Slashdot Mirror

There are solid competitors for all of these.

ftpd: Proftpd wins, hands down. Configuration is like Apache except less crufty. It's modular, and pretty secure too (I can't remember hearing of any major security holes). Some people who use it: ftp.gnu.org, download.sourceforge.net. Enough said. www.proftpd.org.

bind: bind 9? I can't really think of a replacement except DNScache, and I've never used it. I have no idea if it's better or worse or just weaker.

sendmail: I hear qmail is extremely good, if you don't mind DJB's bizarre lack of license (also applies to DNScache). Qmail purportedly runs Yahoo! Mail among others. Otherwise, the only other alternative I can think of is exim, which is designed to be easier to configure and simpler IIRC.

Next time, post some links or something. Sheesh.

Daniel

There's already a library which does some of this, and chances are you already have it installed: libiberty. Perhaps its role could be expanded a bit?

A few people have pointed out that if you're the sole contributor, you're free to licence the software as you see fit. However, even if this is the case, I don't think it solves the problem. Essentially what the author wants is to keep the codebase Free and have all changes come back to the community. What the author doesn't care about that the LGPL does is the ability to relink with other libraries, since that can be pretty diffecult with hardware.

After a little exploration at gnu.org's Free licence list i saw the "licence of Guile" (third one down) that looks like exactly what you're looking for. The licence is not on the web, though, so you'll have to download Guile and see for yourself. It says it's essentially the GPL only with a blanket statement allowing linking with non-free software.

Hope that helps,
ben.c

"I want the codec to remain Free...

Don't forget the Autoconf macro library and also the fact that there are thousands of free packages out there which will have configure scripts from which you can borrow - try to find packages in a similar domain to your own.

The difficulty (complexity, time taken) in maintaining a package which works on N platforms is usually proportional to N - or if you are unlucky, some small power of N like 2. What your code is really doing is trying to understand the properties of the target system and so the #ifdef __hpux__ for example in line 1249 of blurfl.c is actually trying to determine if the quux is use like this or like that. Autoconf on the other hand will produce a single preprocessor macro for driving the quux. This means that you don't have an extra 15 lines of #ifs to handle quuxes in other operating systems. Hence you may not have less #ifdeffed bits, but each of the #ifdeffed bits will be shorter.

Autoconf works differently to thge standard approach - it allows your code to work with each feature independently, and so while the normal approach is O(N) or O(N^2) in the number of suppoered OSes, the complexity of maintaining an autoconfiscated program is O(N) in the number of different features supported by the operating systems between them. The great thing about this is that Autoconf keeps these orthogonal and prevents these things from interacting too heavily, and it turns out to the the case that the total number of different features basically flattens out to some constant number even when you continue to add more supported OSes (i.e. there are only a certain total number of different ways of doing things even though each of the N operating systems can choose among X ways of doing Y things).

So, what this means is that you shold do the feasibility study as discussed above, but naturally autoconfiscating the whole system will take a while. The ideal time to do this is either

1. when you are in any case adding support for an extra platform or two or
2. on a piecemeal basis for each subsystem.

Another option to explore in combination with Autoconf is the Apache Portable Runtime. There is also Autoproject but I suspect that is a little lightweight for your needs.

Taking all the above together I suggest that you

1. Propose a feasibility study, using a couple of sections of the project
2. Identify a way of making the newly autoconf-ed section fit in with your existing build mechanism (so that you can roll out autoconfiscation gradually across the project).
3. Identify any related open-source projects which might have useful autoconf macros (e.g. Gnome has lots).

I like to eat turds. Does anyone of you have any spare turds for me to eat? If so, please contact me.

Thanks in advance,
Richard M Stallman

From the GNU Manifesto

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

You claim the FSF is not coercing and you are correct EXCEPT, the WANT TO BE ABLE TO and are working toward that goal. RMS has publicly stated that he would like nothing better than for a law to be passed banning non-free software.

From the GNU Manifesto

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

Walter Bell writes:

O'Reilley : RMS :: Libertarianism : Socialism

O'Reilley supports the rule of copyright law over software. This is not libertarianism. RMS argues against copyright law covering software, this is a much more libertarian viewpoint than O'Reilly's. Socialism recommends government ownership and control of key means of production. This has nothing to do with what RMS is arguing for.

I would redo the analogy as
O'Reilly : RMS :: Regulated Captialism : Laissez-faire Captialism or
O'Reilly : RMS :: Status Quo : Libertarian

Unfortunately, the two viewpoints are irreconcilable. One values the rights of the individual over the needs of the Free Software world, and one values the needs of the Free Software world over the rights of the individual.

Not quite right. Both of them feel they have the best interests of the Free Software world in mind.

The irreconcileable difference in viewpoints is simple:
* Tim O'Reilly values the rights of the developer over the rights of the user.
* RMS values the rights of the user over the rights of the developer.

I, as a developer, feel that RMS's viewpoint is the healthier one in the long run. Many developers understandably disagree. What baffles me is how many non-developers seem to prefer the rights of developers over the rights of users.

So, to these men, I say: drop it. Let the chips fall where they may.

It is unlikely that either will drop it. RMS advocates Free Software both as a living and as an ethical calling. Tim O'Reilly has fears for his personal livelihood and those of the people whose books he publishes.

Heretic! Ed is the standard text editor.

You are of course, quite right to raise the question of free speech in countries where it ought to be taken for granted, such as the US and UK.

Freedom of speech has long been under attack from all directions, from copyright law to national security, trade secrets, libel law, and even the new "intent to incite racial hatred" laws.

As most slashdotters know, one of the worst offenders has been the american DMCA act, which effectively outlaws encryption research, and even the mentioning of safety/security flaws.
Ed Foster wrote an excellent article on this at which I suggest is readable enough to use as an introduction to the subject for outsiders.

And if international summits have their way, each country's law will be enforceable in any other. Never mind the arrest of Russian Skylarov, or of the Norweigan kid for breaking US law in their respective home countries, we shall soon be officially subjet to Chinese, US, French, German, and Arabic copyright laws in our own countries. (Read about it here)

We in the G8 take so much pride in our countries' laws, that we are such knights in shining armour that we can legitimitely tell other countries what is right and what is wrong, that we often lose sight of how far our countries have strayed from the ideals we expect from them.

How long until someone can be arrested at Speakers' Corner, for talking about encryption research?

The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."

If you don't want to, or can't, use the source and the info, and it would be an utterly. pointless. world. if everybody spent the time to develop the necessary skills, then offer to pay for it. You'd be amazed what happens when people offer to actually pay for actual work.

Is that clear enough?

The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."

If you don't want to, or can't, use the source and the info, and it would be an utterly. pointless. world. if everybody spent the time to develop the necessary skills, then offer to pay for it. You'd be amazed what happens when people offer to actually pay for actual work.

Is that clear enough?

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

I was listening to Stallmans speech sometime back at the NYU.

What happened to the MIT X-Windows system? Yeah it was written and the source made open. Companies just used them in their software.. Cool the companies thought some one just made this beautiful thing the X .. saving us a lot of time, money & efforts .. and the best part we can sell it back to the guys who made it ....a success? Yes for the X windows developers... not for the public...

This is where the GNU and the GPL come in .. they try to protect the Freedom of the developers and the users. Stallman dosent want the same thing that happned to X, happen to GNOME. I totally agree with you Mr.Stallman.

If you guy dont agree with him... ( but you think agree with the GNU philosophy) go to the GNU page and re-read the philosophy ...bcoz you got it ALL wrong.

regards, JayaBharath

I guess they don't want disabled programmers working on free software for them.

I have ulnar neropathy. My arms are pretty toasted from computer use. For the majority of my work (writing, quality assurance, and documentation) I use proprietary speech recognition software. Until there is a free replacement, I will continue to pay for and use such software.

When Stallman refuses to work with or talk about proprietary software I hear him say that he feels my possible contributions aren't worth anything.

As such I refuse to work on gnu projects, and put my efforts towards other open source and free projects.

-Jeff

OBL is trying to build a Muslim empire and take Muslims' land back from the Christians and Jews who have exercised control over it for many years. Both men are obsessed with power and will do everything they can to meet their goal, regardless of the consequences that their abrasion causes.

This essay is probably the best explanation of the philosophic difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. This difference is real and significant; RMS is not just making this up or being obstinate. Criterion 9 of the Open Source Definition is the main point of contention.

My reading of the debate is that at this point it is healthy and indicates the continued evolution and dynamism of OS/Free software. The danger is that the current popularity of the Open Source model would sideline advocates of the Free Software model and lead to a destructive schism. All voices need to be heard and understood.

I'm not sure why people have a problem understanding this. Forget about RMS and GNU for a minute, and consider the point of view of any other software developer, say, Apple. Obviously, Apple wants to serve its customers as well as possible, so it wants to make software that can run on and interoperate with Microsoft systems. At the same time, Apple certainly does not want to suggest to users that they ought to rush out and buy the latest version of Windows XP. Like any other software developer, RMS wants to try to promote his own systems as much as possible, while providing compatibility as a convenience to its users. (Of course, that is probably where the similarities between RMS and proprietary software developers end ...)

Now, maybe the problem is that I'm compiling it with gcc 3.01 instead of 2.95... according to their readme, 2.95 is the One True Compiler and all other compilers are All Fucked Up And Shit. Now, I'm no Alan Turing or whatever, but I've been around, and that sounds a whole lot like rationalizing sloppy coding practices. Blaming the compiler?!? Puh-lease!!! If it doesn't work with 2.96 or 3.01, you don't go foisting off the responsibility on the supposed ineptitude of a group of people with vastly more knowledge, experience, and credentials than yourself, you FUCKING FIX YOUR CODE AND MAKE IT FUCKING WORK. What a bunch of assholes. (And what's paprika supposed to actually taste like, anyway? Is there any reason I'm using that instead of fucking FOOD COLORING?)

I guess next time you'll remember to read and understand the contracts before you decide whether to sign them. Agreeing to let Oxford University control your work wasn't very wise.

Have you considered quitting Oxford so you can work on your networking protocol freely? This is what RMS did when he began working on the GNU projecthis speeches contain a full description of what he did and why. Briefly: prior to making the GNU project, he was employed at MIT. He quit MIT because he didn't want MIT to gain control of the GNU project.

Did you consider selecting a free software license so everyone (including Oxford) could benefit from your work? This might make Oxford more likely to want to let you continue work on it using their facilities. The GNU GPL is a copylefted free software license you should consider, particularly if your networking software is valuable (think: embrace & extend).

Did you consider stopping work on your networking protocol until you get this dilemma solved?

then they should advocate placing software into the public domain.

Actually, they do. On the looong term. Haven't you been singing the Free Software Song?

And forcing me to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval is an attempt to assert what?

A lame strawman counter argument. Nobody is forcing you to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval. The FSF lays out their arguments on why you should want to use the GNU GPL (or possibly the GNU LGPL, but only as a part of a strategy) and in so doing tries to encourage you to understand and agree with the ethics of the Free Software movement. As RMS says in his speeches, it is up to you to decide what licensing you choose for your own code.

Just to squelch another lame counterargument: If you make the decision to derive your code from GPL'd code you should be compelled to abide by the terms of the GPL. You could have chosen to write the code from scratch for yourself, but you did not.

And forcing me to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval is an attempt to assert what?

A lame strawman counter argument. Nobody is forcing you to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval. The FSF lays out their arguments on why you should want to use the GNU GPL (or possibly the GNU LGPL, but only as a part of a strategy) and in so doing tries to encourage you to understand and agree with the ethics of the Free Software movement. As RMS says in his speeches, it is up to you to decide what licensing you choose for your own code.

Just to squelch another lame counterargument: If you make the decision to derive your code from GPL'd code you should be compelled to abide by the terms of the GPL. You could have chosen to write the code from scratch for yourself, but you did not.

Open Source's GPL

is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.

[The GNU] GPL itself requires a heirarchy[sic] to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy[sic].

No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.

Open Source's GPL

is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.

[The GNU] GPL itself requires a heirarchy[sic] to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy[sic].

No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.

Open Source's GPL

is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.

[The GNU] GPL itself requires a heirarchy[sic] to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy[sic].

No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.

Open Source's GPL

is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.

[The GNU] GPL itself requires a heirarchy[sic] to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy[sic].

No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.

Open Source's GPL

is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.

[The GNU] GPL itself requires a heirarchy[sic] to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy[sic].

No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.

However. If I write software, with my time, and my effort, then nobody is going to tell ME under what terms I may let someone else use it.

You can choose whether or not to give someone a copy of the software, true - they can't use force to pry a copy out of your fingers. (That's why and how you can sell free software.) But you need government force (or some kind of force) if you want to control what they do with it once you give them a copy.

You have a natural freedom not to give me a copy of a program, poem, song, or whatever you created. You do not have a natural right to control what I do with it afterwards.

I'm not totally opposed to communism.. but that's basically what Stallman wants.

No, it's not, and you would be well served to go read some Marx before you make such ignorant statements.

Or are you honestly suggesting that you should have the right to use every single piece of code I've ever written, ever, whether I've chosen to release it or not?

Absolutely not - part of free software is the freedom to privacy - one of the reasons why GNU has rejected some certified "open source" licenses as not being free software was because they don't respect people's privacy. They insisted that the person writing the code contribute the code back to a central repository. (I think the Apple APSL does this, but I'm not sure) You don't have to release software if you don't want to. But if you do, it should come with freedom.

The problem with your two scenarios is that they make the assumption that you'd never release the software unless you could control the source code. That might be true for some people, but it's not for the majority of people. If you insist that the software should be free, chances are it will be released, because regardless of whether the software is free or not, the author gets more benefit out of it when released than when held privately.

By the way, you might be interested in this which addresses your privacy concerns directly. In the GPL FAQ no less.

• GCC for C/C++/FORTRAN coding. It's free, it's not the fastest in the world but it's competent.
• Octave is a great, free replacement for Matlab. For general data manipulation it seems fine, where it really lacks relative to Matlab is in the GUI.
• Gnuplot is a great all-round, all-purpose, scriptable plotting tool that can also do fitting. For general everyday tasks gnuplot gets used a lot in our lab.
• SciGraphica is a great 2d/3d/vector/polar/ plotting and analysis package. It is a little like an Origin clone so is pretty easy to pick up, and can be extended with Python plugins. I am one of the developers ;0) (although far too busy atm to contribute, anyone want to help?). More suitable for publication-quality plots and still heavily in development. A new release is imminent. Plug ;0).
• teTeX is the main (La)TeX distribution for Linux and you'll most probably have it in Debian anyway but for writing reports, articles, books, theses, even letters you shouldn't need to use anything else. Really.
• OpenOffice if you have to deal with mad, crazy, annoying .doc using people.

There's plenty more where they came from. Most distrbutions come with a lot of these things anyway. These are mainly analysis or document tools, there's plenty of other things for both these areas and any other which plenty of other posters have shown. I've written a little guide for my local group. Some of it's out of date (and some of it's wrong but I have better things to fix) but it does have a list of common tools we use. And, of course, SAL is a pretty comprehensive database of unix tools. HTH.

It does excellent job on its part. There is also some documentation on the site, including one of the creators' Ph. D. thesis that explains some of the theory behind the software. On Linux it requires gcc and GNU Fortran complier to compile (compilation is pretty straightforward).

I also found GNU awk extremely useful at numerical data analysis. You also would want to include Python and NumPy - python extension for numerical computations.

HTH

Alex

"Lack of free time is causing the current Ggradebook Project maintainer to look for a new maintainer! If you think you're qualified, please send an e-mail to: Ggradebook@users.sourceforge.net. For a maintainer, motivation, enthusiasm and communicative skills are more important than programming skills..."

The Ggradebook websites can be found here:

http://ggradebook.sourceforge.net
http://www.gnu.org/software/ggradebook

With best regards,

Norbert de Jonge
http://norbertdejonge.sourceforge.net

• Encap
• Stow

GNU Stow helps the system administrator organise files under /usr/local/ by allowing each piece of software to be installed in its own tree under /usr/local/stow/, and then using symlinks to create the illusion that all the software is installed in the same place.

If your project is closed-source, then is isn't free software, but freeware.
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it, but these are the commonly accepted definitions on slashdot.

If your project is closed-source, then is isn't free software, but freeware.
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it, but these are the commonly accepted definitions on slashdot.

MacOS X allows viewing of directories with thumbnails up to 128x128 (must be pre-generated with any of a handfull of applications) or a file listing with a single image preview at much larger sizes. Keyboard navigation in both cases is very easy involving only the arrow keys and the command key for most operations. (closing fully-opened images requires the W key, but that can be re-assigned with a little work in InterfaceBuilder.) The single-image preview method adds the option of being able to watch temporally-sorted image series as a low frame rate movie*, by simply holding down the down arrow. (* requires a sufficiently fast computer to decompress the images in realtime).

Aditionally, you can run programs such as popular wget and the amazingly powerful pavuk locally, so you can view your pr0n as it downloads!

...just not in the way he thinks he is. The entire Free Software/Open Source movement mainly began as a reaction to propertarian modes of software production, of which Microsoft eventually became the greatest, most extreme, and most infamous example. Even Richard Stallman says the GNU Project began as such a reaction in his history of the GNU Project.

All this shuck about open and extensible architectures was none of Microsoft's doing, and the Free Software movement would likely have existed even without it, though it probably would not have grown as rapidly.

Remove www.debian.org from your list. It does use .png images (and there are half a dozen of them on the main page, at least), just not exclusively.For that matter, including www.gnu.org is somewhat unfair, as they pretty much only use the one image on the entire site, and although it's in jpeg format on the main page, it is also available in .png (in fact, the high resolution version is only available in .png). See http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html.

So who is using PNG? Some of the people you list as not using PNG.

(... mutter mutter ... moderators that don't check claims ... mutter mutter ...)

Remove www.debian.org from your list. It does use .png images (and there are half a dozen of them on the main page, at least), just not exclusively.For that matter, including www.gnu.org is somewhat unfair, as they pretty much only use the one image on the entire site, and although it's in jpeg format on the main page, it is also available in .png (in fact, the high resolution version is only available in .png). See http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html.

So who is using PNG? Some of the people you list as not using PNG.

(... mutter mutter ... moderators that don't check claims ... mutter mutter ...)

I've got a copy of Windows XP. Unfortunately I didn't really *buy* it per se. Since Slashdot is known for its hatred of Microsoft and its promotion of free (as in love) software, I figured this is the ideal forum to pose my question: Where can I get a crack for Windows XP? Since most Slashdot readers use Windows and only give lip service to Linux, I believe that this question will help out the majority of your readership. Not only that, but it will be a major blow against Microsoft and it will continue the glorification of Communism that many Open Source visionaries have championed.

Would there be any validity in compiling hurd with this cycylone thing to in effect double up in some areas?

Depends, if it uses NTFS or FAT32 and you use Symantec Ghost it resizes the partition. I'm not very used to dd, I may lack of knowledge in the parameters doing advanced stuff :-) I used it occasionally and then used Partition Magic afterwards to resize and gain the space. Perhaps parted could do the trick too. I saw it in action on a machine of a coworker, very sleek.

Most of the Java 1.2 standard libraries are available for GCJ (but not AWT/Swing unfortunately)

P.S. Also, the converse is true: You don't have to code in Java to run programs in a JVM (see languages for the Java VM for a list of languages that can be compiled into Java bytecode)

Mindterm looks interesting, but the GNU httptunnel application (here is another link) mentioned in another post will do roughly the same thing, and you can easily use ssh over httptunnel to tunnel other protocols.

Better yet, unlike Mindbright's applet, httptunnel is free software (GPL). Mindbright's applet does sound like it has some nice bell's and whistles, though. Probably worth paying for if you were going to roll SSS over HTTP out as a solution to a larger group of users. (using ssh over httptunnel works great, but it can be a little confusing to set up the first time.) Otherwise, try httptunnel instead.

BlueCollarTech.com

I hadn't actually heard of the incident you refer to. Even if it did happen, RMS' stated position is that the kernel is called Linux.

I was going to use Common C++ for something, but never got around to it.

here is a link: http://www.gnu.org/software/commonc++/CommonC++.ht ml

here is another: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cplusplus/

I have used wxWindows for simple cross-platform GUI stuff, and it works pretty well. wx is basically an abstract GUI toolkit, which wraps around various native toolkits like GTK, Windows, Mac, (even Motif).

It's pretty cool, though QT might have some more advanced features or be faster.

I had a little trouble figuring out how to get the /boot partition ahead of the Windows one. I found a couple ways to do it. I originally did the Linux first and deleted everything except the /boot. I installed Windows then FreeBSD and finally Linux. The other way I tried was to install Windows first and move the partition with Partition Magic and then FreeBSD and Linux.

Using lilo to boot Linux and FreeBSD

Using Boot Easy to boot Linux and FreeBSD