Slashdot Mirror

This thread is a knock-down-drag-out over who is responsible for reviewing and committing patches in a timely manner. If a project does not have a single firm leader that is willing to do all the review work - it generally bogs down. Linux is fortunate - they have Alan Cox and Linus. TCL had its Ousterhout, Perl had its Larry Wall, emacs had RMS. Who is GCC's champion? A committee of twelve! The best open source projects in my opinion are: KDE, GNOME, Linux and Apache. Things actually get done in these groups. The pace of GCC development is glacial.

Caveat: I'm not a developer.
I have used the Hurd and was watching the main mailing lists for a couple years. From what I saw, they're open to most contributions and willing to consider the merits of different ways of doing things as long as you're willing to work on the code to bring it about. For more information please check out:

Official site
Debian GNU/Hurd

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

I have just the thing for you. It is called GCJ. It has Java syntax and the core Java libraries, it runs natively by being compiled with GCC (though a VM is also available) and CNI is a very convenient way of accessing C++ APIs.

I have just the thing for you. It is called GCJ. It has Java syntax and the core Java libraries, it runs natively by being compiled with GCC (though a VM is also available) and CNI is a very convenient way of accessing C++ APIs.

C'mon...I hope they take a stand. I'd like to see someone rock the boat. They obviously don't want to give up their hard work to the general public. Let's see how it pans out. What's the worst that could happen?

I'm realize the GPL has problems, and I'd also like to see someone "rock the boat". But RTLinux has been granted a patent for something it shouldn't have and if using the GPL to stop them is what is takes then I support that.

From gnu.org, emphasis by me:
Software patents are a harmful government policy of creating monopolies that restrict computer users. We oppose this policy, and we think it is a shame that Victor Yodaiken has chosen to obtain a patent for an idea that we believe should not be, and is not, patentable. The patent covers real-time interrupt handling using a software emulation layer for interrupt masking, so that interrupts can be prioritized. There is significant prior art for this.

Yodaiken has attempted to use the patent to impose restrictive terms on a GPL-covered program (Linux, the kernel used in the GNU/Linux operating system). These terms conflict with the GNU General Public License, and imposing them is a violation of the GPL. We have told Yodaiken this, and we have told him what license terms would comply with GPL. He, like everyone, has the reponsibility to comply with the GPL or cease his infringing distribution. Anyone else redistributing a modified version of Linux under the restrictive patent license that Yodaiken uses will also be violating the GPL.

I'm not familiar with this case so much, but I get the impression its just yet another stupid software patent, and this one just happens to be built on GPL'd code and therefore can be stopped.

The violation has to do primarily with a patent license that imposes terms not allowed by the GPL.

This isn't much different matter than failure to distribute source code.

That all depends on exactly why you are doing this. If you are doing this just to get practice on building a basic parser, then you probably want to look at some basic compiler books, or the documentation on the common lexical and parser generators (i.e. Flex and Bison). While that may be useful, remember that correct XML requires a little more work than just parsing (opening and closing tag names must match exactly, etc.). You probably want to read the w3c recommendation, or some annotated version if it.

Alternatively, if you just want to be able to read in XML, there are several free or GPL libraries out there already. The one I'm most familiar with is Xerces, the xml parser for the apache project. You can find it here.

If you are not a CS student, you probably want to make sure you're familiar with some of the basics (a set of languages, basic data structures, etc.) before taking on this sort of project. I'd recommend C++ and its Standard Template Library, but there are many other viable alternatives out there (e.g. C, Python, Java, etc.). There are lots of books which cover this, though none come to mind offhand. If any other reader would like to help, I'd be much obliged.

I hope some of this info helps, and I wish you luck.

That all depends on exactly why you are doing this. If you are doing this just to get practice on building a basic parser, then you probably want to look at some basic compiler books, or the documentation on the common lexical and parser generators (i.e. Flex and Bison). While that may be useful, remember that correct XML requires a little more work than just parsing (opening and closing tag names must match exactly, etc.). You probably want to read the w3c recommendation, or some annotated version if it.

Alternatively, if you just want to be able to read in XML, there are several free or GPL libraries out there already. The one I'm most familiar with is Xerces, the xml parser for the apache project. You can find it here.

If you are not a CS student, you probably want to make sure you're familiar with some of the basics (a set of languages, basic data structures, etc.) before taking on this sort of project. I'd recommend C++ and its Standard Template Library, but there are many other viable alternatives out there (e.g. C, Python, Java, etc.). There are lots of books which cover this, though none come to mind offhand. If any other reader would like to help, I'd be much obliged.

I hope some of this info helps, and I wish you luck.

What about all the patents related to jpeg2000 and mpeg4?

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 Working Group 1, better known as the Joint Photographic Experts Group, developed the JPEG bitstream standard (part of IS 10918-1), the SPIFF (.jpg) file format (IS 10918-3), and a new "JPEG 2000" wavelet coding system. JPEG has a policy of requiring all members to license patents royalty-free if the patent is essential for implementing the standard.

On the other hand, MPEG has more lenient standards, requiring members to pool and license their patents on a "reasonable and non-discriminatory basis," but not recognizing that a "non-discriminatory" policy toward Free Software implies royalty-free redistribution.

Personally, everytime i have to deal with GDB i feel like going outside and kicking cars - it's a painful experience ...MSDEV/VC6 is a 'GUI' - but man my performance with it is an order of magnitude higher.

And unlike GUI-only tools, you get your choice of several front-ends. This is the right way to build software.

You should have a look at Kawa. It currently supports Scheme (which some people don't consider to be a Lisp.) Support for Common Lisp is being worked on though.

It is available from http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/

You should have a look at Kawa. It currently supports Scheme (which some people don't consider to be a Lisp.) Support for Common Lisp is being worked on though.

It is available from http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/

The real hardcore GPL advocates are charicterized and led by Richard Stallman, the man who created the GPL and the leader of the (misdirected and nearly useless, IMHO) GNU project.

Is this a troll? Have you not heard of bash, gcc, glibc, fileutils, ...?

He has said lately, personally or through the GNU project, I forget which, that shared libraries should use the GPL now, instead of the LGPL, because companies that write non-open-source binaries should not be allowed to link against open-source libraries.

This seems to me like a good example. I don't see any practical gain in doing this,

The FSF's document Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism explains that it is for practical, as well as ideological reasons. RMS has explicitly said that if there is more practical gain from putting a library under the LGPL, you should do that instead. A GPLed library might encourage people to make their own software GPLed in order to use it, increasing the amount of useful free software out there; but an LGPLed library will get wider use and thus faster development of the library itself. Which of these is more important depends on how important the library is and whether alternatives are easily available.

we're looking forward, with great optimism, to the brave GNU e'conomy. scary huh?

So where does one get a box full of all these unixes? I do agree with you on that part about broad testing. But I can't afford to buy all those boxes (especially not an IBM zSeries). And finding shell accounts (especially root ones) for various testing seems to not go beyond Linux, FreeBSD, and a handful of OpenBSD and Solaris. Even the IBM mainframe accounts are available to only a few people, and then for a limited time (have you ever known an open source project to take 3 months and stop development then because it's "done"?). I do have Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD on Intel, and Linux, OpenBSD, and Solaris on Sparc. What else would you suggest?

As for Java ... I'm waiting until environments are built that can do what I do now in C. I'm hoping gcj will let me do at least some of these things in Java. But there are some things I doubt it can ever do. You can prove me wrong by rewriting LILO and init into Java.

• being the prisoner of a contract signed with a major company
• just giving away stuff that may be "patented by somebody else"

The link should be Kawa.



____________

Something should be done about this:

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

See The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story

When I first read it, it seemed far fetched, though I could see what it was saying and it's relation to the DMCA. Now I'm not so sure.

This is the second step to that situation, folks!

With Kawa, you can run Scheme programs in a Java Virtual Machine (just about any platform). It generates bytecodes from the Scheme source. And it allows you to use java classes, i.e., the java standard class libraries. This can help move people to Scheme, or, to at least give it a try.

That's almost certainly a misquote.

Actually, RMS has attempted has attempted to disuade people from using the LGPL.

To all the GNU witchhunters, I would suggest that before you start your bonfires, that you actually take the time to read some of the essays written to explain the philosophy behind GNU. I think if you do, you'll find what you read not so radical after all.

That's almost certainly a misquote.

Actually, RMS has attempted has attempted to disuade people from using the LGPL.

To all the GNU witchhunters, I would suggest that before you start your bonfires, that you actually take the time to read some of the essays written to explain the philosophy behind GNU. I think if you do, you'll find what you read not so radical after all.

i wonder if slashdot will be around, or if there will be a slashdot.it by then...

One of the huge problems I've got with some GPL advocates anymore is that they don't even UNDERSTAND the GPL. For instance, I've had to speak up to defend someone who build up an online package where you can get a news site setup in minutes, software and all. It used a semi-popular GPL'ed weblogger. Well, someone got REALLY offended, and said he was violating the GPL, blahblahblah both to the mailing list and to the person who built up the package.

I then explained, chapter and verse quotes from the horse's mouth, that the GPL implicitly allows someone to sell a GPL licensed software package, even if it's not the original author doing the selling. In the end, the guy who was selling the package moved to a different weblogger entirely, which took away some of the potential popularity (not that it matters THAT much.)

There's a lot of people out there that advocate something that just plain haven't read and understood completely. If you are a GPL advocate, or are involved in a GPL project - please, read the entire GPL (or LGPL if you use it) and read all the supplementary stuff at GNU.ORG that explains what all the rights that are granted really are, and what it really means for the projects you support or are involved in.

Note - I'm not saying all advocates of the GPL are like that. Just a growing number of them are.

The other problem I have is some people are under the opinion that GPL grants users certain rights. That's fine - but I don't have to agree with those rights, just like in real life we don't HAVE to agree on moral standards by which we live our lives. There are laws that set a minimum standard for our moral conduct (not that I agree with them) and there are laws that set a minimum standard for our rights as software developers and software users (not that I agree with them either :-) The GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user. The user makes the ultimate choice in the end - do they agree with the rights that I grant them and buy my software, or, do they disagree an not purchase the software I create and sell? In the end, it's the users that make the rules for how I conduct my business (which, oddly enough, is part of the reason why I'm writing my own license that I mentioned in another post that fits what I feel are the rights I should be granting to my users, while still meeting my financial obligations. GPL doesn't fit either of them, and neither does current us Copyright laws ('specially post DMCA!))

One of the huge problems I've got with some GPL advocates anymore is that they don't even UNDERSTAND the GPL. For instance, I've had to speak up to defend someone who build up an online package where you can get a news site setup in minutes, software and all. It used a semi-popular GPL'ed weblogger. Well, someone got REALLY offended, and said he was violating the GPL, blahblahblah both to the mailing list and to the person who built up the package.

I then explained, chapter and verse quotes from the horse's mouth, that the GPL implicitly allows someone to sell a GPL licensed software package, even if it's not the original author doing the selling. In the end, the guy who was selling the package moved to a different weblogger entirely, which took away some of the potential popularity (not that it matters THAT much.)

There's a lot of people out there that advocate something that just plain haven't read and understood completely. If you are a GPL advocate, or are involved in a GPL project - please, read the entire GPL (or LGPL if you use it) and read all the supplementary stuff at GNU.ORG that explains what all the rights that are granted really are, and what it really means for the projects you support or are involved in.

Note - I'm not saying all advocates of the GPL are like that. Just a growing number of them are.

The other problem I have is some people are under the opinion that GPL grants users certain rights. That's fine - but I don't have to agree with those rights, just like in real life we don't HAVE to agree on moral standards by which we live our lives. There are laws that set a minimum standard for our moral conduct (not that I agree with them) and there are laws that set a minimum standard for our rights as software developers and software users (not that I agree with them either :-) The GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user. The user makes the ultimate choice in the end - do they agree with the rights that I grant them and buy my software, or, do they disagree an not purchase the software I create and sell? In the end, it's the users that make the rules for how I conduct my business (which, oddly enough, is part of the reason why I'm writing my own license that I mentioned in another post that fits what I feel are the rights I should be granting to my users, while still meeting my financial obligations. GPL doesn't fit either of them, and neither does current us Copyright laws ('specially post DMCA!))

NO IT ISNT FREE TO USE.
read this you idiot and tell me that i can put the BSD IP stack in there.
GPL hippies are so preoccupied with their free licence that they ignore well developed, time tested solutions to simple problems. the IP stack in linux is a hack. the stacks in other versions of unix are not

I do not like the notion that my ideas, the ideas formed with my own genius and hard work, should be thrown into the public domain just because I formulated them. I should have the freedom to share my ideas, keep them secret, or sell them to the highest bidder. Taking away that freedom in the name of other freedoms not only tramples some of my liberties, but also cheapens the others.

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

What's disturbing is that not only you (if sincere) are buying into that FUD, but so is the Washington Post article (the following is so misconstrued it sounds almost like Craig Mundie):

That model holds that if you use open-source code, you have to put your enhancements in the public domain and offer it to others with the same privileges that you got, i.e. free.

GPL (General Public License). En premier lieu, chacun est libre de décortiquer le logiciel en accédant au code source, les lignes de programme qui en constituent les secrets de fabrication. Ensuite, chacun est libre de le modifier, de l'améliorer ou de l'adapter à ses besoins. Une condition: tous les changements doivent être rendus publics [transl: all changes must be made public] et faire l'objet des mêmes modalités d'utilisation et de diffusion.

I want to make a linked list in Java. Ooops, no pointers, sorry.

As Procrasti mentioned, every variable in the Java language not of primitive type (int, etc.) acts as a pointer. Just because you don't see a * doesn't mean it isn't a pointer.

I want to pass a variable to a function and have it modify it, oops, no pointers.

So pass a reference. If you're passing an object, don't clone() the object before you pass it. If you're passing a primitive, wrap it in an object (i.e. int foo; ... Integer bar = new Integer(foo);).

I want to write a program that takes as little memory as possible, or reuse memory, or optimize it to use common options of the processor, oops, no memory management, no assembler.

Reuse memory by calling System.gc(). Write assembly language either with Jasmin (an assembler for JVM bytecode) or JNI (a way to link in unsafe native code).

Technically you could [write a JVM in the Java language], of course. But you'd have your JVM running on a JVM

Not necessarily. GCJ can compile Java language source code into a native binary using G++'s engine.

Damnit, I want a programming language that gives me access to the freeking carry flag! =). I've done math routines a lot, and the code is literally 10x faster when you can optimize it by hand in assembly.

Then design a language that does such a thing. GCC is free software; you can start from that. And if you don't like the quality of optimizations that GCC does on your code, contribute a better optimizer.

hrm.. looks like I still have to get nero though. I can't burn a vcd or svcd.

Disclaimer: IANAL...

It seems under the GPL you have a few options to actually make a bit of money in the distribution of the source, if you so wish. Let me outline the basics of what the GPL says in regards to this (and please, don't trust this or me, read the GPL first, instead):

1. If you distribute the source code only, "you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee" (from the GPL, section 1).

2. If you distribute the code "in object code or executable form" (from the GPL, section 3), you must:

"a) 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" (from the GPL, section 3)

OR,

"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange." (from the GPL, section 3)

There is also a subsection "c" to section 3, but it isn't of interest to this discussion, since "This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution". (from the GPL, section 3)

So, it seems you must provide the source, in a machine-readable format, on a medium customarily used for software interchange.

Since "customarily" doesn't have any definition in the scope of this license (in fact, the word only appears twice), unless it has specific legal means (which it may, IANAL), then in theory, you could output the code on punch cards, for all the license cares!

But let us say that "customarily" alludes to the time of distribution - that is, the source code must be on a medium "of the times" - for today, that could be an FTP site, a web site - or a floppy, or CD-ROM.

You just have to provide access - it doesn't say you "must make it downloadable to the world" - just that if someone comes calling for it, you must provide it to them, on a medium "customarily" used for software interchange. So if you only wanted to distribute CD-ROMs - that would be PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH THE LICENSE.

Plus you may charge a fee for making this copy. This fee is never specified, or enumerated, within the GPL, other than to say "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution" (from the GPL, section 3).

Now, who is to say that it doesn't cost you $100.00 (US) to create that copy? How much is you or your company's time worth? Maybe the fee might be $500.00 for the source. There is nothing in the GPL to prohibit this.

So, let's say you are selling your office productivity suite of software to Joe and Jane Public. You sell it for $50.00 (thereby undercutting the competition). In the package, on a paper license agreement (and maybe a clickthrough), you state you will provide the source code to any individual or company, for the product, via CD-ROM through the mail, for a fee of only $500.00, should they request so within 3 years from the time of purchase (require a receipt to prove time-frame). Furthermore, state someplace that the software will only receive support if purchased from you, otherwise the purchaser is "on his own" for support.

Should Joe or Jane Public see this, most of them will simply shrug their shoulders, and continue to play with great software. Those that do pay would probably be reluctant to simply give the code away (though they could, and your company could do nothing about it!). Those looking for a free version of the product might be able to get it, but Joe and Jane Public are unlikely to use it, since there wouldn't be any support from your company.

A company that might pay in order to have the source to correct flaws in the software (and hopefully give you or the community back those corrections), probably wouldn't distribute the code for free, or a fee - since anyone downloading it wouldn't be able to get support, other than from the secondary distributor, at best - and most companies would want to avoid that headache. However, those that wanted to could make a better version, and distribute it and provide support, if they want - that would be the purchaser's decision, once more.

There is the business plan and rational to sell Free, GPL'd software. The code still gets out, mods could still be made and re-incorporated back into the base product, you will probably make money off of it, and should your company go under or something, the code will still exist, for others to continue on with.

Now, once again, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see where any of this would violate the GPL - indeed, the GPL seems to allow this. So why hasn't any company done this?

Actually, in a way, they have: RedHat is the perfect example.

This is a company that sells a GPL'd product. Companies and individuals are willing to buy it, and RedHat provides support. The source code is out there, and a few other companies have rolled their own distros to compete with RedHat (Mandrake), using the base RedHat distro.

But RedHat made one mistake - they provided source with their distribution, and via FTP - for anyone at anytime to download. What would their company be doing now if they had only provided source via CD-ROM through mail, on request, for a fee? Who knows - maybe it wouldn't have worked, and everyone would be using Debian or Slackware more.

Maybe this method could only be used for software packages. Games could easily be done this way, and I would think that a lot of money could be made, and the GPL wouldn't be violated.

If I am wrong about all of this, please, somebody (especially lawyers!) point out the flaws in my argument. It would be interesting to see what I missed, etc...

If I contribute code to a GPL project, I don't expect ownership of the project, but I am only permitting them to use it under the terms of the GPL

Actually, depending on the project, that may not be true. I think what you suggest is ideal, perfect. Many do it as you describe. But not all. In fact, the Free Software Foundation itself doesn't take patches under GPL. The reason is simple: they DO want to be able to change the license. In the case of the FSF, you have a hopefully-ethical group who will likely just relicense code under new versions of the GPL, which one would assume will be fine. But you do have to read the fine print carefully. If you personally, mindstrm, have really contributed code, you might want to go back and see if you gave up any rights you didn't intend to give up.

I'd much rather that Sistina stayed alive and was Open Source instead of Free Software instead of them sticking to their ideological guns and ending up teetering on the brink of death

Wrong argument. This isn't about open source versus free software. This is about proprietary software versus open source/free software. Check out the open source definition and GNU's definition of free software.

Free software and open source software are basically the same thing. Software that meets one definition almost always meets the other. On the other hand, demanding licensing fees not only causes software to fail GNU's definition of free software, it also causes software to fail the open source definition! (See points 6 and 7, and also to a lesser extent, 3 and 5.)

Point 6 says, " 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Just because the source code is available doesn't mean a product is "open source." That's why so many people are so upset about Microsoft's "shared source" program. In fact, the open source initiative was originally conceived to protect "open source" as a trademark, to prevent companies from licensing software that made source available, but not under truly open source terms.

Yes, from some points of view, what Sistina is doing is fair. But it's not open source. The point of free software is not to eliminate business or profit. (At least not for most of us.) You might check out selling free software. The differences between free software and open source software have nothing to do with whether the copyright owner makes a profit or not.

I'd much rather that Sistina stayed alive and was Open Source instead of Free Software instead of them sticking to their ideological guns and ending up teetering on the brink of death

Wrong argument. This isn't about open source versus free software. This is about proprietary software versus open source/free software. Check out the open source definition and GNU's definition of free software.

Free software and open source software are basically the same thing. Software that meets one definition almost always meets the other. On the other hand, demanding licensing fees not only causes software to fail GNU's definition of free software, it also causes software to fail the open source definition! (See points 6 and 7, and also to a lesser extent, 3 and 5.)

Point 6 says, " 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Just because the source code is available doesn't mean a product is "open source." That's why so many people are so upset about Microsoft's "shared source" program. In fact, the open source initiative was originally conceived to protect "open source" as a trademark, to prevent companies from licensing software that made source available, but not under truly open source terms.

Yes, from some points of view, what Sistina is doing is fair. But it's not open source. The point of free software is not to eliminate business or profit. (At least not for most of us.) You might check out selling free software. The differences between free software and open source software have nothing to do with whether the copyright owner makes a profit or not.

How many of you have read the GPL? If you have read it, I think you'll see that Sistina have clearly violated it; I think we should be quick to report this violation to the FSF enforcement team. Sistina has truly betrayed the trust of the community. Now that they've strayed from the GNU path, they must be dealt with in a swift and severe manner.

We're at a precarious stage in the Free-Software revolution. Stallman, the Lenin to our revolution, is slowly fading into the background as senility and decripitude encroach on his ruling abilities. A Stalin, so to speak, must rise up to fill the power vacuum. There are simply too many enemies-of-GNU about these days, most of them within our own midst (e.g. Sinista; or, for that matter, ESR, the Trotsky of our scenario). There is no place in the Free Software movement for backstabbers and counter-revolutionaries.

It could also be interpreted as a reference to Stallman's "right to read" paper.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?

No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

What was that again? Yes, you can charge as much as you want for it, provided you find someone who will pay what you ask for, but (once again) you have to make it freely available to anyone who wishes it, regardless whether they're paying or not.

Calling it 'free software' and then placing restrictions on it via GPL is a hypocrisy. People need to start recognizing that fact.

The
GNU Radio project is doing stuff like this. There's some pretty neat code already developed, using cheap A/D converters and varactor tuners from old TV sets. Cool stuff.

<rant>
OTOH, I don't know why the [GNU/]Linux distro vendors don't do this themselves. Parted seems to be ready - what are they waiting for?
</rant>

<rant more="more">
I wonder if Debian would quit stalling my application (for almost 7 months now!) if I re-wrote the entire bloody installation system. If only I had the time...</rant>

The BEST bootloader available right now is GAG. Multiple OS's on multiple Primary partitions, the bootloader is able to fit into the bootsector itself, it fixes errors, it finds in bootsector etc. etc.

You can find them at
savannah.gnu.org.

Savannah is the GNU project's copy of sourceforge.

It's up and running at savannah.gnu.org

Does the community really need corporations? I
personally don't think so. All software should
be free.

Heh, when I saw the headline I thought that there was a Linux version of Dance Dance Revolution coming out or something. Now that'd be sweet, dancing penguins, songs to DeCSS (look about halfway down the page), or maybe even the Free Software Song. It'd be popular in San Francisco at least....

• In terms of C++ standards compliance GCC is believed to be the first compiler to achieve full ISO compliance

It's not quite that simple. They've tweaked the inliner a bit, since g++ 3.0 compile times are sometimes hideously slow. Only the default is changed.

It doesn't necessarily produce slower code. Over-aggressive inlining can also be detrimental to execution time. The current limit is an attempt to compromise until better inliner heuristics are found.

The issue has been discussed at length in the GCC archives.

• gcc 2.96 is actually more standards compliant than any other version
  of gcc released at the time Red Hat made this decision (3.0 is even more compliant, but not as stable) yet).
  It may not be "standards compliant" as in "what most others
  are shipping", but 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98
  compliant, unlike any previous version of gcc.
• gcc 2.96 has more complete support for C++. Older versions of gcc could
  handle only a very limited subset of C++.
  Earlier versions of g++ often had problems with templates and other
  valid C++ constructs.
• gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code.
• gcc 2.96 supports all architectures Red Hat is currently supporting,
  including ia64. No other compiler can do this. Having to maintain different
  compilers for every different architecture is a development (find a bug, then
  fix it 4 times), QA and support nightmare.
• The binary incompatibility issues are not as bad as some people and
  companies make you believe.
  First of all, they affect dynamically linked C++ code only.
  If you don't use C++, you aren't affected. If you use C++ and link statically,
  you aren't affected.
  If you don't mind depending on a current glibc, you might also want to
  link statically to c++ libraries while linking dynamically to glibc and other
  C libraries you're using:
  g++ -o test test.cc -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic
  (Thanks to Pavel Roskin for pointing this
  out)
  Second, the same issues appear with every major release of gcc
  so far. gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x. gcc 2.8.x C++
  is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x. egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary
  compatible with egcs 1.1.x. egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with
  gcc 2.95. gcc 2.95 C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 3.0.
  Besides, it can easily be circumvented. Either link statically, or
  simply distribute libstdc++ with your program and install it if necessary.
  Since it has a different soname, it can coexist with other libstdc++ versions
  without causing any problems.
  Red Hat Linux 7 also happens to be the first Linux distributions using
  the current version of glibc, 2.2.x. This update is not binary compatible with
  older distributions either (unless you update glibc - there's nothing that
  prevents you from updating libstdc++ at the same time), so complaining about
  gcc's new C++ ABI breaking binary compatibility is pointless. If you want
  to distribute something binary-only, link it statically and it will run
  everywhere.
  Someone has to be the first to take a step like this. If nobody dared
  to make a change because nobody else is doing it, we'd all still be using
  gcc 1.0, COBOL or ALGOL. No wait, all of those were new at some point...
  
• Most of gcc 2.96's perceived "bugs" are actually broken code
  that older gccs accepted because they were not standards compliant - or, using
  an alternative term to express the same thing, buggy.
  A C or C++ compiler that doesn't speak the standardized C language is
  a bug, not a feature.
  In the initial version of gcc 2.96, there were a couple of other bugs.
  All known ones have been fixed in the version from updates - and the version
  that is in the current beta version of Red Hat Linux. The bugs in the initial
  version don't make the whole compiler broken, though. There has never been
  a 100% bug free compiler, or any other 100% bug free non-trivial program.
  The current version can be downloaded
  here.
• gcc 3.0, the current "stable" release (released quite some time
  after Red Hat released gcc 2.96-RH), fixes some problems, but introduces many
  others - for example, gcc 3.0 can't compile KDE 2.2 beta 1 correctly.
  Until the first set of 3.0 updates is released, I still claim 2.96 is
  the best compiler yet.

Describing Fred Hoyle as a "Big Bang Theorist" is a bit like saying that RMS invented that notion of free Unix licenses, like BSD.

> One of the best things about notepad is that it can't access the internet.

True. Puts me in mind of the old saying (I think originally applicable to MIT) that "every program expands until it gains the ability to read mail". The GNU "hello world" app, of course, is a prime example.

Additionally, the Free Software Foundation is providing GNU-based delivery for full-sized CD sets. Gnus travel more slowly than carrier pigeons, but have the advantage of being able to carry a complete set, reducing the need for retransmissions, and they support for multicasting and parallel processing if you need to ship a whole HURD of the things at once.

RMS and GNU have been working since 1984 to get a complete unix-like OS out. It's true they've done a lot of work... But why O why can't they get the damn kernel out the door?

They've had a complete OS minus the kernel for years and years now and still NO KERNEL. Either their coding abilities and contributions don't ammount to much, or more likely, they don't know what they should be spending their time on.

If they just got their kenrel out the door, they could stop harping on linux and get on with whatever it is they want to do after they're done.

Actually, this really makes you think. They belittle the linux kernel all the time (eg here) yet in 10 years they still haven't been able to release something nearly as functional.

If this is the alternative, I think I'll take Britney and the DMCA instead.