Slashdot Mirror

the union of "Unix" and "Not Unix" is "everything"

OK, here's the UNIX web site.
Here's the GNU's Not UNIX web site.
Neither of those sites has everything.

The UNIX® system is optimized for footprint (it originally ran in 1 MB machines IIRC). The GNU system, OTOH, is optimized for speed. This "use more RAM if it'll improve performance and/or simplicity" mentality helps counter copyright infringement allegations by UNIX system vendors against GNU system developers who have never read UNIX system code.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. 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. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

[Emphasis mine] Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. 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.

*Sometimes* makefiles have a make uninstall option. But that is a slight flaw in the nature of package managment, if there isn't an actual package, things could get messy.

I personally use stow to manage software that isn't part of the distribution. When compiling, --prefix=/usr/local/stow/package-name then build as normal. When it's done, cd to /usr/local/stow and type stow package-name, and stow creates symlinks in /usr/local. Slick. To remove, stow -D package-name, rm -rf /usr/local/stop/package-name

The Really Big Point in the article is that the rights we Americans have are much, much easier to legislate away than to protect. Could you imagine an America in which the only 'free speech' is that which the corporations allow? DeCSS is the tip of the iceberg. As mentioned in a previous /. article, The Right To Read is inching closer to a reality. The two best things I can suggest at this point in spacetime are the following: 1. Support the EFF. They are the spearhead, and unlike the ACLU are not entrenched in the public consciousness. Donate something.. ANYTHING. (If you're paranoid, send 'em a money order.)
2. Vote For Ralph Nader and Against ALL Incumbent Senators. The first link takes you to the site of the only candidate who has been and is willing to take on the corporations and the two major parties, the Democritans and the Republocrats, who are all sleeping together like some incestuous menage-a-trois. He takes NO PAC money, NO soft money. He is the only candidate to have visited all 50 states. (So donate a few bucks, huh? :)And w/r/t the senators: The second link takes you to the website with the roll-call vote which passed the DMCA. S. 2037 (1998) was the number of the bill which became the DMCA. (Check it out. You'll see it's true.)

The very idea that someone can decide how I will view something I've purchased makes my blood boil. Yes it's a viewing license, no I don't technically "own" the movie, but damn it, I want to be able use this on my terms, in my house, in any way I see fit.

I think this is a common misconception. There is no license involved in buying a DVD movie, unlike when you "buy" (actually license) software.

These ideas have been touched on by RMS in "The Freedome to Read."

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

(site seems to not be responding at the moment though)

Ok, here's the opposite point of view. I've not found any copies of these laws online, and cannot get paper copies since I am not a US citizen. However, here are some links to articles on GNU.org that seem to clear things up. Remember that the writers have researched these extensively.

Reevaluating Copyright: This covers the constitutional intent of copyright. That is, that copyright is a limited monopoly granted to an author over their work for a limited period.

Words to Avoid: Just over halfway down, there's a section talking about how the term IP came to be used. Notice the sentance about the US legal system.

Ok, here's the opposite point of view. I've not found any copies of these laws online, and cannot get paper copies since I am not a US citizen. However, here are some links to articles on GNU.org that seem to clear things up. Remember that the writers have researched these extensively.

Reevaluating Copyright: This covers the constitutional intent of copyright. That is, that copyright is a limited monopoly granted to an author over their work for a limited period.

Words to Avoid: Just over halfway down, there's a section talking about how the term IP came to be used. Notice the sentance about the US legal system.

No chance unless they port Darwin to PC hardware. And we all know that's not gonna happen.

I believe I read that Darwin has already been ported to x86 a couple months or so back, but either way it doesn't matter, Darwin is just another Mach kernel, with a screwy license no less. The "aqua" gui is what they aren't going to port to x86 before hell freezes over. Which may well be a good thing. The use of NeXT technology and design is a good thing, but the UI seems to have some major problems, with some major design decisions appearing to have been made with more emphasis on eye candy than usability.

If you really want a mach kernel with a good UI, take a look at the The HURD and GNUstep - real Free Software projects that could use your help.

I'm talking about direct rip-offs, including graphics

Does, for example, the csh/bash commandline in GNU look any different from the csh/bash commandline in UNIX?

and game-play

The bash syntax is the same as the sh syntax, or at least as similar as the game clones were to the Hasbro originals. And the POSIX functions are the same too.

as well as things like calling parts of the game the same thing.

ls, cd, rm, etc. are exactly as they are in UNIX®.

You know, a DIRECT rip-off.

A direct rip-off of UNIX was RMS's goal when he started the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation:

I chose to make the system compatible with Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily switch to it. The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."

By your logic, if the GNU/Linux® System is a direct rip-off of the UNIX® System, then it's no better than piracy...
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

It's preferable if these are open source, but they don't have to be to suit your purpose; for example Metrowerks PowerPlant is the most popular application framework for the MacOS, and although it is a commercial product it is inexpensively available and when you do buy the Codewarrior development system you get the PowerPlant source code on the installation disk.

You can even develop an open source framework yourself and publish it openly, and invite in contributors publicly, and distribute non-subversive demo and test programs. Alternatively, you can add functionality to frameworks that almost suit the purpose and submit your patches back to the original maintainers.

This will save you work, although you may have to write "adapters" to be able to use someone else's library for your own purposes, it will increase reliability of your product, because the framework will have already been debugged by someone else and also tested under a wider variety of circumstances than it will encounter in your code, and you can concentrate your work on the particularly subversive parts.

Then you post only the "interesting" parts of your source code, and provide hyperlinks to the needed application frameworks in your build instructions. Be sure to include the version numbers needed for this build of your program, and if the sources to any of the frameworks are signed with a public key, include the key which those sources were signed with when you got them. That way you can be sure future programmers can rebuild the same program as you did.

It may well be that you have a large application but only a few source files and some build instructions to upload, which could be done off a floppy disk at a public access terminal. If you upload these to a few free webhosting service pages, then email the URL to a bunch of warez site maintainers, your code will be looked after.

Note: to find lots of warez sites (and even more serialz sites) go to Altavista, click on "Advanced Search" and enter:

download and warez and photoshop and illustrator and crack

Note that if you want to build a Windows application you can build it with Cygwin (a GNU shell environment for Windows including gcc) so you can be sure Microsoft doesn't embed Globally Unique Identifiers in your code. I'd also suggest that when you make a windows build, you buy a brand-new copy of windows 98 (pay cash), install it on a freshy formatted hard drive, build your binary, upload it, low-level format the hard disk you built it on and throw away the Windows 98 installation disk and all the materials that came with it. It's probably hard to get away with installing a development system on a public access terminal.

If you don't want to use a public access terminal (after all, you might be recorded on a surveillance camera, or the coffee shop waiters might remember you skulking around), then use Zero Knowledge Systems' Freedom to anonymize your web access.

Note that the way Freedom works is your HTTP packets are multiply encrypted with the public keys of the Freedom Network's servers, then "unwrapped" one by one as they pass through up to three servers until they are passed unencrypted to the public net at a faraway place.

Freedom provides both anonymous web browsing and anonymous email send and receive.

Some sources for open source libraries:

• Available C++ Libraries FAQ
• The Apache XML Project
• The Free Software Foundation software page
• Walnut Creek CDROM Free Software Archive
• SourceForge
• Freshmeat
• Gnome

On the other hand, when you write new code, it is definitely worth while to snip out little bits and make sure that they will compile and run on their own, or depend only on other readily available libraries. That way you can create a library yourself.

The book More C++ Gems has some articles on Large-Scale Software Architecture that discusses reducing cyclic dependencies in software projects, in part so that the projects can be rebuilt faster but also so that they can be unit tested in smaller parts and the parts can be extracted out and reused in other programs - although the claim is often made that object-oriented software is more reusable, this claim is baseless unless good engineering practices are observed.

Clause 10 of the GNU GPL allows authors to create exceptions to the License. Guile and libstdc++ both use an exception "this library may be linked to proprietary software."
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

I think Nick's missed the real meaning of the (over-used) phrase.

"...wants to be free" doesn't mean that everyone has a right to copy any information. We still, now, mostly respect the idea of old-school copyrights with all their in-built fair-use provisions.

What it means is that it's very difficult to stop people copying information. To do it would require not only complicated and annoying copy-protection and licensing schemes that kill the traditional copyright-based rights we have, but also an insanely harsh set of laws against circumventing them. To effectively stop copying, you have to build what is more or less a fascist state. Most people consider this sort of effort to counter information being free far too much hard work, if not simply unnatural.

Of course this is exactly the action the MPAA, RIAA, and other DMCA proponents are working on right now. They'd happily screw up the world to protect their right to make a buck from someone else's work. Because the world owes them a living, you see.

The only restriction the QPL added is that you couldn't charge for distributing software (which the GPL, surprisingly enough, allows.)

It's the one thing that you'll never get out of an FSF zealot: just what the hell is wrong with the QPL?

6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (emphasis mine)

6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.

Note also:

Choice of Law This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court.

Not that there's anything wrong with the license (even RMS says it's a free license, so it must be okay, right? <g>), but IIRC, it was these two parts of it that caused all the brouhaha.

--

Guido van Rossum writes: At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL. Even though the state of Virginia does no such thing!

Sorry, Guido, Virginia is Unfreedonia. It is the only state that passed UCITA without modification (Maryland passed a highly modified version that struck out some of the more obnoxious provisions). UCITA contains many horrors for free software developers and software users alike. Stallman pointed out many of these problems in this article. Virginia is the worst possible state in the US to specify as the jurisdiction where disputes over licensing will be settled.

I don't know if RMS's warning about UCITA potentially subjecting free software authors to liability (while exempting those who use shrink-wrap licenses) is correct or not, but it is a worry.

If Python is incompatible with the GPL, what it means is that people won't be able to link together Python code and GPLed code. This will be a major pain in the butt, so I hope that it can be fixed.

I don't know why everyone is giving RMS so much crap when it is CNRI that is making a change to a more restrictive license than it used in the past. CNRI created the problem, not RMS; as Guido said The new license was imposed by CNRI on Python 1.6 (the last release done from CNRI's code base).

The best solution will be to find some language that satisfies CNRI's concerns without causing these problems.

It is certainly RMS's choice to say "The Python License is not compatible with the GPL". However, his saying so does not necessarily make it true. The issue is whether a GPL program can be linked with Python, and whether the requirement of the Python License that disputes are governed under the laws of Virginia prevents such use.

If you write a program which you want to GPL, and it uses Python, there is a way out; RMS explains how in a section on the Qt license in his article Various Licenses and Comments about Them. If you are creating a Linux distribution, or even a large software collection which includes Python and GPL software, you're ok:

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.

Third, this causes no problems to the FSF, the Python people or the general public. It's only a problem for groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python.

This isn't quite true - if I write a program which incorporates the Python interpreter, or pieces of it, and want to (or have to) use the GPL, then I have that problem. I'm not sure if I can legally distribute a work under the GPL plus the statement:

This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects by the law of the State of Virginia, excluding conflict of law provisions.

You just have to read the /.-article, and you know there will be RMS-bashing inside. And always there has to be a cleaning woman trying to get the FUD out of the world. Now it's my turn:

Sorry to point this out, but to RMS, the only license that is compatible with the GPL is the GPL.

That's simply wrong. I don't think RMS view differs substantially from the FSF view. You could know about compatible licenses by just visiting the FSF-site and read the list of GPL compatible licenses. Either you didn't, or you are spreading FUD although you know better.

This is incredibly true.

Speaking as an employer in the free software community from Cambridge, MA who is faced with doing everything myself (from HTML and Perl (e.g., CGI) coding, accounting, system building, etc. etc.), it is incredibly frustrating. In my situation, I just need someone to take over some of the more technical issues (like getting an optimized Debian onto my boxen or helping out with web design). Just *one* person.

A large issue right now is simply finding quality people who you can rely on to be there for you. I get resumes sent to me where someone has spent 6 months at company X, 6 months on their own ".com" project, and 6 months at their current company. He's cocky, he can't code well, he has an ego larger than Saturn, and he doesn't have any sort of training.... Would you employ him?

Your judgement weakens as you comprehend the reality of it all; you don't have anyone else applying for the job and you're already working 11 hour days just to keep afloat... You need *someone*.

What do you do?

I think this is a popular dichotomy that smaller, non-VC companies like me face every day. We can't afford to bleed money to placate itinerant employees, so we just have to run lean and efficient. This is probably also why we're still here, and will still be here in three years.

Lucas
Spindlet0p

Well I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the rms-account as well, but Stallman does have rms@stallman.org as an email account too. For example check out the bottom of the www.stallman.org (www.stallman.org is The Real Thing, as it is referenced from www.gnu.org). But it's probable that both accounts are fakes :)

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html

...and...

http://www.debian.org/intro/free

http://www.debian.org/social_contr act#guidelines

...are all excellent starting points. Reading all three of these links will definitely help you to create 'Libre' (free as in speech, not beer) software.

Good luck.

--Robert (ramses0@yahoo.com)

Note that there is a distinctive difference between proprietary and commercial software.

Boy, I hope I got this one right ;-).

You didn't, but that's the price you pay for letting RMS do your thinking for you.

The GPL does not allow you to produce commercial software, it just doesn't prevent you from selling support services for GPL'd "free" software (and if you read RMS's definition of commercial software, this is what he's talking about). Selling support services for software is probably outside the realm of software licensing altogether.

You are also allowed to charge money for distribution of GPL software. I don't know about you, but I don't have enough money to run such a business.

I don't believe anything in the QPL prohibits either of these activities.

Here's a little food for thought, if any of you GNU drones are capable:

Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely.

Hmm. Sounds like the GPL.

You might want to look at:

• http://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html#timeline

You might want to look at:

• http://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html#timeline

You might want to look at:

• http://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html
• http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html#timeline

I don't think you are correct here. The QPL did forbid using QT for commercial applications. Therefore it was incompatible with the GPL, which explicitely allows that. But the GPL doesn't allow linking of GPL code to code which is issued under a more restrictive license. The QPL, though a free license, was 'less free' than the GPL. Hence the incompatibility.

If you choose to use QT 2.2 with the GPL, you are allowed to create commercial applications with it. You are not allowed to create proprietary software (this indeed hasn't changed).

Note that there is a distinctive difference between proprietary and commercial software.

Boy, I hope I got this one right ;-).

--

I don't think you are correct here. The QPL did forbid using QT for commercial applications. Therefore it was incompatible with the GPL, which explicitely allows that. But the GPL doesn't allow linking of GPL code to code which is issued under a more restrictive license. The QPL, though a free license, was 'less free' than the GPL. Hence the incompatibility.

If you choose to use QT 2.2 with the GPL, you are allowed to create commercial applications with it. You are not allowed to create proprietary software (this indeed hasn't changed).

Note that there is a distinctive difference between proprietary and commercial software.

Boy, I hope I got this one right ;-).

--

In general, I like to recommend that people do a little research before they take what Michael says too literally. Unfortunately, Google seems to have got bored with Michael's magnum opus (the page in which he describes his love for the GNU project is particularly fun), but it still lists many of the other mailing lists Michael has tortured over the years.

If you read the article again you will see that is states that Sokolevs writings are on his ftp site, and there is also a link to the ftp site. I seems to be slashdoted already, so try here instead.

Here is the copy that was send to the gcc mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-09/msg 00035.html.

article at gcc mailing list archive on gnu.org

I've seen endless amounts of complaining on slashdot about the 'click here to agree' licenses that come with most commercial software. Some say they aren't binding and shouldn't be taken seriously. Why, then, should anybody take a license included with an open-source package seriously?

Shrinkwrap licenses attempt to tell you what you can do with a work, and draw their force from... er... nowhere in particular.

In short, we have been convinced that the GPL does indeed protect a library from being used to develop non-free software. Non-free software, in this respect, of course, includes software developed internally in an organization.

They seem to imply that code from Qt, or any GPL-licensed program, may not be used in any in-house software projects which are not distributed to the public. This conclusion flies in the face of the FSF's own interpretation of the rights granted by the GPL and free software:

[With free software,] you should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist.

I'm surprised no one yet has mentioned this, so I will -- the GNU Project is very interested in having Free documentation for Free Software. They rightly regard it as essential for the software to be useful. The subject matter of your book is:

1) deeply technical and narrowly focused. There will not be a mass market for this book, even within the technical community. Therefore, a print publication is probably out of the question at least initially.

2) always changing. This means that for the book to remain useful to anyone, it will need constant updating as the software it documents is changed. Therefore, I agree with the other posters who have said that you should probably publish this in electronic format (SGML-based, like DocBook), using a license that allows others to maintain it. I recommend that you take a look at the GNU Free Documentation License.

The FSF doesn't have a lot of money to pay developers for software or documentation, but they do have some resources. Also, they have contacts with many other groups in the Free Software/Open Source movement, and might be able to solicit funds from Red Hat, SuSE, O'Reilly, VA Linux, etc. if they couldn't cover the costs themselves. Finally, the hackers who would be most interested in buying your book will be much more likely to make donations to finance the effort if they know that it will remain Free Documentation (ie: FDL'ed).

With this model, you probably will not get royalties, but would instead be paid a lump sum for the work, and then paid additional amounts for revisions over time. However, due to the very narrow appeal of a book like this, it would probably be more profitable for you than hoping for a conventional print publishing contract. You will probably never get one, and even if you do, the circulation of the book would be so small that the royalties would be negligible.

Please consider contacting the FSF about this possibility -- it's worth a shot.

Alex Berkman

I'm surprised no one yet has mentioned this, so I will -- the GNU Project is very interested in having Free documentation for Free Software. They rightly regard it as essential for the software to be useful. The subject matter of your book is:

1) deeply technical and narrowly focused. There will not be a mass market for this book, even within the technical community. Therefore, a print publication is probably out of the question at least initially.

2) always changing. This means that for the book to remain useful to anyone, it will need constant updating as the software it documents is changed. Therefore, I agree with the other posters who have said that you should probably publish this in electronic format (SGML-based, like DocBook), using a license that allows others to maintain it. I recommend that you take a look at the GNU Free Documentation License.

The FSF doesn't have a lot of money to pay developers for software or documentation, but they do have some resources. Also, they have contacts with many other groups in the Free Software/Open Source movement, and might be able to solicit funds from Red Hat, SuSE, O'Reilly, VA Linux, etc. if they couldn't cover the costs themselves. Finally, the hackers who would be most interested in buying your book will be much more likely to make donations to finance the effort if they know that it will remain Free Documentation (ie: FDL'ed).

With this model, you probably will not get royalties, but would instead be paid a lump sum for the work, and then paid additional amounts for revisions over time. However, due to the very narrow appeal of a book like this, it would probably be more profitable for you than hoping for a conventional print publishing contract. You will probably never get one, and even if you do, the circulation of the book would be so small that the royalties would be negligible.

Please consider contacting the FSF about this possibility -- it's worth a shot.

Alex Berkman

So now, if I ever want to see a movie in the future, it has to be on an MPAA approved machine and software? Even if its operation in the near future requires connection to a telephone for activation? If thier devices are buggy and crash after watching the manditory 10 minutes of commercials at the beginning of each movie?

Ah, yes. Now you see the whole danger of the DMCA. DIVX was the first shot in the war on consumer property rights, but the pay-per-use annoyance-ware model has not yet died. Witness the recent Slashdot story about the evil subscription textbooks that one company is pushing. In particular, read their PR page. They don't care about their customers -- students and campus bookstores. They don't have to. As long as they can lock you into paying for the rest of you life for something you could pay once for nowdays, and as long as they can prevent you for reselling your copy to someone else, they can keep pumping every student for money as much as possible. As a student who recently had to pay $300 for textbooks, at least 2 of which I will be using for years to come if not the rest of my life, I am very angry about this trend.

We are beginning a new age of corporate control over our lives and our very fundamental freedoms. As much as I disagree with him on other issues, Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" is dead on the money. Keep these times fresh in your mind -- you'll be telling your grandkids one day what the "good old days" were like.

The GNU project has dealt with similar issues in regard to bison. Unfortunately, the only documentation I can find at the moment seems to be missing the details: http://www.gnu.org/manual/bi son/html_node/bison_2.html

Well, here's what I did when I had to write test drivers for an 150-person class: In addition to automated tests for the TA's, I also wrote sanity tests that the students could run themselves. In other words, when you thought you had finished problem set 5, you typed: verify ps5

This sounds very much like the DejaGnu:

DejaGnu is a framework for testing other programs. Its purpose is to provide a single front end for all tests. Beyond this, DejaGnu offers...

It's manual can be found at this link. It's interesting that this came up in this thread, though it'll probably be largely ignored considering how deep it is in the thread and how many people have replied to this topic. I've been contemplating trying to get the crew at work to write their code with a number of tools that they're not using right now, such as DejaGnu, Nana (a nice library for assertion checking and logging), Autoconf and Automake, and perhaps even Autogen. I think it would give a good, standardized base from which to work, and force some of these half-assed coworkers to live up to the name "hacker"! Alas, the troubles of trying to convince coworkers of a "better way" is not the topic of this thread, but I thought the mention of the tools would relate well.

...make sure that your code provided the right interfaces (it's amazing how many people forget to capitalize function names), and so on...

*cringe* It sounds like you've enforced some coding style standards upon your students that are not "C-compliant". Yet another topic for discussion, "What stylistic standard is 'right' for C programs? C++ programs?" We've all got our preferences, and were I a student of yours, I'd cringe every time I wrote a capatalized function. *double-cringe*

Well, here's what I did when I had to write test drivers for an 150-person class: In addition to automated tests for the TA's, I also wrote sanity tests that the students could run themselves. In other words, when you thought you had finished problem set 5, you typed: verify ps5

This sounds very much like the DejaGnu:

DejaGnu is a framework for testing other programs. Its purpose is to provide a single front end for all tests. Beyond this, DejaGnu offers...

It's manual can be found at this link. It's interesting that this came up in this thread, though it'll probably be largely ignored considering how deep it is in the thread and how many people have replied to this topic. I've been contemplating trying to get the crew at work to write their code with a number of tools that they're not using right now, such as DejaGnu, Nana (a nice library for assertion checking and logging), Autoconf and Automake, and perhaps even Autogen. I think it would give a good, standardized base from which to work, and force some of these half-assed coworkers to live up to the name "hacker"! Alas, the troubles of trying to convince coworkers of a "better way" is not the topic of this thread, but I thought the mention of the tools would relate well.

...make sure that your code provided the right interfaces (it's amazing how many people forget to capitalize function names), and so on...

*cringe* It sounds like you've enforced some coding style standards upon your students that are not "C-compliant". Yet another topic for discussion, "What stylistic standard is 'right' for C programs? C++ programs?" We've all got our preferences, and were I a student of yours, I'd cringe every time I wrote a capatalized function. *double-cringe*

Well, here's what I did when I had to write test drivers for an 150-person class: In addition to automated tests for the TA's, I also wrote sanity tests that the students could run themselves. In other words, when you thought you had finished problem set 5, you typed: verify ps5

This sounds very much like the DejaGnu:

DejaGnu is a framework for testing other programs. Its purpose is to provide a single front end for all tests. Beyond this, DejaGnu offers...

It's manual can be found at this link. It's interesting that this came up in this thread, though it'll probably be largely ignored considering how deep it is in the thread and how many people have replied to this topic. I've been contemplating trying to get the crew at work to write their code with a number of tools that they're not using right now, such as DejaGnu, Nana (a nice library for assertion checking and logging), Autoconf and Automake, and perhaps even Autogen. I think it would give a good, standardized base from which to work, and force some of these half-assed coworkers to live up to the name "hacker"! Alas, the troubles of trying to convince coworkers of a "better way" is not the topic of this thread, but I thought the mention of the tools would relate well.

...make sure that your code provided the right interfaces (it's amazing how many people forget to capitalize function names), and so on...

*cringe* It sounds like you've enforced some coding style standards upon your students that are not "C-compliant". Yet another topic for discussion, "What stylistic standard is 'right' for C programs? C++ programs?" We've all got our preferences, and were I a student of yours, I'd cringe every time I wrote a capatalized function. *double-cringe*

Well, here's what I did when I had to write test drivers for an 150-person class: In addition to automated tests for the TA's, I also wrote sanity tests that the students could run themselves. In other words, when you thought you had finished problem set 5, you typed: verify ps5

This sounds very much like the DejaGnu:

DejaGnu is a framework for testing other programs. Its purpose is to provide a single front end for all tests. Beyond this, DejaGnu offers...

It's manual can be found at this link. It's interesting that this came up in this thread, though it'll probably be largely ignored considering how deep it is in the thread and how many people have replied to this topic. I've been contemplating trying to get the crew at work to write their code with a number of tools that they're not using right now, such as DejaGnu, Nana (a nice library for assertion checking and logging), Autoconf and Automake, and perhaps even Autogen. I think it would give a good, standardized base from which to work, and force some of these half-assed coworkers to live up to the name "hacker"! Alas, the troubles of trying to convince coworkers of a "better way" is not the topic of this thread, but I thought the mention of the tools would relate well.

...make sure that your code provided the right interfaces (it's amazing how many people forget to capitalize function names), and so on...

*cringe* It sounds like you've enforced some coding style standards upon your students that are not "C-compliant". Yet another topic for discussion, "What stylistic standard is 'right' for C programs? C++ programs?" We've all got our preferences, and were I a student of yours, I'd cringe every time I wrote a capatalized function. *double-cringe*

Well, here's what I did when I had to write test drivers for an 150-person class: In addition to automated tests for the TA's, I also wrote sanity tests that the students could run themselves. In other words, when you thought you had finished problem set 5, you typed: verify ps5

This sounds very much like the DejaGnu:

DejaGnu is a framework for testing other programs. Its purpose is to provide a single front end for all tests. Beyond this, DejaGnu offers...

It's manual can be found at this link. It's interesting that this came up in this thread, though it'll probably be largely ignored considering how deep it is in the thread and how many people have replied to this topic. I've been contemplating trying to get the crew at work to write their code with a number of tools that they're not using right now, such as DejaGnu, Nana (a nice library for assertion checking and logging), Autoconf and Automake, and perhaps even Autogen. I think it would give a good, standardized base from which to work, and force some of these half-assed coworkers to live up to the name "hacker"! Alas, the troubles of trying to convince coworkers of a "better way" is not the topic of this thread, but I thought the mention of the tools would relate well.

...make sure that your code provided the right interfaces (it's amazing how many people forget to capitalize function names), and so on...

*cringe* It sounds like you've enforced some coding style standards upon your students that are not "C-compliant". Yet another topic for discussion, "What stylistic standard is 'right' for C programs? C++ programs?" We've all got our preferences, and were I a student of yours, I'd cringe every time I wrote a capatalized function. *double-cringe*

I use three different versions of GCC (for Linux, DOS, and even Windows, and they all accepted the DOS-style CR+LF newlines in my game's source code. Could that be because CR+LF is also the standard in many RFCs?
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Why is it assumed that commercial software and free software must exist in opposition to one another? Simply because this is RMS's position?

There is no such dichotomy, as is made quite clear in the GNU definition of commercial software, nor does RMS adhere to such a belief.

This is easy to see today, since there are a large number of companies writing commercial free software (IBM, Red Hat, Helixcode, etc.).

To refer to non-free software, the FSF suggests using ``propriety'', though I prefer the term slave-ware.

The thing that makes Linux Unix-like (libc, shell tools, etcetera) is the GNU System, which was started in 1983, but doesn't appear anywhere in the chart.

I think you forget Sony's master vision. They want to replace pc's with net appliances.. these net appliances will be closed hardware. It is already illegal to reverse engineer them.

For example: The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story

Actually, this project is in the GNU Task List. A small group of volunteers began to tackle it about 2 years ago, but interest dwindled when the complexity of the task became apparent.

It appears the desired features (at least to the initial core developers far overstep replacing "cards", as it must contemplate any format (paper, digital, film, whatever), allow for the tracking and aquisition of titles, etc.

The initial idea was a web application, using the browser as a "thin client" for the entire shebang - allowing for the oft-underfunded libraries to use their current workstations for the purpose.

As far as I know, the project went as far as a MARC schema, a Z39.50 client that connected and disconnected from the server, and little else (please prove me wrong).

Perhaps this is a chance to use the much vaunted "Slashdot effect" for a positive purpose ? "Hackers wanted"

Even GNU programs sometimes include similar sorts of exception statements, when practical issues demand it; see GNU Guile or Autoconf for examples.

As for linking to the Microsoft libraries, the GPL has a special exception allowing linking with anything that normally comes with the OS or the compiler.

Well, if you consider the httpd interface, which *is* the WWW not innovative, then I would have to agree. Of course, then there's NCSA, which begat Netscape...

What about make, rcs, xmake, PERL, Python? I am sure you think some company created them, right?

How about bind, (it translates IP addresses to domain names)? I am sure another came up with that one, too. Of course you realize everyone on the planet uses some form of Berkeley Bind, right? That must be from that Berkeley, Inc. I keep hearing about.

Of course, don't think that new implementations of old ideas are not innovative, right? Like KDE or GNOME.

My point: you don't seem to be aware that a lot of (IMHO) innovative software has been created and released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Some folks like to say 'Open Source' cause it's cute. Nevertheless, this software is innovative (technically) and your freedom to use and distribute it has not been impeded (it is, in fact, *protected* by the GPL). Wow! Seems pretty innovative to me.

--