign"?

Since the railroad cases, which interpreted the 14th Amendment to give full citizenship to corporations. And especially since Microsoft started to use patents as well (cf. VirtualDub and ASF) to give the company not just a monopoly on Microsoft Windows brand operating systems but a monopoly on operating systems for x86 desktop hardware.

The GIFT (the GNU Image-Finding Tool) is a Content Based Image Retrieval System (CBIRS). It enables you to do Query By Example on images, giving you the opportunity to improve query results by relevance feedback. For processing your queries the program relies entirely on the content of the images, freeing you from the need to annotate all images before querying the collection.

GIFT It worked pretty well for me in the demos they linked too. I have been waiting for this type of application to gain momentum.

It's there in the title :)

GPL is different. It's pragmatic. It's design to keep software free forever, using existing copyrights mechanism. If he could repel, copyrights, there would be no need for GPL.

I think he is willing to compromise by shortening software copyrights to say five years.

If you always have network access to a server, drop your music files on the server and point GnuMP3d at the directories. GnuMP3d has ACLs and password moderated accesss.

We're probably more likely to see GCC and other GNU projects convert to GNU Arch over Subversion.

BSD means that code written as free can some day be made not free. How does that mean the code is free? Try http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html