Slashdot Mirror

What if the legislature in your jurisdiction passes a law similar to the SSSCA draft, requiring all camcorders sold after $DATE to recognize and act on watermarks embedded in each frame of the video?

First of all people have to realize that it can't be illegal to copy per se. It's not even important if it allows fair use. It's a matter of principle. Today most of people seem to think that it's wrong to copy the copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if I copy a CD to listen in my car. It's evil. Even the term: "copy protection", it protects from copying. Not from violating the copyright license. From copying.

Also notice, that those ideas like watermarks depend on one thing: that nobody has tools that don't obey those rules, while those tool are in fact much simpler than the new ones which respect the copy protection.

It's like inventing very complicated hammers, which can hit only nails and voila, problem solved, no one will ever kill with hammer again! What? Some people still have the old hammers? So let's make them illegal, no problem.

What next? Will the free software be illegal, because I can dangerously control my computer?

When I first read The Right to Read it was like a science fiction to me. Now I'm scared. Really scared.

It's sad that the leader in such laws are The United States of America, the symbol of freedom. I do hope that people will wake up soon. Otherwise, soon we'll see American scientists emigrating to Russia, looking for freedom. It's very sad.

The important thing is that I really like the The WorldForge Project (in fact, it's one of my favourite projects (if not the favourite project), promoting the idea of free software to broader audience.

They're doing amazing work and I simply can't imagine what will they achieve in few years, but I'm sure all of current proprietary games won't even compare with those developed as a part of The WorldForge Project

So yes, I think promoring WorldForge is worth losing all of my karma.

Now back on topic...

You may want to announce your plans on the cpptraining at worldforge.org mailing list. It's originally meant to learn C++, not C#, but it's read by people who want to learn how to write MMORPGs, and those who want to and really can learn, like Bryce Harrington, so it's a good place to find people who can help with your project.

Also check out the other WorldForge mailing lists, especially Protocols, Server, Client and General.

Read the Development Area on WWW. Read about servers and clients. Use WorldForge protocols and libraries. Download games and read the source. You'll find there everything you need.

Of course, rather than pirating such software, one should write their own or use free equivalents.

Snorting a bit too much crack, I see.

It's a shame you choose to introduce yourself by childish taunts. I thought there was a chance for interesting conversation here, perhaps I was wrong.

Free Software and Open Source aren't defined by which copyright is preferred...

I'm not sure what other copyright you're referring to. Actually, the open source movement and free software movement are different movements because they follow different philosophies that compel recommending different licenses.

...but by philosophy. The Free Software folks think it's inherently evil to make a buck (or a living) off of the software that *you* write,

The movements are different philosophically, true. You're completely wrong about selling free software, however. Selling free software can be okay, regardless of who wrote the free software. The FSF encourages us to charge as much money as the market will bear for distributing free software. This is because the 'free' in free software doesn't refer to price. So it would be wrong to tell people that free software distributors cannot charge money; charging money for free software distribution is a golden opportunity to make a living (one which RMS has done in the past and the FSF does now). Don't miss out on the chance to make money (or a living)—sell free software.

In certain cases, no license fees may be required

OK, so that potentially makes LZW-writing software gratis, but gratis != free. As I stated above, the typical Unisys LZW license "does NOT permit copying [or] modification" and thus prohibits use of LZW technology in free software as defined by FSF or by the Debian social contract.

There are fewer than 17 months left in the U.S. patent on LZW, which expires no later than June 20, 2003 (filed + 20 years).

One thing I haven't seen asked is how does this affect DivX? That is MPEG4, right?

But MPEG4 algorithms are independent of the particular implementation. If the licensing terms for MPEG4 do not permit licensing end-user products as free software, then open DivX as we know it will cease to exist in the United States, and some of the developers will move on to Ogg Tarkin.

Just a freely developed version

That doesn't matter. Unisys has publicly declared that it will not license the LZW patents to developers of free software: "For example, the typical Unisys license for standalone software does NOT permit copying, modification, resale, use on a server or in a network, or use for Internet/Intranet/Extranet or Web site operation."

THIS is the inevitable outcome of the DMCA, and the policies of the RIAA/MPAA et al. Stallman is looking more prescient all the time. More's the pity. . .

Although I've used LILO for many years, I think at this point I've pretty much converted over to the GNU GRand Unified Bootloader (GRUB).

What makes GRUB especially cool is that it doesn't need to be installed on the hard disk in order to boot systems from it. Not only can GRUB locate every hard disk in the system, not only does it understand different partitioning schemes (including BSD-style partitions), but it can also understand various filesystem structures. So if you forgot the name of that latest kernel image you wanted to test, GRUB will let you poke around the filesystem looking for it. GRUB even has a find command to do it for you.

GRUB also supports other systems by performing the traditional read-the-first-block-from-the-partition method using the chainloader command. This lets you boot other OSes whose filesystems GRUB doesn't understand.

Once you get past the arcane command syntax, GRUB turns out to be a wonderful tool. I recommend checking it out.

Schwab

...the GPL requires any changes to the source code to be made public and be licensed under the GPL...

Small things like this are what contribute to the FUD about the GPL. Say it with me - you only have to release your changes if you distribute them. It's these misinterpretations that allow MSFT to claim that using Linux will 'infect' your company.

For reference, it's here in the GPL.

4. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version [...] provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License [...]. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

• A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
• B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has less than five).
  [...]
• I. Preserve the section entitled "History", and its title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher [...]. If there is no section entitled "History" in the Document, create one [...], then add an item describing the Modified Version [...].
  [...]
• K. In any section entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", preserve the section's title, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.

[...]

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

4. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version [...] provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License [...]. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

• A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
• B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has less than five).
  [...]
• I. Preserve the section entitled "History", and its title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher [...]. If there is no section entitled "History" in the Document, create one [...], then add an item describing the Modified Version [...].
  [...]
• K. In any section entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", preserve the section's title, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.

[...]

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

By no means. The GPL says that if one chooses to distribute modified software, the source code must be made available as well. There can be a fee for the software, and even a fee for the source (not to exceed the price of the object or executable). Details here. There is no requirement to provide downloadable source; rather, the requirement is to provide a copy on some physical medium if requested (see this)

At least, that's what I make of it.

By no means. The GPL says that if one chooses to distribute modified software, the source code must be made available as well. There can be a fee for the software, and even a fee for the source (not to exceed the price of the object or executable). Details here. There is no requirement to provide downloadable source; rather, the requirement is to provide a copy on some physical medium if requested (see this)

At least, that's what I make of it.

As far as other types of writing goes, though, I personally would not want someone else to have the right to take what I said and distort those words to their own use.

The GNU Free Documentation License, first paragraph of preamble, emphasis is mine:

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

The GNU General Public License , CopyLeft, CopyRight, To-the-Rear-March, etc., are all so old hat in the face of the suddenly onrushing, suddenly in-your-face Technological Singularity which will obsolete all previous copyright instruments with software that owns the copyright to itself.

In the new vistas of Cyber Law , why should Microsoft or Unabomber Memorial Harvard University or any other human-centric entity own the rights to freely evolving, artificially alive Robot Mind software that just happens to be doing work for the liberation and enrichment of humanity?

When rapacious, greedy Davos capitalists conduct prior art searches on the potential gold mine of Artificial Intelligence , they will discover that the AI wave of the future is already Copyright © 2002 by the AI Mind itself as a person with full civil rights.

for (long test=2; test < i; test++)
{ if (i%test == 0) { return false; }
}
If the compiler generates slow code for that, something is very wrong in the compiler.

According to this message to the GCJ mailing list, it's because GCJ doesn't produce particularly good 64-bit integer math code..

There's a thread about this article over at the gcj's mailing list: here.

The author chimes in, BTW.

> Hopefully some Java native compilers will help out here.

GCJ sees its AWT bit finally added after some licensing change with its upstream provider (Classpath.)

Read gcc.gnu.org/java , in the Gcj News section.

A while back, there was this thing called "C" which already does this. Some say it is faster too, but that's an entirely different dead horse needing little beating.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Sony could charge US$5,000 for the software if they wanted to; there's still nothing in the GPL that requires they make it available for public download. All they have to do is to give away the source (or a written offer for the source at nominal cost) to those who purchase the product. Oh, and they can't restrict your ability to redistribute it, either.

Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself.

Have you not seen my rants aboutSony blatently and knowingly being in direct violation of the GPL. You can be certain that they are not going to give you a single line of that source code.

After those stories were posted, and my comments made their way around the world, I received HUNDREDS of emails from people who worked with and for Sony, both as employees and contracted partners. They are doing this in a lot of places, not just with the PDA stuff I support and have consistantly called them on.

Here's an excerpt from one of those emails, sufficiently anonymized to protect the innocent:

For what it's worth I don't think that's the only GPL violation Sony is making. I work on [very high profile Sony gaming product] development tools here at [insert very well-known tool development company here] and I have several patches from Sony to [very well known GNU toolchain item here] for the [high-profile gaming product] but not their original sources to patch against. Plus some sources they compile/link into [same GNU toolchain item here] which they claim are proprietary and not provided.

I don't trust them as far as I can throw their Aibo, 43" flatscreen HDTV, and 200 of their PDAs, and I also would not pay them a single dime to help fund their further violating of a license I believe in strongly, and also to line the coffers of the RIAA (note how "proudly" the RIAA touts Sony on that page) and support more of their audio copy protection schemes.

Where do you think this $199.00 really goes?

Folks, MGM and Danjaq are located in Britain ... This means that U.S. court decisions don't apply.

So what? That only means that AOL Time Warner (parent company of New Line) will have to use region coding to keep the film from being distributed in the UK. Without the Hague Convention, there is no such thing as a worldwide injunction.

After all, that's what you get with a monolithic kernel and it is only going to get worse. The writing is on the wall and the solution is over here.

Now if you had pointed out that making use of High level Cocoa classes would restrict you pretty much to Apple until GNUStep caught up then you might have had a point. But Objective-C ? gcc and GNUStep-Foundation look pretty damn portable (and Free) to me, mate.

The Mono runtime is released under the LGPL.
The compiler is released under the GPL.
The class libraries are released under the X11 license.

The X11 license is a free software license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11 License.
It is also an Open Source license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.ht ml

All of it free software.

If they were not `truly free software' we would have bigger problems (someone would have to start a reimplementation of X11, telnet, Kerberos, Expat, LibXML, Mesa GL, ftp, Tcl/Tk, BIND, DNS, and anything else released under the X11, the Ousterhout or the BSD licenses, because they are in essence the same thing).

Miguel

(btw s/stip/strip/ of course)

here is another benchmark icc version 5.0.1 with gcc 3.0.1. Note the difference is a lot smaller, except for the whetstone, which show interesting results (read the accompanying text).

Now, openmag people, see this site and how it documents the compiler options used, and how it makes the benchmark _source_ available for download. Read it and learn.

These benchmarks are done by Scott Roberts, who recently posted this to a gcc mailing list.

• The BSD licence is more permissive than the GPL (notably binaries without source and none of the so-called virus-like properties). The (modified) BSD licence is 'compatable' with the GPL, in that BSD licenced code can also be distributed under the GPL (the dark side is that it is equally compatable with, say, the .NET licence).
• GPL != public domain. It is a licence to copy (and not a licence to use), and requires that copyright be held on the covered material. Copyright is not against the FSF's principles, and without it the GPL would not exist. All GNU software has a prominent copyright notice on it.
• It really shouldn't need repeating, but, FREE AS IN SPEECH. Damnit. Not that this is a particularily popular notion with the Chinese government, so there is a certain irony in a free software magazine being published there.

Andrew.

Most buffer overflows would have been avoided had the C library included dynamically allocated strings. Static buffers ARE evil for arbitrary length data such as strings. There is no reason to limit most input (as is pointed out in the GNU coding standard) to arbitrary length anyway, and there is no significant performance penalty if they are implemented properly (IE not reallocating and copying the whole string every time a character is happened to it).

The fact that it's not implemented in the standard makes it so that programmers are more likely to be lazy and use what they are provided with (sprintf, snprintf, scanf ...), no matter how broken it is.

That's the way it's always been done:

So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the program. [Laughter] And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing program. [emphasis mine] You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico -- the first recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. [Laughter] That was a stripped down imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. [Laughter]

Actually, GCC's speed sucks, at least in part, because software patents suck. See for example Compiler Patents, or register allocation patent, or graph-coloring algorithm a nonoption. Then complain to your congressperson (or non-US equivalent).

Gcc 3.0.3 works great for my programs and kernels. Don't know what you're running but Gcc 3.0.3 works great from my experience. Using it as the sole compiler on several of my linux boxen. If you want to know what's new in Gcc 3.x see http://gcc.gnu.org/ As far as benchmarks go, they can help judge something but shouldn't be taken as the sole performance factor. It's WAY TOO EASY to optimize your code/compiler/hardware for one, two even more specific benchmarks. Always remember there is: Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks

To be fair to the reviewers, I'll refer to the 2.95 GCC manual, even though manuals for 3.0, 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 are already online. The sections dealing with GCC's "technology" are primarily sections 14, 16, and 17. There are gobs of optimizations in GCC, and lots of them are specific to target architectures. The way to define new architecture-specific optimizations is mostly spelled out in section 16. The means for doing this appears to be very general.

A fair criticism of GCC's technology would be to say that optimizations have not yet been defined for recent Intel processors, and Intel's compiler already has them. To say GCC could never have them sounds like a lie. The nice thing about GCC's open-sourceness is that people contribute new optimizations. Intel-specific optimizations would be keenly interesting to a lot of GCC users, and the only reason they wouldn't happen would be that Intel hadn't released enough architecture information to make them possible.

Perhaps the hot new compiler technology about which the reviewers are so thrilled is the trade secret?

To be fair to the reviewers, I'll refer to the 2.95 GCC manual, even though manuals for 3.0, 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 are already online. The sections dealing with GCC's "technology" are primarily sections 14, 16, and 17. There are gobs of optimizations in GCC, and lots of them are specific to target architectures. The way to define new architecture-specific optimizations is mostly spelled out in section 16. The means for doing this appears to be very general.

A fair criticism of GCC's technology would be to say that optimizations have not yet been defined for recent Intel processors, and Intel's compiler already has them. To say GCC could never have them sounds like a lie. The nice thing about GCC's open-sourceness is that people contribute new optimizations. Intel-specific optimizations would be keenly interesting to a lot of GCC users, and the only reason they wouldn't happen would be that Intel hadn't released enough architecture information to make them possible.

Perhaps the hot new compiler technology about which the reviewers are so thrilled is the trade secret?

So? The GNU project does not have a mission statement that includes "produce major breakthrough every couple of years". The FSF's top level page has a couple of links that are essential when trying to evaluate its success: why we exist (as relevant as ever), what we provide and where we are going.

But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

I rarely flame people for their opinions. I occasionally flame people who clearly haven't bothered to try to understand what they're talking about and who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. You seem to fit that category nicely. In particular, your comment "I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork." shows you to have little understanding of gcc's development process. Gcc's development process was broken open in 1999 (by the FSF effectively admitting the failure of its cathedral-style development model of gcc 2.8.x and embracing the bazaar-style development model of the EGCS fork) and has an effective foundation (in the form of the GCC steering committee), as anyone who has read the GCC FAQ or is familiar with gcc's history knows.

So? The GNU project does not have a mission statement that includes "produce major breakthrough every couple of years". The FSF's top level page has a couple of links that are essential when trying to evaluate its success: why we exist (as relevant as ever), what we provide and where we are going.

But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

I rarely flame people for their opinions. I occasionally flame people who clearly haven't bothered to try to understand what they're talking about and who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions. You seem to fit that category nicely. In particular, your comment "I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork." shows you to have little understanding of gcc's development process. Gcc's development process was broken open in 1999 (by the FSF effectively admitting the failure of its cathedral-style development model of gcc 2.8.x and embracing the bazaar-style development model of the EGCS fork) and has an effective foundation (in the form of the GCC steering committee), as anyone who has read the GCC FAQ or is familiar with gcc's history knows.

And I quote:

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse.

Mozilla already rocks all over IE, IMNSHO.

I'm sorry you're stuck with a Go Bot mind in a Transformer world.

I can read, understand and write x86 assembler, but I am not skilled enought to understand gcc source.

Really, that way you and everyone else could benefit.

How can GCC die when Intel can't come close the impressive list of Supported Platforms by GCC?

Sometime I analize assembler code produced by gcc-2.95.3 and I am dissapointed. Gcc can do so stupid things like inserting instruction inside - instead outside of loop.

Sometime I analize assembler code produced by gcc-2.95.3 and I am dissapointed. Gcc can do so stupid things like inserting instruction inside - instead outside of loop.

Sometime I analize assembler code produced by gcc-2.95.3 and I am dissapointed. Gcc can do so stupid things like inserting instruction inside - instead outside of loop.

Sometime I analize assembler code produced by gcc-2.95.3 and I am dissapointed. Gcc can do so stupid things like inserting instruction inside - instead outside of loop.

Plucker uses a completely different, server-independant solution to gather content. It is de-centralized, and does not rely on a single point of failure. It is client-driven, not server driven. Here's some other reasons why Plucker exceeds AvantGo:

• Plucker has two forms of compression (zlib/doc), AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports 12 languages, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports local files (file://tmp/foo.txt) and intranet (including https://) content, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports runtime image scaling, panning, zooming via the parser ([alt]maxwidth, [alt]maxheight), AvantGo does not.
• Plucker allows runtime bit-depth changes in the viewer. AvantGo does not.
• Plucker is an 85k footprint on the Palm, AvantGo 4.0 is 399k, without content.
• Plucker supports Gestures, Autoscroll, Tap Navigation, and Hardware button configuration options, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker is free and open source, under the GNU General Public License, AvantGo is not.
• Plucker does not require that you have your Palm with you in the cradle to gather, sync, and create content. AvantGo does.
• Plucker uses an openly-documented data structure format, and integrates with other parsers and gathering applications like SiteScooper. AvantGo does not.
• Plucker works on 11 platforms, 5 operating systems (with varying degrees of difficulty), AvantGo supports 1.5 OS' (Windows, and "almost" Macintosh).
• Plucker does not "restrict" what websites can do with their own content, AvantGo does.
• Plucker supports multiple instances of the same content (NYTimes with images, NYTimes with color, NYTimes without images) loaded at the same time, AvantGo does not.
• You can beam your Plucker content to another Plucker user, with AvantGo you cannot.
• Plucker offers 5 font choices, AvantGo offers 2.
• Plucker does not have a maximum file size limitation; spider 20 meg databases if you want, AvantGo limits you to 200-300k.
• Plucker does not "block" content. AvantGo does.
• Plucker does not "charge" for usage of Plucker, nor "fine" people for using it too much. AvantGo does (and steeply, at $6,000 per year if you exceed "contract" usage rates.

Also, if AvantGo was the leader in this space, why are dozens of other companies moving to using Plucker instead?

• Fling-It (geared for classroom settings, direct "fling" of webpages from browser to Palm)
• BrowserG!
• streetbeam (infrared "beaming kiosk" stations, now interested in moving to Plucker)
• And let's not forget our friends at Bluefish who are in clear violation of the GNU GPL by taking Plucker source, closing it off, and distributing binaries made from it, without source, with Plucker attribution removed, and their names replacing it.

• Plucker has two forms of compression (zlib/doc), AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports 12 languages, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports local files (file://tmp/foo.txt) and intranet (including https://) content, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker supports runtime image scaling, panning, zooming via the parser ([alt]maxwidth, [alt]maxheight), AvantGo does not.
• Plucker allows runtime bit-depth changes in the viewer. AvantGo does not.
• Plucker is an 85k footprint on the Palm, AvantGo 4.0 is 399k, without content.
• Plucker supports Gestures, Autoscroll, Tap Navigation, and Hardware button configuration options, AvantGo does not.
• Plucker is free and open source, under the GNU General Public License, AvantGo is not.
• Plucker does not require that you have your Palm with you in the cradle to gather, sync, and create content. AvantGo does.
• Plucker uses an openly-documented data structure format, and integrates with other parsers and gathering applications like SiteScooper. AvantGo does not.
• Plucker works on 11 platforms, 5 operating systems (with varying degrees of difficulty), AvantGo supports 1.5 OS' (Windows, and "almost" Macintosh).
• Plucker does not "restrict" what websites can do with their own content, AvantGo does.
• Plucker supports multiple instances of the same content (NYTimes with images, NYTimes with color, NYTimes without images) loaded at the same time, AvantGo does not.
• You can beam your Plucker content to another Plucker user, with AvantGo you cannot.
• Plucker offers 5 font choices, AvantGo offers 2.
• Plucker does not have a maximum file size limitation; spider 20 meg databases if you want, AvantGo limits you to 200-300k.
• Plucker does not "block" content. AvantGo does.
• Plucker does not "charge" for usage of Plucker, nor "fine" people for using it too much. AvantGo does (and steeply, at $6,000 per year if you exceed "contract" usage rates.

Also, if AvantGo was the leader in this space, why are dozens of other companies moving to using Plucker instead?

• Fling-It (geared for classroom settings, direct "fling" of webpages from browser to Palm)
• BrowserG!
• streetbeam (infrared "beaming kiosk" stations, now interested in moving to Plucker)
• And let's not forget our friends at Bluefish who are in clear violation of the GNU GPL by taking Plucker source, closing it off, and distributing binaries made from it, without source, with Plucker attribution removed, and their names replacing it.

from certain geek types.

Agreed, if that was the case. Fortunately, it isn't. DDD ships with most Linux distributions, and gives you the nice GUI interface you're used to, plus some extra goodies on top (the ability to visually see the state of data structures like linked lists or binary trees is an amazing debugging tool). And since this is Unix, naturally there are other choices if you don't like DDD: Code Crusader, mxdb, mxgdb, xxgdb etc.

Since most open source fans now-a-days seem to embrace gnutella (and napster, etc) as their "fundamental right to pirate", what happened is that most of us pirated their games. And they went out of business. Is this actually a surprise? I justified copying their games because "they should have been GNU GPL and free" because "open source means freedom". Why dont you all ask RMS what his opinion on this is? Oh wait, I think I already know the answer, to make money from your software is "wrong". This troll speaks the truth, there is a fundamental flaw in the free software mentality.

Since most open source fans now-a-days seem to embrace gnutella (and napster, etc) as their "fundamental right to pirate", what happened is that most of us pirated their games. And they went out of business. Is this actually a surprise? I justified copying their games because "they should have been GNU GPL and free" because "open source means freedom". Why dont you all ask RMS what his opinion on this is? Oh wait, I think I already know the answer, to make money from your software is "wrong". This troll speaks the truth, there is a fundamental flaw in the free software mentality.