Slashdot Mirror

GNU MP is a library for arbitrary precision arithmetic, operating on signed integers, rational numbers, and floating point numbers. It has a rich set of functions, and the functions have a regular interface.
home page for GNU MP

• 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.

The more important one would be for the licencing info- I was about to face the task of building up a database of (L)GPL'd applications manually. I'd say they've definitely saved me some effort... sure they're not all there but it's a start... thanks, guys.

On the topic of the GPL, anybody notice they've licenced this XML document under the GNU Free Document License? I can see the press release now: 'Argh! Viral pac-men documents!'

If decss backers had the ability &/or could afford to apply this level of debug they would not have this problem. Instead they try and ruin the life of someone who did it for them and better yet for free. What is happening here is the wrong people are getting caught with their collective heads up their big greedy asses.

You see they still just don't get it . Fearful greed fueled by the bravado of secured political favor dominates nearly ALL large business entity's, NOT just US businesses. The ONLY ways to effectively de nut political or business types are A:-$$$ B:-$$$ C:-$$$ and so on. Boycott the products, bring public focus on the weakness of the product and distasteful practices. Then hit the political end with endless very public queries and argument.

Hey that's kinda what we are doing here, just spread it around some. FWIW I personally despise Adobe products. I find a PDF document to be a beast from hell. And I'll take 'da GIMP, Colorworks or Impos/2 over Photoshop any day. As for these Media barons, well I'm at Slashdot NOT at Amazon buying a CD, and I'm not using M$ or M$ crony software anyway, until they all get it .

A few more pertinent observations on these matters:

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue, and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." Thomas Jefferson

"The equal rights of man and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson

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

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln

"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly" Henry David Thoreau

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"It's not what folks don't know that get's them in the most trouble. It's the things they know that ain't so." Will Rodgers

"It has to fit. I measured it myself!" Unknown

"Those who look for problems find problems, those who look for nothing find nothing, those who look for solutions find solutions, and those who hide their heads in the sand get bit in the ass when the problems find them." Me

"That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically." Hmmm, this is different.

No it isn't. Section 7 of the GNU GPL provides that "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

"That your rights under the License end automatically if you breach it in any way." Very different from the GPL!

Wrong again. GPL section 4: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

The biggest differences I see are lack of copyleft and prohibition against use for commercial purposes. Would "downloading the source and compiling it so that you earn back the money that you would otherwise have spent on licensing Microsoft binaries (hereinafter 'Profit')" be considered a commercial purpose because Microsoft couldn't sell an academic license?

Let me first say that I wish TheKompany the best of luck. I'll probably end up buying some of these apps.

Having said that: while I think it's great that they're producing these apps for Linux, I don't feel entirely comfortable with it. I believe in free software a lot more than I believe in Linux specifically. I'm concerned that the availability of high-quality commercial office applications for linux will impede the already-slow development of free software alternatives (e.g. gnumeric.)

The same thing has happened in (e.g.) the database market -- I bet that MySQL would have transaction support by now if DB2/Oracle hadn't been released for Linux. I'd be a lot happier buying a copy (CDROM/download) of software that gave me the four freedoms once I've bought it. Or if there were some guarantee that while you've got to pay to get most current version, it will be made available under a GPL/Apache-style license a couple of years after its initial release. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would rather support a business model that ensured a fair revenue stream for the developers AND ensured that the amount of available free software increased over time.

Let the flames begin.

Because those binaries would have to link to GPL code. A big part of .NET is the libraries of common functions you call in your programs. It is illegal to link to a GPL library with a non-free binary; this is why the LGPL was created. Read Stallman's "=Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library for a better explanation than I can give.

If Mono is released under the GPL non-free binaries cannot legally run on it.

The JDK is arguably an installation of the Java language. The JRE is just a virtual machine. Some of us like to have it around in order to run the same compiled Scheme code on Linux and Windows.

• The Nirvana Editor
  It may not be an MDI (multi document interface) like Visual C++, but then I like being able to pop up a xxgdb window and have three scrolling xterms of ouput from gcc's last runs rather than tabbing through a tiny window. Got better syntax highlighting too.
• Don't foget EMACS
  If you can't do it in EMACS, it probably can't be done (or is waiting for the Lisp to be written.)
• One acronym - CVS
  As professional who has worked on real program (i.e. real-time embeded OSes for cirtical system with more than a Megabyte of Z80 ASSEMBLER code in some files) I cannot begin to attest to the superiority of CVS (or even RCS) over Microsoft's $600 SourceSafe product for managing (or mangling) project documents.
• Bugzilla
  Decent bug tracking tools are hard to come by and this one has withstood the test of time (and the mozilla codebase). I don't know of anything equivalent shipped by Microsoft (or specifically for their OS).
• It's been mentioned already, but OpenGL works just as well on most Linux boxes as it does on MS Windows. I've written applets and games (for a University graphics class actually) that compile and run under both Windows and Linux.

I use it whenever I am forced to work in one of Bill's lame OS'es. Not as lightweight as Notepad, but not broken either.
--

"The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system...."
-http://www.gnu.org/

<flame>
Maybe it is 10 years for closed source and 20 years for open source/free software.
</flame>

From linuxda, let me quote the obvious: "The first Linux compatible O/S scaled down for..."

Linux Compatible? As opposed to a flavor of Linux?

(Yes, I did see the words "Using the open-source Linux kernel..."), but it does lead to some interesting speculation.

(Also parenthetically, regarding GNU/Linux vs. Linux kernel, is the kernel specifically non-GPL? Does that have bearing in this case?)

The various companies will create an encription scheme to protect their IP. Only with a licence will you be able to build a decryptor. Anyone else building such a device would likely be in violation of patent law and the DMCA.

If they are smart, most content providers will not use this feature initially, in the hopes of people not getting into an uproar. And the first step of The Right to Read will be here.

Gosh I'm in a dark mood....

Mark

The more inappropriate aspect of this response is that it adopts the language of property rights with respect to copyright and patents - the view that monopolies in information are somehow natural, god given things.

This is a deeply problematic view of copyright and patent law, one which was explicity ruled out in various common law jurisdictions by virtue of Donaldson v. Becket (1774) and the US Constitution.

A more reasonable and modern approach is to regard IP laws as economic instruments which must balance the public interest in incentives with the public interest in widespread distribution. The Free Software movement (and the more general anti-IP sentiment on the internet) is a result of the fact that technology has shifted this balance - the public interest dictates that copyright and patent laws ought to be weaker, to utilise the distributional possibilities of the net. In this context, IBM's actions can be seen to be more unethical and inconsistent.

Of course, expecting the average copyright lawyer, let alone IBM marketing, to acknowledge this, is rather unrealisitic. :)

BTW, for further reading, see RMS' artcile Re-evaluating copyright: the public must prevail, William Fisher's Theories of Intellectual Property, or A Philosophy of Intellectual Property by Peter Drahos.

There's a really long thread in the archives (some of it is still going on), but this message starts in the middle. The 16 byte stack alignment is on by default.

Well yeah it kinda does. "United States copyright law considers copyright a bargain between the public and authors" (Stallman)

Essentially ignoring copyright laws can be a form of civil disobedience, or boycott in which the public does not have to deprive itself of the object in question. Now I'll be the first to admit that, for the most part, this isn't the motivating force behind the majority of mp3 downloads. I'll also admit that this isn't even an effective boycott in the case of mp3's, since cd sales have, in my understanding, stayed stable or even increased since the explosion of mp3 sharing.

The concept is still however the same. If a corporation isn't behaving fairly, in your opinion, try to hit them where it hurts. It's easy to see that current laws are inadequate, and the patchwork laws that are being passed are even worse. Should the DMCA come up on a ballot it would most likely be voted down. Instead of protecting the people it protects corporations.

All in all I'm not saying mp3 sharing is right or wrong, but it can be a valid expression of civil disobedience.

In my outlook, I refuse to pay $10-20 for a cd that only has one good song on it, neither would I pay $3-5 if that song happened to be released as a single. If a record company made the song available as an mp3 for $1 I'd prbably pay to d/l it. Assuming that it didn't have any kind of copy protection on it. Additionally by downloading mp3's I avoid being taxed a second time on money that I've allready had taxed once. So I stop buyng cd's... no. I will still continue to buy cd's that are worth it (not just one good song), but I will never pay for a whole cd just to listen to one song.

Asking why Linux is better is a little like asking why breathing oxygen is better than breathing methane. Linux has so much going for it it's tough to even imagine using anything else. Some of it may be chauvinism, but Linux hardly needs chauvinistic support. It just needs pragmatic support, and computer users are some of the most pragmatic people around.
Here are ten listed reasons why Linux is better than commerical OSes. Here is a well-written article on the subject.
Perhaps the most pragmatic reason is that Linux is the cheapest OS in existence. You can find the latest release free for the taking on many servers worldwide. The time and the technical skills needed to actually make this option work are prohibitive, however, and few people will actually do it. For the rest of us, plenty of CDs are sold (or given away with big, useful instruction manuals (hey, that's how I got Red Hat 7.1!)) for under a hundred bucks. These CDs, called 'distros', or distributions, are made by various corporations, like Red Hat, Caldera, Slackware, Debain, etc. and come loaded with thousands of dollars worth of software. They also come with friendly, graphical installation programs that can get even the rankest of newbies started with Linux.
Once you get Linux going, there is a plethora of free software online. The GNU's Not Unix project is the best-known source, but you can find thousands with a simple Google search. Most Linux software, and Linux itself, is free in two senses: Free beer and Free speech. Free speech? Yes. Free in that sense means you can look at the source code (it is Open Source, in other words) and modify it to your whims. It is liberated software, software anyone can modify, learn from, change, and improve.
That brings me to my next point. Linux is the most stable OS in the world. Programs can crash and burn, scream and die, and just plain quit and Linux soldiers on. That's why it's used in servers. Saves thousands, if not millions, in maintnence costs, compared to Microsoft products (the Blue Screen Of Death can be expensive if the server that handles financial transactions crashes). It's stable because it has an army of people the world over fixing what breaks. How many software companies can claim that skilled programmers volunteered their time to make sure their operating system works on every hardware imaginable? None. Only Linux, the operating system used by the people who write it and written by the people who use it.
That brings me to my last point (promise! :-)). Linux is a state of mind for many people. It is a declaration of independence from the closed model of software development. It is a great big 'up yours' to the bloated, insecure, crash-prone shit the Big Two (Microsoft and Macintosh) foist on the world. Eric Raymond wrote a book on the Linux Revolution called The Cathedral and the Bazaar, pointing up the superiority of the open development model (the Bazaar) over the closed development system (the Cathedral) by following one of the many successful open development projects, fetchmail. Linux is a community of people who want to make the best software for everyone. It can give you the best technical support because the guy who wrote the program you're having trouble with is probably reachable. And if not, reams of people who helped him fix bugs are. Your problems might influence the next version of the software, in fact. Because Linux is open, anything can happen. Microsoft doesn't stand a chance. :-)

If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.

Ryan T. Sammartino

If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.

Ryan T. Sammartino

If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.

Ryan T. Sammartino

If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.

Ryan T. Sammartino

You're confusing things by bunching together trademarks and copyrights under the obfuscatory category "Intellectual Property":

Microsoft says that the GPL is against "intellectual property rights." I have no opinion on "intellectual property rights," because the term is too broad to have a sensible opinion about. It is a catch-all, covering copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other disparate areas of law; areas so different, in the laws and in their effects, that any statement about all of them at once is surely simplistic. To think intelligently about copyrights, patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately. The first step is declining to lump them together as "intellectual property".

GNU GPL and the American Way

So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user is free to do all these things. So, in effect, any custom program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all the rights.

And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom software.

• Thus Spake Stallman

---

Microsoft is winning on the legal front. Hey, I've even heard jokes that were when Microsoft got broken up the two companies were going to be, Legal, and everything else. Having states drop out is not a good thing on this case. But there needs to be more than just this case going on.

No, I think the joke would work much better as Microsoft Marketing, and the rest of the company. All jokes aside, however, I think Microsoft would likely be benefited by splitting up rather than hurt by it. The end result would probably be that both divisions would try things they would have otherwise avoided in fear of competing against themselves, and most likely make even more money. Look at the "Baby Bells", and the effect of that split-up. If you want to see Microsoft hurt, asking them to be split up won't further your purpose. I don't think it's even a suitable remedy, since there's virtually no reason to believe that two Microsofts would stimulate more competition than just one Microsoft.

Remember that the aim of this lawsuit isn't to punish Microsoft but to remedy the anti-trust situation that Microsoft has created by their actions. I honestly think that points number 1 and 2 that GNU has proposed would do better than virtually any of the other recommendation that has been put forward. It would allow Microsoft to continue "innovating" and developing their products, however they would be required to document EVERYTHING, and would not be able to litigate against those who made compatible products unless they used Microsoft copyrighted code illegally. The end result would be that Microsoft developers would be happier, Microsoft's competitors would have better tools to compete with Microsoft on a level playing field, and it would negate the complaints of many competitors that Microsoft has an unfair advantage since they control both the OS and applications and can make whatever modification they need to either to make their own products work better (even if damages the performance of competitors products). I do not agree with point three, however, since this is a remedy for Microsoft's actions, not for hardware manufacturers.

The only body that I can think would be hurt by this would be Microsoft, in that they would have to invest in more employees to document the currently undocumented interfaces. The pain would only be temporary, as when the documentation on the currently undocumented interfaces is complete, only slightly more people would be needed to maintain documentation for new products and existing ones.

The linux kernel can have proprietary modules b/c there is a blanket exemption specifically written into the kernel's license (which is otherwise GPL) that allows this. Otherwise, as you said, everything that runs on linux would have to be Free Software. The "standard" GPL, however, DOES NOT allow dynamic linking of proprietary plug-ins to GPL'd software. See these questions here and here in the GPL FAQ at gnu.org, for some good practical examples of what the GPL allows.

The linux kernel can have proprietary modules b/c there is a blanket exemption specifically written into the kernel's license (which is otherwise GPL) that allows this. Otherwise, as you said, everything that runs on linux would have to be Free Software. The "standard" GPL, however, DOES NOT allow dynamic linking of proprietary plug-ins to GPL'd software. See these questions here and here in the GPL FAQ at gnu.org, for some good practical examples of what the GPL allows.

Or maybe DotGNU

No reason to assume Microsoft will be the ONLY company to figure out the usefulness of Authentication services, or that some creative software libertarians won't be able to implement a decent system that gets people some of the benefits of Authentication/billing management without necessarily sacrificing the options of end users or locking everyone into a monopolizing service provider.

It's still to early to tell how the Market will react to these technologies, but I don't recall Microsoft ever getting as much flack in the mainstream press over it's business practices and proposed technologies as it has been lately. The battle lines are becoming more clear, and a lot of people apparently want to hurt Microsoft, so I bet these projects will attract a lot of developer mindshare.

The big question for me is how RMS and other hardline Free Software leaders will react to the idea of integrating content-billing into a Free Software project. Clearly, such capability (combined with Free Software's reputation for reliability and security) would entice content providers into using it as an alternative to .NET (which assuredly will provide similar abilities), but it seems to fly in the face of the FSF's stated goals. I'm very curious what the long-term destiny of these projects will be.

It's funny, you don't usually hear about the authors of insecure software being liable. Yet they are just as much at fault as the people making the rootkits (from a simplistic 'if this code didn't exist, the exploit couldn't happen' point of view).

From any perspective other than that simplistic (and useless) one your argument/example fails utterly. Sue Ford if your car gets stolen? Sure, if they've sold it to you with the explicit guarantee that it's unstealable.

No piece of code I know of makes such an explicit guarantee. In fact, much of the code I use says (in big bold letters), "NO WARRANTY" and "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU."

Question: is it possible to make a complex piece of software provable secure? Answer: no.

So you want to hold people accountable unless they write perfect code, every time? Brilliant - you've just filed a lawsuit against every person who's every written software. Good luck.

"We all say so, so it must be true!"

It has certain benefits that PCs do not have (locked hardware, unified memory, etc.)

Locked hardware is a benefit?! For whom? Certainly not for the customer. Maybe for those that love control, such as the MPAA and the RIAA, but not us, the customers.

It seems you have already been assimilated into the Borg.

Makes me long for the day when PS2 meant PS/2 and not PlayStation 2. (Maybe we shouldn't abbreviate PlayStation 2 like that, look at CSS, is it Cascading Style Sheets, Content Scrambling System or C Styled Script?).

Anyway, the PS/2 was somewhat of a closed system (IBM had been overly tight-fisted about controlling use of the MCA bus technology - it hurt them and they have learned from their mistake), but it was far more open than the PS2 game machine.

P.S. I am wondering, what benefits can game consoles have over PCs anyway? PCs have TV out for those that want connections to TVs and the frame rates are nowadays faster than human perception and the scan rate of any monitor or TV out there. Please let me know what I am missing. Granted they are cheaper than PCs sometimes, but not by all that much it seems. And anything with a hard drive is getting close to being a PC anyway... Heck, GCC can be made to run on it I heard.

• Lots of universities are teaching Java, and there are many programmers who know it.
• Sun has delivered a very complete set of APIs for which we already know that they can be implemented on many different platforms; .NET/C# relies on a lot of Windows-specific APIs.
• There are already lots of open source libraries for Java.
• It looks like the embedded and handheld market has widely adopted Java already.
• There already is a gcc frontend for Java, allowing you to compile standalone applications.
• There are already several open source JIT compilers, including Kaffe, Intel's Open Runtime Platform, and OpenJIT (the latter isn't open source compliant, but maybe could become so).
• There are already Gnome bindings for Java.
• There are numerous Java implementations
• Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Sun's recent JDK's (1.3, 1.4) have excellent compilers and runtimes, rivaling C++ performance.

Also, while I think it would make sense for the Gnome project to use Java bindings to Gnome, I think Swing itself is getting a bad wrap. It's a well-designed toolkit that runs fine on reasonably fast machines. It's completely written in, and completely extensible in, Java. In a year or two, nobody will think twice about its speed. Most of the performance complaints about Swing are actually just the cost of the initial class loading and JIT compilation. Well-written Java programs structure that load process so that it doesn't bother users, but Sun is addressing these issues with each release.

There are no significant technical differences between Java and C# as languages. C# is neither harder nor easier to compile than Java. C# is not more expressive and it isn't less expressive. As languages, they are interchangeable. The question is: given these other considerations, which is the right choice? To me, the answer is pretty clearly Java, not C#.

• 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.

NO. I am not RMS, but I believe we agree on this. A perfect world is one where the four freedoms that make up free software are the law. This goes a bit farther than just eliminating copyright; the law must guarantee access to source. Hence the GPL's source access requirements. Because China has no Copyleft laws and no Copyright laws to enforce the GPL with, China is actually farther from RMS's perfect world than the US is.

qed

Quite humorous given that the GPL philosophy epitomizes communism (pure communism rather than some of the distorted types that have occurred on this planet. It is always interesting seeing GPL advocates frothing at the mouth when they see the term communism associated with the GPL when that is exactly the sort of ideology that it promotes, and Mr. Stallman is a modern-day Marx-wannabe). So here apparently you have the people who supposedly live under the ideology ignoring it when it serves their purpose. How surprizing.

This is exactly the kind of legal situation that makes the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgements so scary, as it would extend this to the 50 some member countries. This is why the Consumer Project on Technology and RMS are working to oppose the convention.

APIs can be reproduced, so copyright is essentially useless against reimplementation.

It is true that APIs are not protected against cloning under copyright law; but if they implement a novel and efficient solution to a technical problem, they may indeed have protected it under patent law.

For example, Microsoft has a patent (US 5,297,284) on the layout of the vtables of pointers to functions used in COM objects with multiple inheritance. It is therefore legally forbidden to add a compatibility option in gcc to clone this. (Although according to this post on the gcc list the WINE people do have a workaround).

If you think that MS Legal haven't done their level best to protect .NET against independent third party clones, then you are naive. The recent pre-announcement of the crippleware .NET SDK for BSD explicitly mentions that it includes the licensing of relevant patents, as does MS's development agreement with Corel. Independent implementers are unlikely to be so favoured.

Not only that, not very many people are too concerned with that the FSF's definition of "Open Source" is. If I can download the source for free (economically speaking) and look at it, it's open

That's why the FSF don't call it "Open Source software", they call it "Free Software". Take a look at the FSF's definition of free software, and their argument as to why Free Software is better than open source.

43rd Law of Computing:

Not only that, not very many people are too concerned with that the FSF's definition of "Open Source" is. If I can download the source for free (economically speaking) and look at it, it's open

That's why the FSF don't call it "Open Source software", they call it "Free Software". Take a look at the FSF's definition of free software, and their argument as to why Free Software is better than open source.

43rd Law of Computing:

Come on, everyone knows that ed is the standard editor!

is the fact that the GPL comes from an almost saint-like desire to help friends and neighbors. In that sense, the GPL is almost biblical (remember sunday school: respect thy neighbor). The fact is never mentioned that while the GPL might be anti-corporate under some circumstances, it is always pro-community.

The idealism of the GPL hit me personally when I read on the GNU philosophy pages (somewhere here) an insight on how it would be downright rude to refuse to burn a copy of Windows for my buddy. I had done exactly that many times, and RMS was making me realize that this is not "theft", or "piracy", by any stretch of the imagination, and should therefore not be illegal. So what he has done, instead of breaking these draconian laws, was to create a license that put these values into software and software developers.

In other words, the "M$ is evil" posters are right to an extent. Microsoft willfully breaks one of the ten commandments (I'm not religious at all, but the bible sure contains some great human truths) on a regular basis.

Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;

Funny, I thought the GPL was protecting my code from commercial exploitation.

The GPL doesn't allow you to link to non-free libraries, so you're not allowed, by the GPL to link to Microsoft's libraries - see the following section from the GPL FAQ

I am writing free software that uses non-free libraries. What legal issues come up if I use the GPL?

If the libraries that you link with falls within the following exception in the GPL:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them.

--

"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."

Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...

For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.

Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them

Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.

"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."

Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...

For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.

Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them

Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.

"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."

Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...

For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.

Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them

Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.

"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."

Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...

For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.

Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them

Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.

"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."

Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...

For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.

Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them

Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.

Hence rhetoric from RMS to the effect that asking people to pay for software is unethical.

I think RMS's position is that it's unethical to restrict redistribution or use of the software after the sale. If you squint at it funny, it almost looks like first sale doctrine.

Disclaimer: I'm not RMS. RMS never even posts to newsgroups, so he wouldn't be posting here. I don't agree with many of his positions. Phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine.

Hopefully now they will give more consideration to implementing some of the measures outlined here ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust. html ) -- more similar to IBM's punishment for unfair practices than to the Bell System's (breakup).

Unfortunately the essential.org article (which was *VERY* good, as good as the Stallman article itself) is no longer there, the staff is working on tracking it down again.

As it's been said before, this is deliberate:

Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html where it's all explained.

No, they are not quite the same. There is a reason why Scheme wasn't just released under LGPL. My head hurts when I try hard to understand just what the LGPL says; the Scheme license is simpler.

For example, my understanding of the LGPL license is that you have to release source for any part of your application that uses header files from the LGPL stuff, if the header files contain inline functions more than 10 lines long. (LGPL, section 5.)

steveha