Slashdot Mirror

I belive the standard response whenever this question comes up (once a week or so it seems) is :

There cannot be support for Ogg Vorbis in a hardware device until someone writes an integer-only decoder. These units do not have FPUs.

• No, and there also aren't any that support MIDI. What's your point? Unpopular technology doesn't tend to be supported by vendors and idealism is utterly meaningless when it throws money away -- welcome to the real world.
• I can't understand why you think a company would spend money on adding support for that format unless it would be a selling point. (...) The vast majority of my linux using friends still use mp3, and you can bet almost no one in the windows world uses ogg.
• I don't use Ogg Vorbis. I think I looked into it a while back, but I spent too long ripping all my CDs to switch. That's the real issue.
• Ogg is _NOT_ better then MP3 from a market standpoint. Every 6 months there will be some new format that improves the compression and sound quality. (...) MP3 is good enough, and it is here to stay.

I remember when the best file format for photos available was GIF. That time when I digitalized a photo I stored it as a GIF file. But when I first heard about JPEG, I didn't say "it's nice but not popular". I didn't also say that "I have lots of GIFs and I don't want to convert them". I just started saving the new pictures in JPEG format, leaving the old GIFs alone. Now I have converted those old files to PNG, because of problems with Unisys, but I didn't have to do it, I had been using old GIFs and new JPEGs for many years.

So your response is quite unique, in the sense that you're talking about technical aspects. But the lack of FPU is not so hard problem.

When I had 386SX I was writing programs with floating point operations, but I didn't have FPU. At that time, I didn't think about it. Later I found out that my C compiler was emulating the floating point instructions using the standard, integer-only 80386 CPU.

There are generally two ways of using real numbers without FPU:

• Emulate the floating point arithmetic, or
• use the fixed point arithmetic.

The Court rejects Adobe's argument that the EULA gives to purchasers only a license to use the software. The Court finds that SoftMan has not assented to the EULA and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. Therefore, the Court finds that Adobe has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright infringement claim.

The decision did acknowledge that the enforceability of a shrinkwrap license isn't as certain as Adobe or Microsoft would have us believe:

These courts have refused to recognize a bargain in shrinkwrap license that is not signed by the party against whom it is enforced. In Step-Saver, the Third Circuit found that the terms of a contract were formed when the parties shipped, received and paid for the product. Therefore, the software shrinkwrap agreement constituted additional terms to the contract, and under Uniform Commercial Code 2-207 (governing commercial counter-offers), these terms were invalid without express assent by the purchasex. In contrast, other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable. ProCD, 86 F.3d at 1453; Harmony, 846 F. Supp. at 212.

This really galls me. A simple Google search will reveal a massive number of references to "open source" prior to March 1998. This stinks of revisionism.

Read the History of the OSI:

The "open source" label itself came out of a strategy session held on February 3rd 1998 in Palo Alto, California. The people present included Todd Anderson, Chris Peterson (of the Foresight Institute), John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin (both of Linux International), Sam Ockman (of the Silicon Valley Linux User's Group), and Eric Raymond.

(...)

We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.

Next time please do a little research before you state that something "stinks of revisionism", because if this what you comment are the exact words of people who you advocate, it can look really stupid.

In my post, I haven't said anything which the Open Source Initiative doesn't agree with. The text you commented was written by one of the OSI creators and advocates. Still, you're not satisfied.

I hope you get the point now. What else can I say... To paraphrase your words, This stinks of ignorance.

Please, think about it.

They have been constantly upgrading the GNU tools, been busy putting together a new kernel with their tools (Mach + tools -> Hurd as per the GNU project mission statement), contributing with a desktop system/platform for the GNU operating system (GNUStep), updating emacs, the editor for the GNU operating system, as time passes by, and loads of other stuff. Take a look at GNU Projects and GNU Software too see what the GNU project has been doing for ther last decade. These projects are both directly and indirectly supported by the FSF in various ways (money, hardware or whatever they're donated).

What Linux distributions and other "projects" have been doing is using GNU stuff all along. Which is per definition ok. But I don't see why FSF and related GNU projects shouldn't be able to take some credit. It's not like their demanding money, advertising or anything. They want recognition for their work.

Some argues that MIT/X Consortium and Perl org should get equally as much recognition. The fact is that they do. The only reason why FSF wants it spelled GNU/Linux is because Linux would not run without GNU. The operating system would NOT be complete. You can run stuff without perl, you can run stuff without X, but you can't run stuff without linkers, loaders, and shells (at least not efficiently). Sure, rip out GNU stuff and put in BSD, but then it would be BSD/Linux.

If I was a BSD developer, and someone created an operating system by ripping out the GNU stuff and replacing it with BSD stuff, I'd be cranky too if someone called it "Linux". The voice of FSF in the Linux community should perhaps not always adhered to, but it should most definately be heard.

They have been constantly upgrading the GNU tools, been busy putting together a new kernel with their tools (Mach + tools -> Hurd as per the GNU project mission statement), contributing with a desktop system/platform for the GNU operating system (GNUStep), updating emacs, the editor for the GNU operating system, as time passes by, and loads of other stuff. Take a look at GNU Projects and GNU Software too see what the GNU project has been doing for ther last decade. These projects are both directly and indirectly supported by the FSF in various ways (money, hardware or whatever they're donated).

What Linux distributions and other "projects" have been doing is using GNU stuff all along. Which is per definition ok. But I don't see why FSF and related GNU projects shouldn't be able to take some credit. It's not like their demanding money, advertising or anything. They want recognition for their work.

Some argues that MIT/X Consortium and Perl org should get equally as much recognition. The fact is that they do. The only reason why FSF wants it spelled GNU/Linux is because Linux would not run without GNU. The operating system would NOT be complete. You can run stuff without perl, you can run stuff without X, but you can't run stuff without linkers, loaders, and shells (at least not efficiently). Sure, rip out GNU stuff and put in BSD, but then it would be BSD/Linux.

If I was a BSD developer, and someone created an operating system by ripping out the GNU stuff and replacing it with BSD stuff, I'd be cranky too if someone called it "Linux". The voice of FSF in the Linux community should perhaps not always adhered to, but it should most definately be heard.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

1) It dilutes his power,
2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
3) It dilutes his power.

Remember that the free software in FSF sense is not only GNU software or not even only software under the GNU General Public License, but also software under X11, Expat, BSD, W3C, Python, Artistic, Zope, Arphic, xinetd, LaTeX, Mozilla and lots of other licenses. The license doesn't even have to be compatible with the GNU GPL for the software to be considered a free software by the Free Software Foundation.

You may dislike the person of Richard Stallman or you may not agree with the GNU philosophy -- this is your personal choice -- but please don't spread the misinformation.

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation? Someone better notify the press :)

The Jargon Lexicon open source definition:

open source n.

[common; also adj. `open-source'] Term coined in March 1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their consequences, see the Open Source Initiative site.

From Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source":

In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do.

While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today effectively separate movements, although we can and do work together on practical projects.

This article describes why using the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some. These are the reasons why it is better to stick with "free software."

(...)

Oooh baby, the release of wget version 1.8 and then 1.8.1 in December was great! I think wget is more than enough to justify the existance of the entire Free Software Foundation. No, really. I'll donate to the FSF if someone keeps maintaining wget and makes it rock even more.

Source code IS useless if you don't have time to look over it or modify it. It only benefits the 5% or so that are actively involved in maintaining or modifying the code. The remaining consumers get absolutely zero benefit from it.

I forgot to mention that the GCC manuals, including the Internals manual, are nightly regenerated into HTML and posted online: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/. Have fun!

The Slashdot discussion encouraged people to send form letters: cut and paste text from various sources and mail it. Evidently all such mailings were discarded.

Forunately, it appears that more serious feedback from folks like Eben Moglen and Dan Kegel will be taken seriously, but much of the Slashdot-generated discussion will not be.

Actually, Sun does add undocumented features to its JVM which most of its class libraries use. If you're interested, go take a look at the GCJ page about why they can't.

While I haven't really decided whether or not I personally support LGPL for Wine, I haven't seen the opposing viewpoint posted at all, so I thought I'd just post the link to why GNU backronymed LGPL to "Lesser".

Basically, they argue that releasing code under GPL encourages more free (not as in beer) software development.

All I need is a motivation.

Just like when I understood the idea of inheritance and the real OO code reuse, together with the idea of moving data to the foreground and that with a good data you need simple algorithms -- that day I understood, that I have to learn Smalltalk, Objective C, C++ and OO Perl.

Today I need to know why I need to learn how to think with the functional paradigm. It's a serious problem, which stops many people before they learn functional languages.

Many years ago I was writing C programs to process text, and I could do everything that way, I just didn't realize, that there were better ways to do the same. That was before I knew Regular Expressions, egrep, sed or Perl. Now I write Perl one-liners for tasks, which used to take me days of writing C code, but I didn't know that before, because "If the only tool you have in the toolbox is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail."

So now I ask for a reason to learn the functional way of thinking. I need to know it before I actually learn them, just to have a strong imperative. Learning the new way of thinking is a long and hard process, I just want to know what waits for me at the end.

I hope someone who know that reason, will tell me and those who also need it, why it's worth the efford. Thanks in advance.

-- Your Anonymous Coward who wants to learn new ways of thinking...

All I need is a motivation.

Just like when I understood the idea of inheritance and the real OO code reuse, together with the idea of moving data to the foreground and that with a good data you need simple algorithms -- that day I understood, that I have to learn Smalltalk, Objective C, C++ and OO Perl.

Today I need to know why I need to learn how to think with the functional paradigm. It's a serious problem, which stops many people before they learn functional languages.

Many years ago I was writing C programs to process text, and I could do everything that way, I just didn't realize, that there were better ways to do the same. That was before I knew Regular Expressions, egrep, sed or Perl. Now I write Perl one-liners for tasks, which used to take me days of writing C code, but I didn't know that before, because "If the only tool you have in the toolbox is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail."

So now I ask for a reason to learn the functional way of thinking. I need to know it before I actually learn them, just to have a strong imperative. Learning the new way of thinking is a long and hard process, I just want to know what waits for me at the end.

I hope someone who know that reason, will tell me and those who also need it, why it's worth the efford. Thanks in advance.

-- Your Anonymous Coward who wants to learn new ways of thinking...

All I need is a motivation.

Just like when I understood the idea of inheritance and the real OO code reuse, together with the idea of moving data to the foreground and that with a good data you need simple algorithms -- that day I understood, that I have to learn Smalltalk, Objective C, C++ and OO Perl.

Today I need to know why I need to learn how to think with the functional paradigm. It's a serious problem, which stops many people before they learn functional languages.

Many years ago I was writing C programs to process text, and I could do everything that way, I just didn't realize, that there were better ways to do the same. That was before I knew Regular Expressions, egrep, sed or Perl. Now I write Perl one-liners for tasks, which used to take me days of writing C code, but I didn't know that before, because "If the only tool you have in the toolbox is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail."

So now I ask for a reason to learn the functional way of thinking. I need to know it before I actually learn them, just to have a strong imperative. Learning the new way of thinking is a long and hard process, I just want to know what waits for me at the end.

I hope someone who know that reason, will tell me and those who also need it, why it's worth the efford. Thanks in advance.

-- Your Anonymous Coward who wants to learn new ways of thinking...

Functional languages are already presend for the JVM, look at kawa for example.

LGPL stands for Lesser General Public License. Basically it's the same as the GPL, but it allows you to link non-GPL-compatible software to it. So you can use LPGL software in closed-source software, but when you extend the LGPL-licensed software you have to give the source away along with the binary (just like with GPL).

Further information can be found on the GNU homepage.

No ones linked to them yet this article and this article give a bit more information on what LGPL is and why there is an issue.

Although I understand the reasoning this sort of issue is what will drive companies away from adopting Linux. I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.

No ones linked to them yet this article and this article give a bit more information on what LGPL is and why there is an issue.

Although I understand the reasoning this sort of issue is what will drive companies away from adopting Linux. I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.

Remember this?

There's always gcj, and gcj is Free

GCJ is just a compiler for the Java language, and it needs a class library to run programs, and if the software relies on a class that your JRE's class library doesn't have, you're screwed. From the GCJ home page: "Most of the APIs specified by 'The Java Class Libraries' Second Edition and the 'Java 2 Platform supplement' are supported ... AWT is currently unsupported" (my bold), which means it can't run GUI apps or applets.

I agree with a previous poster, that you should start by taking a look at what software your HR department is using. The list of employees needs to stay in sync with their database and they need to extract values from the timetracking software you choose.

Anyone else notice that he's dropped GNU/Linux altogether? Now it's just GNU. No credit given at all to the kernel. I guess it's just not important.

That's because the issues are the same, whether you run GNU/Linux, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Win32, GNU/DOS, or any other port of the GNU userland.

He isn't pro-Free software in the least. He is simply pro-GPL and anti-everything else.

He's pro-free software. He understands that BSD-class licenses (especially for noddy programs under 2 KLOC or for software used in embedded systems), weak copyleft licenses (especially for free clones of common libraries), and GPL-class strong copyleft licenses all have their place.

Anyone else notice that he's dropped GNU/Linux altogether? Now it's just GNU. No credit given at all to the kernel. I guess it's just not important.

That's because the issues are the same, whether you run GNU/Linux, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Win32, GNU/DOS, or any other port of the GNU userland.

He isn't pro-Free software in the least. He is simply pro-GPL and anti-everything else.

He's pro-free software. He understands that BSD-class licenses (especially for noddy programs under 2 KLOC or for software used in embedded systems), weak copyleft licenses (especially for free clones of common libraries), and GPL-class strong copyleft licenses all have their place.

All this rhetoric about RMS and Mono and Ximian got me to re-read the article Ximian to Change License for Mono

How can Miguel change a license from GPL to anything else? My understanding of the GPL (section 3.1) is that this is impossible.

In other words, once software is under the GPL, can it actually be relicensed under a different scheme?

The only other system in "widespread" use is GNU RCS. GNU RCS is different in that it's actually used by respectable organizations, not just amateurish Cheap Software projects. This is because it is similar to older, commercial systems which aren't available on modern systems. Unfortunately, development of RCS has fallen by the wayside too, and CVS is almost guaranteed to be the only Cheap Software system available in five years.

But, honestly, if you're have a Real Job at a Real Company, the cost of RCS is usually insigificant. And for personal projects and Cheap Software shit, CVS is more than adequate.

If you're like most Slashdot readers -- i.e. living in their parents basements and "hacking" Perl while living on food stamps -- and thus forced to use CVS, I recommend Fogel's book. It's actually available online, but I recommend buying it, because it is unique in two aspects: first, it's the only Coriolis book I've seen that isn't total BULLSHIT; second, it's some of the best-written Cheap Software documentation you'll ever read. If you're poor or stupid enough to use Cheap Software RCS, this book is essential. Fogel is really too good for Coriolis... I'd like to see this book reprinted by New Riders.

HTH, you delicious newbie fag!
-- The_Messenger

If Miguel hadn't moved MONO to the X11/MIT license last week, I don't think RMS would be so upset. We're talking about GNOME, the biggest GNU project since HURD being based on an API that is Non-Free-As-In-Freedom, only a portion of NET has been submitted to ECMCA. With the concern the GNU community had over KDE, this would make the GNOME community look like hippocrites (GNOME was started because KDE used to be based on QT, which was not released under GPL.)

FYI I submitted this same story about 5 hours ago. Hmmm.

[Richard Stallman is] just bitter he can't call it GNU/.NET.

No, but he can call his team's version dotGNU.

you seem to be confusing open-source with copy-lefted.

But thanks for explaining, anyway. :)

you seem to be confusing open-source with copy-lefted.

But thanks for explaining, anyway. :)

you seem to be confusing open-source with copy-lefted.

But thanks for explaining, anyway. :)

- open source
(...)
- being licensed by a big corporation might lead them to become anal on us.. ie, charging fees?

No. It's the bubble before you need a license and FBI background check before you can own any personal computer (registered with the government) that you can install your own software on. See The Right To Read for more info about the coming regime.

Please refer to Bounds Checking Projects for details.

Is this a new feature? Do _all_ compilers have it? No, this is a GNU C library specific feature, and of course not _all_ compilers have it.