Slashdot Mirror

Well usually Roblimo takes the highest-moderated comments and sends them to me, but I guess this will do.

1. In 1983, the GNU Project was first announced. One of its main goals was ownership of my anus. Being a man of the heterosexual persuasion, I was forced to go underground to avoid falling prey to Richard Stallman's anal invasion.

2. You probably read that on the Baseball Prospectus. Much like Slashdot, they are devoted to promoting the homosexual agenda through lies.

3. Once David Glass sells the Royals and the whole front office gets fired for gross incompetence, I'll have all the time in the world.

4. To cite either of those texts would violate copyright laws such as the DMCA and SSSCA which I and all law-abiding Americans hold very dearly.

5. Trick question, you aren't wearing pants. But your dick doesn't look big at all.

6. With a little investigation, anyone can realize that as long as Enron held to the good solid Christian values of Texas, they had a strong business. However, in the midst of the late 90's boom, they fell prey to the dark machinations of VA (Vaginas Away!) Software, Slashdot.org, and Apache. It was only a matter of time.

VA Software executives have been photographed frantically applying for MCSE classes, but most certification schools do not accept used condoms and old pizza boxes as payment. The writing is on the wall.

7. If by "that" you mean CowboyNeal's shriveled cock, forget it. I have enough karma already.

8. Everything was going well in China until Linux came along. Will they ever turn around and behold the warm sun of capitalism?

9. You're lucky I only have one question left.

10. In today's Washington Post Classifieds, I noticed an ad from a gentleman in Michigan who seeks some sort of Sodomite rendezvous. Clearly this man has visited the "Geek Compound" and tasted its dark delights. One can only assume this man supports the Kyoto Protocol and other anticapitalist government programs, and has not read The Kyoto Killers.

Now, I'm off to put on my full-body armor and watch Chuck Knoblauch practice his throwing.

Do I need the append or not?

Reason #20996 to use GRUB: No need to use append=

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.

I was going to ask the same questions.

Particularly, is there anything in these ancient sources that the GNU tools have overlooked? Or have they succeeded in their earlier goal of superseding the original UNIX utilities?

Second, if the focus was on 16 bit computers, then is there anything in these sources that could be helpful on smaller processors of the current age, namely embedded applications where power requirements take us back a few generations.

Busybox is popular among the embedded crowd - does this old code have anything in it for BusyBox to learn from?

For general programmer-level stuff, a good place to start would be Eric Raymond's Software Release Practice HOWTO. The GNU coding standards and maintainer information provide guidance for practices on the GNU project; although other open source projects will not follow all of these practices, they give you a good idea of how things are generally organized. Sourceforge itself has pretty good documentation. There are various guides to sending patches (the diff manual is also good reading for this). There is a book on autoconf. There are several documents on CVS; an interesting one is the CVS best practices HOWTO. It's fairly new (November 20, 2001) and still pretty sketchy, but perhaps it will evolve into a more complete best practices guide (the author is soliciting input, so this is a chance to contribute).

And, of course, nearly every Open Source software package comes with some sort of manual. (This contrasts with proprietary Windows applications, which seem to expect you to buy some sort of proprietary book on the side, in addition to the proprietary application you have already bought.) E.g., the the GCC manual, the GNU Make manual, the Perl manual, the Python tutorial, and so on. Although these are not always ideal for the beginner they will certainly be a useful reference to keep handy.

For general programmer-level stuff, a good place to start would be Eric Raymond's Software Release Practice HOWTO. The GNU coding standards and maintainer information provide guidance for practices on the GNU project; although other open source projects will not follow all of these practices, they give you a good idea of how things are generally organized. Sourceforge itself has pretty good documentation. There are various guides to sending patches (the diff manual is also good reading for this). There is a book on autoconf. There are several documents on CVS; an interesting one is the CVS best practices HOWTO. It's fairly new (November 20, 2001) and still pretty sketchy, but perhaps it will evolve into a more complete best practices guide (the author is soliciting input, so this is a chance to contribute).

And, of course, nearly every Open Source software package comes with some sort of manual. (This contrasts with proprietary Windows applications, which seem to expect you to buy some sort of proprietary book on the side, in addition to the proprietary application you have already bought.) E.g., the the GCC manual, the GNU Make manual, the Perl manual, the Python tutorial, and so on. Although these are not always ideal for the beginner they will certainly be a useful reference to keep handy.

For general programmer-level stuff, a good place to start would be Eric Raymond's Software Release Practice HOWTO. The GNU coding standards and maintainer information provide guidance for practices on the GNU project; although other open source projects will not follow all of these practices, they give you a good idea of how things are generally organized. Sourceforge itself has pretty good documentation. There are various guides to sending patches (the diff manual is also good reading for this). There is a book on autoconf. There are several documents on CVS; an interesting one is the CVS best practices HOWTO. It's fairly new (November 20, 2001) and still pretty sketchy, but perhaps it will evolve into a more complete best practices guide (the author is soliciting input, so this is a chance to contribute).

And, of course, nearly every Open Source software package comes with some sort of manual. (This contrasts with proprietary Windows applications, which seem to expect you to buy some sort of proprietary book on the side, in addition to the proprietary application you have already bought.) E.g., the the GCC manual, the GNU Make manual, the Perl manual, the Python tutorial, and so on. Although these are not always ideal for the beginner they will certainly be a useful reference to keep handy.

For general programmer-level stuff, a good place to start would be Eric Raymond's Software Release Practice HOWTO. The GNU coding standards and maintainer information provide guidance for practices on the GNU project; although other open source projects will not follow all of these practices, they give you a good idea of how things are generally organized. Sourceforge itself has pretty good documentation. There are various guides to sending patches (the diff manual is also good reading for this). There is a book on autoconf. There are several documents on CVS; an interesting one is the CVS best practices HOWTO. It's fairly new (November 20, 2001) and still pretty sketchy, but perhaps it will evolve into a more complete best practices guide (the author is soliciting input, so this is a chance to contribute).

And, of course, nearly every Open Source software package comes with some sort of manual. (This contrasts with proprietary Windows applications, which seem to expect you to buy some sort of proprietary book on the side, in addition to the proprietary application you have already bought.) E.g., the the GCC manual, the GNU Make manual, the Perl manual, the Python tutorial, and so on. Although these are not always ideal for the beginner they will certainly be a useful reference to keep handy.

For general programmer-level stuff, a good place to start would be Eric Raymond's Software Release Practice HOWTO. The GNU coding standards and maintainer information provide guidance for practices on the GNU project; although other open source projects will not follow all of these practices, they give you a good idea of how things are generally organized. Sourceforge itself has pretty good documentation. There are various guides to sending patches (the diff manual is also good reading for this). There is a book on autoconf. There are several documents on CVS; an interesting one is the CVS best practices HOWTO. It's fairly new (November 20, 2001) and still pretty sketchy, but perhaps it will evolve into a more complete best practices guide (the author is soliciting input, so this is a chance to contribute).

And, of course, nearly every Open Source software package comes with some sort of manual. (This contrasts with proprietary Windows applications, which seem to expect you to buy some sort of proprietary book on the side, in addition to the proprietary application you have already bought.) E.g., the the GCC manual, the GNU Make manual, the Perl manual, the Python tutorial, and so on. Although these are not always ideal for the beginner they will certainly be a useful reference to keep handy.

this is incredibly useful especially for GNU developers who have made gnu reimplementations of these software. now they can get rid of some of BSD code in the GNU Tools

Wrong. These tools are licensed under the Old BSD license, which includes an advertising clause: "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." According to RMS, an advertising clause makes a license incompatible with GNU GPL.

Well I'd be as lost as our questioner here too, if I didn't decide to do a report on the Free Software Foundation (creators of GNU/Linux and the GNU Public License...and now the GNU Free Documentation License!!) for school and discover that they made a "GPL" for just this sort of thing!! So yes, there is A license that you're looking for... So, without further ado, click the link for the Free Software Foundation's GNU Free Documentation License!!!! (My first post, tee hee!!)

Check out the gnu doc project. They always need folks who can write good copy.

Dan

My personal recommendation would be The GNU Free Documentation License:

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.

So here's my question: No matter what free license we choose, where should we look for publishers, who will want to print our books?

Do you really need an open-source license or you just want your book to be free?

You can either completely give up your copyright as the writer of the work (why would you do that?) or use what GNU recommends - free documentation license FDL to make sure you get proper credit, retain some rights, give others rights to modify, redistribute, etc., etc.

The Open Content licenses of course, plus the GNU Free Documentation License and the Design Science license. There are undoubtedly others, but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

Hey gimpboy, your link is wrong, go here instead.

Look at the statistics

Sourceforge:
Hosted Projects: 32,738
Registered Users: 338,498

Savannah:
Hosted Projects: 517
Registered Users: 4,176

Now tell me which one is winning

sourceforge is indeed something special. if they can market it that will ne nice. that is unless savannah takes off.

Funny - I never saw a page listing "BSD-compatible licenses", nor did I realize BSDers acting like the spanish inquisition when someone doesn't play to their rules, like some others do.

Stallman's lawyer is a Professor of Law at Columbia University. Plus, he has tons of experience enforcing the GPL. Don't judge his capabilities too quickly.

The GPL is enforceable.

Seriously, read it.

Apparently, if you'd believe the Linux community, you'd be hard-pressed upon where to place the blame. You see, the Linuxist Manifesto's number one rule is to lie to protect the best interests of Linux. No self-respectable Linux zealot would insult or place blame upon AMD, because AMD's philosophy centers around tackling American Corporations with their Asian sweatshops, selling their chips at bargain-basement prices like the Red Menace Commies do with their Wal-Mart shit.

So, right about now, you're probably thinking that the zealots are clearly in a dilemma. Who are they going to blame? If you have a prediction before I tell you, the poll is on the right. Or maybe the left. Either way, take your pick.

You'd think that the parasitic community would place blame upon Microsoft, right? Alas, Microsoft has had the bug patched since September 2000. Not only that, Windows XP , the latest in the suite of high-powered, stable operating systems from Microsoft Corp., has this patch built in. That's right, built in. Keep in mind that Windows XP was released in October 2001, over three months ago. Meanwhile, no one knows what the hell Alan Cocks has been doing since then, since he hides under the cloak of secrecy. nVidia has been informing users via tech support, even to the Linux community, how to fix the problem for months now. Clearly the blame is upon Alan Cocks's shoulder, but to place the blame where it is rightfully justified is inexcusable in the Linux community. The drones are in disarray.

The actual bug occurs when Linux users contract the Tux Racer virus via KEmail. When first run, Tux Racer enables a feature in your third-world sweatshop AMD processor called "extended paging." Now, I know you're probably thinking that this sounds like some sort of Nokia feature. Well, you're wrong. It's yet another feature that AMD illegally hacked from Intel. It allows your browser to seamlessly view pages up to 4Mb in size. Before its introduction in the early days of the Intel Pentium processor, web pages were broken up into 4K segments, because any pages larger would freeze the computer. That's why Microsoft didn't invent Javascript until after the Pentium, every time they went to use it, their pages exceeded 4K, and henceforth froze the computer. Intel came to the rescue with the Pentium line of chips, and, as usual, AMD got out their super high tech Asian hacking tools and "reverse-engineered" (code-name for 'illegally hacked') Intel's technology. Thus, users of the inferior AMD Cyrix Kx86-2 Now! processor could also view large web pages without crashing. So why did no one notice that pages larger than 4K would crash AMD processors? Well, Microsoft has had a fix for 16 months, like we mentioned earlier. But why did no one from the Linux community notice? Well, apparently, there does not exist a page devoted to Linux that is more than 4K in size. Since most of the Linux installations out there denounce color as 'feature bloat,' all Linux pages follow an unwritten oath to suck. Believe me, they all do.

So, for the good of Linux, you may now disperse. Head off to various tech sites and continue blaming Microsoft for not telling you sooner. Your community will thank you.

Apparently, if you'd believe the Linux community, you'd be hard-pressed upon where to place the blame. You see, the Linuxist Manifesto's number one rule is to lie to protect the best interests of Linux. No self-respectable Linux zealot would insult or place blame upon AMD, because AMD's philosophy centers around tackling American Corporations with their Asian sweatshops, selling their chips at bargain-basement prices like the Red Menace Commies do with their Wal-Mart shit.

So, right about now, you're probably thinking that the zealots are clearly in a dilemma. Who are they going to blame? If you have a prediction before I tell you, the poll is on the right. Or maybe the left. Either way, take your pick.

You'd think that the parasitic community would place blame upon Microsoft, right? Alas, Microsoft has had the bug patched since September 2000. Not only that, Windows XP , the latest in the suite of high-powered, stable operating systems from Microsoft Corp., has this patch built in. That's right, built in. Keep in mind that Windows XP was released in October 2001, over three months ago. Meanwhile, no one knows what the hell Alan Cocks has been doing since then, since he hides under the cloak of secrecy. nVidia has been informing users via tech support, even to the Linux community, how to fix the problem for months now. Clearly the blame is upon Alan Cocks's shoulder, but to place the blame where it is rightfully justified is inexcusable in the Linux community. The drones are in disarray.

The actual bug occurs when Linux users contract the Tux Racer virus via KEmail. When first run, Tux Racer enables a feature in your third-world sweatshop AMD processor called "extended paging." Now, I know you're probably thinking that this sounds like some sort of Nokia feature. Well, you're wrong. It's yet another feature that AMD illegally hacked from Intel. It allows your browser to seamlessly view pages up to 4Mb in size. Before its introduction in the early days of the Intel Pentium processor, web pages were broken up into 4K segments, because any pages larger would freeze the computer. That's why Microsoft didn't invent Javascript until after the Pentium, every time they went to use it, their pages exceeded 4K, and henceforth froze the computer. Intel came to the rescue with the Pentium line of chips, and, as usual, AMD got out their super high tech Asian hacking tools and "reverse-engineered" (code-name for 'illegally hacked') Intel's technology. Thus, users of the inferior AMD Cyrix Kx86-2 Now! processor could also view large web pages without crashing. So why did no one notice that pages larger than 4K would crash AMD processors? Well, Microsoft has had a fix for 16 months, like we mentioned earlier. But why did no one from the Linux community notice? Well, apparently, there does not exist a page devoted to Linux that is more than 4K in size. Since most of the Linux installations out there denounce color as 'feature bloat,' all Linux pages follow an unwritten oath to suck. Believe me, they all do.

So, for the good of Linux, you may now disperse. Head off to various tech sites and continue blaming Microsoft for not telling you sooner. Your community will thank you.

It's interesting to see how many geeks really care about this political, idealistic stuff. Isn't it more fun to just code?

The copyright industry wants to take away the existence of machines on which we can "just code" by having the hardware trust an encrypted BIOS, which trusts the kernel, which trusts the apps. At this rate, we're heading toward a future where after SSSCA and Son of SSSCA have passed, all computer systems will be closed systems. (Read More...)

Apparently, if you'd believe the Linux community, you'd be hard-pressed upon where to place the blame. You see, the Linuxist Manifesto's number one rule is to lie to protect the best interests of Linux. No self-respectable Linux zealot would insult or place blame upon AMD, because AMD's philosophy centers around tackling American Corporations with their Asian sweatshops, selling their chips at bargain-basement prices like the Red Menace Commies do with their Wal-Mart shit.

So, right about now, you're probably thinking that the zealots are clearly in a dilemma. Who are they going to blame? If you have a prediction before I tell you, the poll is on the right. Or maybe the left. Either way, take your pick.

You'd think that the parasitic community would place blame upon Microsoft, right? Alas, Microsoft has had the bug patched since September 2000. Not only that, Windows XP , the latest in the suite of high-powered, stable operating systems from Microsoft Corp., has this patch built in. That's right, built in. Keep in mind that Windows XP was released in October 2001, over three months ago. Meanwhile, no one knows what the hell Alan Cocks has been doing since then, since he hides under the cloak of secrecy. nVidia has been informing users via tech support, even to the Linux community, how to fix the problem for months now. Clearly the blame is upon Alan Cocks's shoulder, but to place the blame where it is rightfully justified is inexcusable in the Linux community. The drones are in disarray.

The actual bug occurs when Linux users contract the Tux Racer virus via KEmail. When first run, Tux Racer enables a feature in your third-world sweatshop AMD processor called "extended paging." Now, I know you're probably thinking that this sounds like some sort of Nokia feature. Well, you're wrong. It's yet another feature that AMD illegally hacked from Intel. It allows your browser to seamlessly view pages up to 4Mb in size. Before its introduction in the early days of the Intel Pentium processor, web pages were broken up into 4K segments, because any pages larger would freeze the computer. That's why Microsoft didn't invent Javascript until after the Pentium, every time they went to use it, their pages exceeded 4K, and henceforth froze the computer. Intel came to the rescue with the Pentium line of chips, and, as usual, AMD got out their super high tech Asian hacking tools and "reverse-engineered" (code-name for 'illegally hacked') Intel's technology. Thus, users of the inferior AMD Cyrix Kx86-2 Now! processor could also view large web pages without crashing. So why did no one notice that pages larger than 4K would crash AMD processors? Well, Microsoft has had a fix for 16 months, like we mentioned earlier. But why did no one from the Linux community notice? Well, apparently, there does not exist a page devoted to Linux that is more than 4K in size. Since most of the Linux installations out there denounce color as 'feature bloat,' all Linux pages follow an unwritten oath to suck. Believe me, they all do.

So, for the good of Linux, you may now disperse. Head off to various tech sites and continue blaming Microsoft for not telling you sooner. Your community will thank you.

Apparently, if you'd believe the Linux community, you'd be hard-pressed upon where to place the blame. You see, the Linuxist Manifesto's number one rule is to lie to protect the best interests of Linux. No self-respectable Linux zealot would insult or place blame upon AMD, because AMD's philosophy centers around tackling American Corporations with their Asian sweatshops, selling their chips at bargain-basement prices like the Red Menace Commies do with their Wal-Mart shit.

So, right about now, you're probably thinking that the zealots are clearly in a dilemma. Who are they going to blame? If you have a prediction before I tell you, the poll is on the right. Or maybe the left. Either way, take your pick.

You'd think that the parasitic community would place blame upon Microsoft, right? Alas, Microsoft has had the bug patched since September 2000. Not only that, Windows XP , the latest in the suite of high-powered, stable operating systems from Microsoft Corp., has this patch built in. That's right, built in. Keep in mind that Windows XP was released in October 2001, over three months ago. Meanwhile, no one knows what the hell Alan Cocks has been doing since then, since he hides under the cloak of secrecy. nVidia has been informing users via tech support, even to the Linux community, how to fix the problem for months now. Clearly the blame is upon Alan Cocks's shoulder, but to place the blame where it is rightfully justified is inexcusable in the Linux community. The drones are in disarray.

The actual bug occurs when Linux users contract the Tux Racer virus via KEmail. When first run, Tux Racer enables a feature in your third-world sweatshop AMD processor called "extended paging." Now, I know you're probably thinking that this sounds like some sort of Nokia feature. Well, you're wrong. It's yet another feature that AMD illegally hacked from Intel. It allows your browser to seamlessly view pages up to 4Mb in size. Before its introduction in the early days of the Intel Pentium processor, web pages were broken up into 4K segments, because any pages larger would freeze the computer. That's why Microsoft didn't invent Javascript until after the Pentium, every time they went to use it, their pages exceeded 4K, and henceforth froze the computer. Intel came to the rescue with the Pentium line of chips, and, as usual, AMD got out their super high tech Asian hacking tools and "reverse-engineered" (code-name for 'illegally hacked') Intel's technology. Thus, users of the inferior AMD Cyrix Kx86-2 Now! processor could also view large web pages without crashing. So why did no one notice that pages larger than 4K would crash AMD processors? Well, Microsoft has had a fix for 16 months, like we mentioned earlier. But why did no one from the Linux community notice? Well, apparently, there does not exist a page devoted to Linux that is more than 4K in size. Since most of the Linux installations out there denounce color as 'feature bloat,' all Linux pages follow an unwritten oath to suck. Believe me, they all do.

So, for the good of Linux, you may now disperse. Head off to various tech sites and continue blaming Microsoft for not telling you sooner. Your community will thank you.

Usually you'll start a session on an xterm and make calculations as needed, but

echo "34 * (7 + 5000)" | bc

works too. Better than bc, only a real HP48G within reach. And yes, I would kill for a Palm calculator application with 1/3 of the HP48G functionality.

Justin Frankel and his nullsoft team created the popular mp3 player for windows, winamp. It was free. It was good. AOL bought them. Justin and the nullsoft team are rich. Winamp is still good and free. It's not called AOL Winamp, the presence of AOL is not there in any new version of winamp.

Winamp has never been free; you just don't have to pay for it.

RedHat, on the other hand, is free. Everything the RedHat people change, add, or create from scratch is licensed under the GPL. This means that companies such as Mandrakesoft can make other distributions based on RedHat's work.

I'm really not entirely convinced that AOL understand this, and I very very much doubt that Time Warner do.

The more I think abuot this, the more I'm glad I use Debian instead; where there is no company, there can be no buyout.

Every time a controversial cartoon appears, there are always threats and lawsuits flying around. This is because corporations must protect their intellectual property otherwise it will be deemed to be in the public domain and cannot be protected by the law.

Just a reminder - one that seems to be needed often - RedHat is not an operating system, it is a distribution of an operating system. One of the beauties of open source is that AOL can't 'buy' Linux and take it over. It is specifically forbidden by the GPL.

They can buy and change a company and a distro, but they can only make it better. Imagine this - AOL buys RedHat, makes it more user friendly than ever and drives Linux to the masses. That is the good scenario. Worst scenario is the AOL generates interest in Linux, but drives RedHat into the ground. Linux still survives. Only bad for the hardcore RedHat fans, who switch to their next choice and move on. What is there to lose?

Anyway, GNU Go is pretty good, scoring 8th in the 21st Century cup.

The next expected step will be to combine the two, software intellects with hardware brawn, creating robot minions that do not require human controllers. Of course if we are not careful, the darwinian effect of these artificial gladiators' constant struggle with one another may be to bring about a race of super robot warriors that turn on their creators and exterminate humankind, turning the Earth into a real-life version of the nightmarish Cylon Empire featued in the "Battlestar Galactica" television program.

So we must be careful not to let the cheap thrills we get out of watching robot conflicts get the best of us. We must do all we can to integrate peaceful, loving ideals into software and robot development so that perhaps in the future we will be able to lie in harmony rather than strife with our creations.

Why isn't gnuchess in this tournament? I'd love to see how it stacks up to all the other engines.

Also coming soon from BitterIrony press:
GNU's guide to user-frendly UI.
The U.S. D.O.J.'s guide to speedy legal precedings.
And:
Larry Wall's guide to maintainable code.

I'm not going to address the idea of copyright law going away. I'll limit my remarks to interpreting the GNU GPL and the philosophy of the Free Software movement.

The point of the GPL is making sure your code always stays open, and doesn't get used by a company to build a closed system.

Actually, the GNU GPL works to maintain software freedom, not openness. The goals of the Open Source movement and the Free Software movement are very different. One cannot accurately express the goals of one movement in terms of the other.

There is nothing wrong with using free software to build software one does not distribute (private derivatives are okay). There is also nothing wrong with companies improving free software. The Free Software movement is not anti-corporate or anti-private derivative, the Free Software movement is anti-proprietary software.

Ok, you started the nitpicking, I'll continue it!!

You forgot that you don't need to checks students against their own code. The formula is (n*(n-1))/2.... thus for 350 students, checks=61075

Of course, multiple files (a varying amount) for each student submission = more possibilities, but you can cat all files together, or compare the assembly/rtl code generated by the compiler.

Example: 5 kids labeled a,b,c,d,e:

a vs. bcde
b vs. cde
c vs. de
d vs. e

5 kids, 10 comparisons total.

[..] that is, a program which compares students' coding assignments to each other and detects exact matches. [...]

Let me guess... Is this what they used ? ;))

Found this Petition link on GNU site home page

IP laws need to be changed from "Cannot" Based, to "Can" based.

We have the technology to make it work.

Found this petition link at the GNU Site Home page

Look who signer #1551 is. And look at what signer #1552 says.

If software wasn't patentable, then the patent office couldn't make software patent blunders.

If you are a US citizen, consider signing the petition.

How can the 'export' keyword be considered anything less than highly useful? It allows template classes to be separated into a header and an implementation file. I've wished more than once that that was implemented.

The GCC take on 'export' is this:
Supporting the export keyword is certainly a goal, since it is a very valuable feature, and mandated by the standard. found here

Note also that "public domain" != "open source".

The author of the article opposing release of publicly funded works under an open source license seems to have a misconception as to what common free software licenses say constitutes source code. From the anti-OSS article:

Open source licenses rarely require that local changes be distributed. Open source licenses do not set a limit on the fees charged. Open source licenses set no restriction on when, how, or where the source is distributed (with minor exceptions). As an open source publisher I am free to release my source code only once a year, at a charge of $1 million paid at least two months in advance, and you have to accept it on paper tape while we are both standing under the Eiffel Tower. (I'll cover my own travel arrangements if you take me up on this.) If I am the original copyright holder I'm even allowed to obfuscate the code by removing comments, using nonsense variable names, and other tricks.

This conflicts with the most common definition of source code. The GNU General Public License, one of the most popular free software licenses, specifies the following in section 3: "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange," that is, something other than paper tape. Also, "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it," meaning that if reasonable comments aid modification, leave them in.

Looking just at the aspects of data deletion on the hard disk (i.e. ignoring the problems arising when data is transmitted to other computers), the problems of irretrievably deleting data have long been known. Most filesystems' delete commands are, of course, trivially insecure, since, at most, they make a note that the disk sectors containing the file are no longer allocated. Even overwriting the data multiple times may not be sufficient. I believe Peter Gutmann's 1996 Usenix paper, Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory, is still one of the (if not the) authoritative references on the subject. Briefly, when a bit is altered on a disk, the previous bits leave their imprints on the new bit, and it is possible to look back through the layers of deletion for data. Furthermore, it is possible to do this (to a limited degree, but even so...) with relatively inexpensive equipment.

Gutmann then goes on to derive a set of patterns that are optimal for rendering deleted data irretrievable. GNU shred (part of the GNU fileutils) uses these patterns and is the recommended tool for secure deletion in a Unix environment.

Note, however, that shred has some limitations in that it assumes that, when writing data to a file, it is overwriting the old data. The info node notes that this is not the case for some filesystems, including some journaling filesystems. Also, modern hard drives may remap drive sectors on the fly if those sectors begin to fail, leaving the possibility for data to remain in the swapped-out sectors. The safest method is, as usual, complete destruction of the drive.

This is in response to the going-to-court business. Here is the GNU page on this topic:

Enforcing the GPL

Anyone who wishes to comment on enforcabilty of the GPL should be required to read this.

GPL is the Gnu Public License. Alot of people share your view about it though. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it (below). Just commenting on it
Actually, GPL stands for General Public License.

GNU and Linux

I'm not sure if this was meant to be a troll, or if you are just misinformed, but your post contains a number of glaring errors, which I feel I must clear up.

First of all, "GPL" does not stand for "Gnu Protective License," as you suggest. In fact, it stands for "Grand Prince of Liceses." When Red Hat finished writing Linux, they quickly realized that their operating system was vastly superior to all others available, and decided to come up with a license to guarantee that it would ascend the thrown. Hence, the GPL.

Secondly, I think that you and your lawyers have misread the GPL. While it is true that you must release source for any products compiled with GPL tools, in fact the GPL goes further. Anyone who has ever looked at the source of a GPL-licensed program must release source (under what is known as a "GPL-compatible license") for all software he or she writes after that point.

Now, this may seem a little harsh to you, but, try to look at it from Red Hat's perspective. They wrote the greatest operating system ever. And they made it freely available for you to look at. Now, if you take and reuse their brilliant ideas, isn't that theft of their intellectual property? And, how are they to know that you're not reusing their ideas if you don't release your source?

In any case, I trust that your company will quickly comply with the terms of the GPL, and begin releasing source immediately. Fortunately, a Red Hat subsidiary named VA Software has a website called SourceForge.net that will help you to comply with the GPL by providing project hosting, version control, bug and issue tracking, project management, backups and archives, and communication and collaboration resources for open source projects.

Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system
Actually, Linux supports Token Ring (you need to recompile the kernel for that) and there is no need to defrag the ext2fs due to it's superior design.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
The GNU General Public License does not limit your rights granted by copyright law in any way (as it plainly states). You do not have to realease any source code, UNLESS you plan to release work based on the code. With M$ code you cannot even see the kernel code, let alone modify it.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
You are right. This is unaccepable. This also incorrect. You should fire your lawyers and hire ones that know how to read. The GPL allows any USE of the code, including compiling commercial code with the gcc compiler.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
If you don't want anyone outside the company to see your source code or products, then simple DON'T RELEASE them. You are required to release the source only if you redistribute work based on GPL'd code, such as kernel patches.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
Micro$oft's "Shared Source" allows only specific buisness partners to see (but not modify in any way) limited parts of Micro$oft source code. Micro$oft uses it's clients for peer review of their code without giving anything in return.
In the "Shared Source" license you are not even allowed to create a work based on the source, let alone distribute it.

The goal of the GPL is software freedom. These freedoms are zero indexed, of course:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I think speaking of a "GNU GPL law" only serves to confound the issue. The issue is software freedom, whether this is something society should value, and what means work best to achieve that end.

The GPL is just a tool.

But from my perception of this (GPL faq) page, this scenario is highly unlikey to happen. Some pieces of it:

First One:

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

Second one:

Consider this situation:

X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.

Does X need Y's permission?

Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.

But from my perception of this (GPL faq) page, this scenario is highly unlikey to happen. Some pieces of it:

First One:

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

Second one:

Consider this situation:

X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license.

Does X need Y's permission?

Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.