Slashdot Mirror

You can get the infomation the same way the rest of us did, buy buying the text.

But what if the required textbook for a given course at your university is available only on a rental basis? Then you have the situation Richard Stallman describes in his dystopian short story "The Right to Read".

It didn't take that long.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I'm a whore.

Actually ASN.1 is a formal way of specifying how to encode data into binary representations like BER, CER, DER and PER which do save bandwidth compared to XML.

Those of you that want to find out more about ASN.1, can pick up free e-books on ASN.1 here. There's some blatant propaganda in them for OSS Nokalva's ASN.1 compiler, but of course there's also snacc, an GPL'd open source ASN.1 compiler. Snacc however only generates code for encoding to BER, so you might also want to check out the a hacked version of snacc from Queensland University of Technology.

ASN.1 is a base technology for a lot of standards out there like X.509, PKCS and LDAP, the OSI application layer protocols etc.

You hit the nail. If the current trend continues and the Hague treaty becomes reality (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/hague.html), it will eventually be impossible for non-corporations/non-millionaries to write any kind free software, both as in speech and beer. Programmers become a modern proletariat in a certain sense. And this is exactly what the corporations want. They want to own everything.

--
intellectual.property.is.theft

I don't see how M$ could make things worse .

CURL is heavily influenced by Lisp, a language popular among Computer Scientists. A relatively simple dialect of Lisp, Scheme, is used in teaching introductory CS. Improvements from Perl 4 to Perl 5 were inspired by Scheme, as were some current and future Python features. Scheme's syntax is quite different from C, etc., albeit simpler and more uniform.

Kawa Scheme compiles directly to JVM bytecodes, without any intermediate Java-language code. It's quite useful for scripting in a Java environment. I've extended it into the Beautiful Report Language (BRL), a template system like PHP but without the language misfeatures. If you want to get a feel for a Lisp-like language while working in a server-side Java environment, BRL would be a good tool.

In case you missed it, yes, this is a shameless plug. I wrote BRL and use it daily in a professional environment.

To see how bad computers really are at strategic thinking, all you need to do is look at a game with a much higher branch factor (meaning more legal moves each turn).

One good example is the Chinese game of Go, which has an average of about 200 legal moves. Computers are absolutely dire at this game. Interestingly, one of the better Go playing programs is Free Software (GnuGo). It still loses to half-decent humans though.

IANAL but...

From what I can tell this license is saying the only software that can use this patent for free is GPL software. (or RTLinux, but that's beside my point)

So, none of the linux distros fit this criterion, because even if you stay with only the free branches, you're still going to have artistic, BSD, and other open licenses commingled. (see the gnu website for more info on the GPL and free vs open software)

That's if you interpret the license to mean *all* software used with it must be GPL'ed. However, I believe the author's intent is that the software implementing his patented algorithm must be GPL'ed, which would mean he's forcing the GPL seed into any project that wants to use it for free.

Fewer "massive" changes that take 2 years to complete

Yeah, like everybody's favorite compiler... It stalled for a year or so due to political arguments, hence the EGCS fork. After the FSF formally handed control of GCC to EGCS, the team got the 2.95 series out the door... but it still took forever to get 3.0 released. Afterwards, everybody sat down and said, "Okay, now that that's done, what could be improved?" and the result is the new development plan. The 3.0.1 code should be freezing in another ten days or so.

I suspect that this is just part of the growth of projects. A massive growth spurt (fast development) followed by a slowing and ossifying, followed by a clean-out-the-crap cycle which leads to a growth spurt...

and more "evolutionary" style.

You realize that can mean anything you want it to mean, right? It's way too vague of a term.

Alewando's comment is totally irrelevant: the FSF is a non-profit and therefore does not have the same preoccupations as a business. It lives on donations and does not have a "business model" but a goal.
Also, the FSF is over 15 years old now, and I fail to see how it can be related to the tech bubble burst in any meaningful way.

For more information, look at the GNU Hurd site. You should also check out Debian GNU/Hurd.

and, besides, Free software is NOT about getting rid of ownership:

the aim of Free software is more to improve security, reliability, knowledge, efficiency, etc. than to deal with ownership. ownership is a side-effect.

I'm sorry, you're a little mixed up you you're terminology. You actually described the aim of Open Source Software. The aim of Free Software is the opposite of what you said: it is all about ownership, or lack thereof; security, reliability, knowledge, and efficiency are the side effects (or rather, the results--both intentional and coincidental).

Just read Why Software Should Not Have Owners and/or Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' and you'll see.

and, besides, Free software is NOT about getting rid of ownership:

the aim of Free software is more to improve security, reliability, knowledge, efficiency, etc. than to deal with ownership. ownership is a side-effect.

I'm sorry, you're a little mixed up you you're terminology. You actually described the aim of Open Source Software. The aim of Free Software is the opposite of what you said: it is all about ownership, or lack thereof; security, reliability, knowledge, and efficiency are the side effects (or rather, the results--both intentional and coincidental).

Just read Why Software Should Not Have Owners and/or Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' and you'll see.

Thank you for a definition! Often when I discuss this, there is no agreed upon definition, and since I'm not an expert in socialism, I hesitate to provide my own.

That said: GNU does not anywhere propose a "system of social organization". Nor does it talk about collective ownership; indeed RMS emphasizes "Our emphasis is on freedom, decentralization, and voluntary cooperation" (from the interview). There may be similarities, but the core ideas of socialism are not in GNU, and vice versa.

On the other hand, consider all the flattering things RMS says about America and the american economic system: 'As in "free enterprise" and "free speech", the "free" in "free software" refers to freedom' (from The GNU GPL and the American Way.

It is plain to any person who actually reads RMS: GNU is not about communism or socialism! Neo-socialists: please do RMS the courtesy of not adopting him into your cause.

As for your last paragraph, the poster you're replying to gave a link which sets out the FSF's views on selling free software. Can you give us some idea of what Levy says that contradicts that? Without this it's hard to see why you would believe Levy (whoever he is) when you don't believe what Stallman's own organization says.


Failure is its own reward.

That was a truely informed posting.

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.

Deeming from occasional lurking on the gcc mailing list the general consensus seems to be that the GCC 3.0 release is not amongst the best in recent history. To wit:

• GCC 2.95 (compile times and binary size):

-O0 6:19 3915128
-O1 4:20 4203480
-O2 5:56 4209368
-O3 5:47 4221464

• GCC 3.0 (compile times and binary size):

-O0 8:20 4159780
-O1 11:40 4829732
-O2 14:09 4862532
-O3 32:04 6166052

Ouch !!

But don't worry - theres been looking into that and a solution has already shown up (and probably been included in RedHat gcc 3.0).

I would also like to add that I have successfully compiled KDE version 2.0.1, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2beta1 (and some snapshots from time to time) using the RedHat gcc compiler. KDE is a LOT of C++ code and it speaks pretty much of the quality of the RedHat gcc to digest all that without any (*) problems !

(*) Hey bero: How about shipping a non-statically linked libcdda package ?

When you say "derived in the GPL sense" you don't know what you're talking about. There is no "derived in the GPL sense". A "derived work" is a legal construct taken from ordinary copyright law. The GPL in no way introduces its own definition of "derived", nor does it modify the existing definition of "derived".

The owner of a copyrighted work has the sole right to prepare derived works based on the copyrighted work. The license does not need to state this. This right is given by ordinary copyright law, and remains in place unless the license specifically allows others to prepare derived works.

But Microsoft's code is under a redistributable licence, and the relationship between their code and your code is clearly spelled out in that licence.

I have the license right in front of me. It's a ghastly hornet's nest of legalese, and it does sort of suggest that you have the rights to your own code, but it says nothing specifically mentioning header files. (Compare to the LGPL, which specifically mentions that including header files from a LGPL'd library does not infect your code.)

Now am I suggesting that Microsoft has a secret plan to launch a massive lawsuit against all developers who have ever used Visual C++ to create a program that uses one or more header files, claiming ownership of their code, in an attempt to completely take over the world? Of course not. But, otherwise sane and rational people are willing to make the similar claims for Richard Stallman and the GNU project, even though their licenses are clearer and less ambiguous than Microsoft's. In fact, when the GNU project attempts to clarify and assert your rights by removing even the slightest ambiguity in one of their licenses (such as clarifying the role of header files in the LGPL, or making a special modification for the license of Bison), this is twisted, in the finest Orwellian fashion, into proof that Stallman must have been scheming to take over your code all along.

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. [emphasis mine]

There's a lot of information on Stallman's philosophy at www.gnu.org. Take a few hours and read it some day. You will not agree with all of it, but at least you will understand his position more clearly.

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. [emphasis mine]

There's a lot of information on Stallman's philosophy at www.gnu.org. Take a few hours and read it some day. You will not agree with all of it, but at least you will understand his position more clearly.

If software is to be free, then who can we expect to write it. Obviously, I have a need for a paycheck. Since I have this need, I have an employer. In order for my employer to pay me, I have to contribute to their revenue.

You have made the classic mistake (and it's an honest and reasonable one given the dual meaning of free) of software that is available at no charge with software that's free of restrictions. Mr. Stallman has never suggested that it's wrong to charge money for software (to the contrary, in fact), only that it should not have obnoxious restrictions placed on it. RedHat, Mandrake, et. al (even non-proft Debian) charge money for Free Software and it doesn't make it non-free.

And, of course, there are ways of funding free software other than trying to sell it. Linus is being paid partly to hack Linux because his employers think that it will help sell their products (microprocessors). Larry Wall is being paid to hack Perl because his employer thinks that it will help them sell their product (reference books). And now a number of big companies like IBM and Sun are paying developers to write Free Software at least in part because they think that it will help them sell their products (mostly expensive hardware).

I'm sorry but I don't believe that Bero is being completely accurate when he claims that the "GPL makes no claims to data generated, processed, or stored by something covered by it." According to the text of the GPL "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." IANAL, but in my opinion, for a company to be completely safe about using the output of GPLed software, they must examine every line of the source code. The reason is that it is possible that the program will inject portions of itself into the output. An example is Bison whose license was modified. To quote documentation from an older version of Bison 1.20 "Bison grammars can be used only in programs that are free software. This is in contrast to what happens with the GNU C compiler and the other GNU programming tools. The reason Bison is special is that the output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the yyparse function. As a result, the Bison parser file is covered by the same copying conditions that cover Bison itself and the rest of the GNU system: any program containing it has to be distributed under the standard GNU copying conditions." The license was later changed in version 1.24 and beyond: "As of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for yyparse to permit using Bison's output in non-free programs. Formerly, Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free software."

Here is a list of gcc-3.0 improvements over gcc-2.95.3. As for myself, I really appreciate the libstdc++-3.0 support.

I am less than enthusiatic about the

New warnings for C code that may have undefined semantics because of violations of sequence point rules in the C standard (such as a = a++;, a[n] = b[n++]; and a[i++] = i;), included in -Wall.

OMS/LiVid code, in particular, trips this up.

• 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.

" All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."

Excuse me. Where in the GPL licence or the BSD licence does it say you can't sell for money the software?

Oh, that's right -- nowhere does it say that.

All it means is that some of the code is out under a licence that makes it friendly for people to use it in other free software projects. It could've been a way to get the hard work of the Be people out of the sinking ship, like Netscape did with Mozilla. Oh well. Our loss because some people there were perhaps uneducated about sharing the software.

" All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."

Excuse me. Where in the GPL licence or the BSD licence does it say you can't sell for money the software?

Oh, that's right -- nowhere does it say that.

All it means is that some of the code is out under a licence that makes it friendly for people to use it in other free software projects. It could've been a way to get the hard work of the Be people out of the sinking ship, like Netscape did with Mozilla. Oh well. Our loss because some people there were perhaps uneducated about sharing the software.

Try to separate your annoyance at a trivial problem - spam - from something which threatens all our freedom - the freedom to read, listen, and watch without paying a toll on every occasion, for example. The freedom to not have every detail of our lives controlled by global corporate monopolies. In the face of these threats, so clearly demonstrated by Sklayrov's current predicament, spam doesn't even belong in the dicussion.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

You want to give up our freedoms in exchange for safety from spammers? You're incredibly lucky to be living in an environment where you can afford to believe that spam is the worst thing you have to worry about. If history is any guide, it won't always be that way. Laws like the DMCA are one of the ways in which societies can change for the worse. A little law called "apartheid" in South Africa ultimately led to the ravaging of that country, in political, economic and human terms. It doesn't take the imagination of a Neal Stephenson or a William Gibson to project what the DMCA can result in - in fact, RMS has already written one such near-future sci-fi piece, "The Right to Read", and Sklyarov is busy living the prelude to that story.

OS/FS doesn't need a leader. Did RMS need someone to tell him to disclose Emacs source code? No, he was a smart man, he figured it out for himself. What he _did_ need was inspiration, that coming from his financial situation and his experiences at MIT. This is what the "unenlightened public" and most of the OS/FS community is lacking, and this is why there is a call for a leader, someone to exactly define the movement's purpose. But the real need is not of a leader, but of an educator. We (I use the word very carefully) need someone to spread the meaning of OS/FS. We who have already known the meaning need no leader; we already have the holy bible.

People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting.

-- Richard M Stallman, The GNU Manifesto

The Gemini table type was statically linked with the GPL'd MySQL code. See the entry in the GPL FAQ about the difference between mere aggregation and combining two modules. GPL FAQ - Mere Aggregation

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.

So, just because both are on a CD or hard drive together does not constitute a derivative work.

Read the license for yourself. Don't come back here and pretend to know about the GPL until you've read it.

You can read it online here.
---

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.

So, just because both are on a CD or hard drive together does not constitute a derivative work.

Read the license for yourself. Don't come back here and pretend to know about the GPL until you've read it.

You can read it online here.
---

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.

So, just because both are on a CD or hard drive together does not constitute a derivative work.

Read the license for yourself. Don't come back here and pretend to know about the GPL until you've read it.

You can read it online here.
---

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.

So, just because both are on a CD or hard drive together does not constitute a derivative work.

Read the license for yourself. Don't come back here and pretend to know about the GPL until you've read it.

You can read it online here.
---

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.

So, just because both are on a CD or hard drive together does not constitute a derivative work.

Read the license for yourself. Don't come back here and pretend to know about the GPL until you've read it.

You can read it online here.
---

From the GNU General Public License, Section 0:

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

See what wonderful questions one can answer when he actually takes time to read the license?
---

I have a suggestion. If I were to suggest totally boycotting movies, I think people would ignore that suggestion. They might consider it too radical. So I would like to make a slightly different suggestion which comes to almost the same thing in the end, and that is, don't go to a movie unless you have some substantial reason to think it's good. Now this will lead in practice to almost the same result as a total boycott of Hollywood movies. In extension, it's almost the same but, in intention, it's very different. Now I've noticed that many people go to movies for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they think the movies are good. So if you change that, if you only go to a movie when you have some substantial reason to think it's good, you'll take away a lot of their money.

Very like RMS to make a simple observation about human nature, and base on it a proposal that seems at once perfectly natural and hopelessly naive. This seems a paradox only until you realize that RMS works on the time scale of a lifetime. He's already demonstrated that on that scale, the hopeless becomes conceivable. When you step back far enough, he begins to look downright pragmatic.

Observe that your suggestion requires one to reevaluate every purchase in terms of an artificial $5, while his merely to reconsider based on a simple criterion (that I ought to have considered in the first place). I'm not actually commenting on which idea is more effective--I really don't know. But his has an appeal to me that yours lacks.

By that logic, a compiler violates DMCA.

Yep. Which is why RMS's short-short story "The Right to Read" projects a world where operating systems and development software are tightly controlled by the state, only available to licenced and bonded programmers.

When I first saw that story a few years ago, I though that was a crazy, way-out idea. Now, it's a clear extrapolation of present trends.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

You click a button in [your favorite mail application, any platform] ; that in turns sends a simple text message, with the crc or checksum and if they match (either the client software, or the server, you choose) they show as matching, moved to a cleared folder, application dependant.

Applications can compete on how they use the results. One good idea could be to filter out non matching results, or to send them to a junk folder - or simply showing a certain icon.

The real key to the system is this: if spammers are creating a crc which is being used over and over to send to multiple clients via redirecters and other cleaver tricks, hit a button and simply vote it spam. Use a weighted system to eventually filter out the same message. But running the headers throught the checksum would stop most spammers since the TO: field would most likely change.

Simple text messaging that can be used by any programmer, and there are many non GPL, examples of how to compare two checksums.

Guessing the server would carry all the checksums, a good idea would be to add an revokation date which can be set client side either defaulted or user configurable.

Really the whole thing is simple. Just block people from mass e-mailing. Test the system for a while then add the spam blocking to see which crc's where voted spam, cross that with the volume of e-mails by that person. Although the system suddenly became huge, but off site computers could do the computing, not the servers.

E-mail is a huge thing. Linux sends e-mails to my wireless phone without any user interaction. The system better be ready for people who use e-mail like an instant message.

Now it comes to mind - if my pop server software (and maybe all isp's) would just check the crc against the server that would save everyone.

Even MS could get into the game with Hotmail and their own MS CRC server...

This is my manifesto:

Get your free hotmail address - Now with hailstorm and E-mail signing - Free (biometrics required)

----checksumurl--http://checksig.msn.com:7235----
ka;dddjdppwo3as-e34-44444uv2-84urrhpwerrupw34gdgh
4-0394uvm-03485umt5jt-5ut059u-02-95uy05u25uy5fdgh
442i0934it-09utury]==-04904g2-5t8528-b09-2ururt45
----email--checksum:--0x485ksro842---------------

Trying out the Hurd

So, are you talking about the other HURD or the other x86 architecture?

Read it and go implement those layers in GCC :)

The CLI and the JVM are comparable in this instance. As for which is better, I'm still not sure. For example, Python (through the use of Jython) can be compiled to Java bytecodes and can extend/be extended from Java classes (or anything else appropriately compiled to Java bytecodes). The same is true for ECMAScript (Javascript) through the use of Rhino.

Through the use of gcj, Java can be compiled to native code and has excellent two-way hooks to C++ for "native" code with CNI. C bigots can still use JNI (ugh) if they so choose. Java VMs are definitely more mature and "battle tested" than .NET's CLI, but I'm hard pressed to really pick a theoretical (intrinsic technical merits) winner. The more I hear about .NET, the more it truly does look like some things that Java has been doing for years.

And who knows, maybe the Java language will be ported to .NET. It can't be too hard considering the similarity with C#. If this is the case, Java becomes the more flexible solution again in that it could have three targets: Java bytecodes, CLI bytecodes or compile to native.

"Remember, .NET is a platform for distributed computing. Platform/language neutrality is a key part of that."

Distributed computing is one part of it (a big part when you factor in Passport), but no bigger than EJBs (and related techs such as RMI-IIOP, CORBA, JNDI, etc.) are for Java. The distributed aspects are dependant upon the language/bytecode aspects, not the other way around. What good is Passport without the language/platform support and the CLI? What good are EJBs, Jython and Rhino if there is no JVM? Slightly different comparisons, but not by much.

And for the record, OpenBSD *is* better than Perl. ;)

The CLI and the JVM are comparable in this instance. As for which is better, I'm still not sure. For example, Python (through the use of Jython) can be compiled to Java bytecodes and can extend/be extended from Java classes (or anything else appropriately compiled to Java bytecodes). The same is true for ECMAScript (Javascript) through the use of Rhino.

Through the use of gcj, Java can be compiled to native code and has excellent two-way hooks to C++ for "native" code with CNI. C bigots can still use JNI (ugh) if they so choose. Java VMs are definitely more mature and "battle tested" than .NET's CLI, but I'm hard pressed to really pick a theoretical (intrinsic technical merits) winner. The more I hear about .NET, the more it truly does look like some things that Java has been doing for years.

And who knows, maybe the Java language will be ported to .NET. It can't be too hard considering the similarity with C#. If this is the case, Java becomes the more flexible solution again in that it could have three targets: Java bytecodes, CLI bytecodes or compile to native.

"Remember, .NET is a platform for distributed computing. Platform/language neutrality is a key part of that."

Distributed computing is one part of it (a big part when you factor in Passport), but no bigger than EJBs (and related techs such as RMI-IIOP, CORBA, JNDI, etc.) are for Java. The distributed aspects are dependant upon the language/bytecode aspects, not the other way around. What good is Passport without the language/platform support and the CLI? What good are EJBs, Jython and Rhino if there is no JVM? Slightly different comparisons, but not by much.

And for the record, OpenBSD *is* better than Perl. ;)

First. MS Hailstorm (and Passport) don't have anything to do with Mono or the C# programming environment as far as I can tell. Mono is basicly a free software version of C#, not a free software version of everything the MS marketing department (you mean there's other MS departments?) has decided and will decide to throw under the .NET moniker. The relation between MS Passport and C# is coincidental.

Second. I don't understand what makes C# so superior to Java that we need it. The only reason MS is using it instead of Java is because they do not have a license to use Java. Microsoft, and Sun Settle. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be ported, I mean, name a language that isn't supported by free software.

Third. Nicholas Petreley is right that MS Passport is a problem, and the real threat to computer users and an open Internet. What is needed is a Internet Standard way of managing authentification, one that is standard and independant of any one company or computer platform. Where is the auth: RFC?

Fourth. Mono is Free Software :-) (Software Libre) not Open Source
MS can Embrace and Extend Open Source software, it can't Embrace and Extend Free Software.

First. MS Hailstorm (and Passport) don't have anything to do with Mono or the C# programming environment as far as I can tell. Mono is basicly a free software version of C#, not a free software version of everything the MS marketing department (you mean there's other MS departments?) has decided and will decide to throw under the .NET moniker. The relation between MS Passport and C# is coincidental.

Second. I don't understand what makes C# so superior to Java that we need it. The only reason MS is using it instead of Java is because they do not have a license to use Java. Microsoft, and Sun Settle. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be ported, I mean, name a language that isn't supported by free software.

Third. Nicholas Petreley is right that MS Passport is a problem, and the real threat to computer users and an open Internet. What is needed is a Internet Standard way of managing authentification, one that is standard and independant of any one company or computer platform. Where is the auth: RFC?

Fourth. Mono is Free Software :-) (Software Libre) not Open Source
MS can Embrace and Extend Open Source software, it can't Embrace and Extend Free Software.

I know this has been done with the GNU toolchain. Also other bits. This is the big deal about GPL/FSF code: the copyright holder determines the license. Thus, the FSF can (and has) licensed GPL'd code to 3rd parties for commercial use.

This is a demonstrably false statement. Check the GNU GPL FAQ. There are a number of other places where rms states that the FSF does not and will not license GPL'ed code under non-free licenses. I challenge you to give documentation of an example of the FSF licensing code under non-free software licenses.

foog

Thanks for the reference! I see a general description of commercial licensing, but so far I haven't been able to find the modifications to the GPL that assign all modifications back to the owners of Ghostscript. Could you provide a quote or specific pointer, and explain how informed consent for contributing changes works here?


As far as I know, there is no modification to the GPL for Ghostscript, Artifex simply does like the FSF and asks contributors politely to assign copyright contributions to them. In the FSF's case, see Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors.

I can't find such a provision for assignment of modifications in the Mozilla Public License. Again, could you please provide specifics, and explain how informed consent is obtained?

See Amendment V.2 of the Netscape Public License, the license under which Mozilla was released (my bad for confusing the two). There are plain-english interpretations of the NPL on mozilla.org that explain that by publishing modifications to Mozilla, you grant Netscape a 2-year license to use your code (again, my error, it's not an assignment of ownership.)

Brent

Not an "emacsitor". Not a "viitor". Those aren't even words!

Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",

What concessions RMS makes to the ability to make money in The GNU Manifesto are distinctly pained. It's clear that RMS believes anyone writing software should be motivated primarily by the sheer joy of it, and that the need to pay the bills should be considered a regrettable necessity. He says that he believes programmers should be paid much less than they are and that the prospect of wealth is a corrupting influence.

His whole concern is with programmer salary, and not with business model. He barely discusses what it would take to actually build a business on free software as opposed to what it takes to pay programmers. When he even discusses salary, it's only in one of his pained concessions about how if you really have to make money, here's how you could, but really, you shouldn't care about that.

In contrast, ESR enthusiastically embraces the idea of open source as a way to make money. In some ways this is just a difference in emphasis, but it's a big difference in emphasis, on which numerous companies were launched -- as opposed to the one major company formed under the RMS model, Cygnus. And the ESR companies have enthusiastically embraced the Big Money/Next Big Thing way of describing themselves, which is anathema to RMS.

Unfortunately, no company of significant size founded on the ESR model has yet succeeded in making a profit. There are a few small consultancies, but they do not create significant original software -- they only offer services on software which other people have written, or create small vertical projects. The ones that have tried to create their own horizontal software (e.g., Eazel, Lutris) have not made a profit by doing so.

I agree with your analysis of Red Hat's overvaluation, and I also agree that we will not see an Oracle or a Microsoft emerge from Open Source. The question is whether we will see any profitable horizontal software development businesses emerge from it. So far, there are none.

Tim

a) paranoid enough to think that giving out specifications for the hardware they sold you is a bad idea since it might in some way lead you to, um, not having to use Windows. I don't understand the behavior of companies that refuse to document the hardware they sell for any reason but...

b) they might be one of those companies that actually don't know what their own hardware does. Which is another reason, incidentally, why they don't want to move to embedded Linux in many cases - they actually can't write drivers for the hardware they bought without reverse engineering the drivers they were given. Daft. But very funny - their suppliers do to them just what they would do to us, ie. sell them a piece of black-box hardware and refuse to answer any questions about it.

It'd be nice to be able to persuade hardware suppliers to follow O'Reilly and FDL their specifications...

I use GNU/Linux. I prefer Linux. But I see little wrong in Micro$oft packaging *their* Web Browser with *their* Operating System.

Going against that is like saying that Apple or Sun cannot put an Operating System on their hardware, or that General Motors cannot put both an engine and a seat in their cars. WHAT NONSENSE.

Microsoft is only a monopoly because people have foolishly chosen to agree to marginal software and oppressive licensing schemes, even in the presense of more stable, robust, and (Read:) FREE (as in speech and beer) alternatives.