Slashdot Mirror

Linux doesn't work completely on brand new hardware!!

It works great on our hardware. We get Linux working on it before we release it. We push the support into the kernel and GCC and binutils and all the other stuff before it becomes an issue.

Apple are hardly going to be focusing on cleaning up Linux's issues.

While the GPLv3 was the reason Apple suddenly invested in clang (which just happens to ride on llvm), it has little effect on any companies that do what they should do.

The GPL in general was the reason Apple invested in LLVM and Clang. Jobs has been hostile to Copyleft ever since NeXT was not allowed to get away with violating the GPL with their Objective C frontend. I'm still somewhat surprised that Apple continues to release CUPS under the GPL. Of course the difference there is that they hold the copyright so they can make any part of it proprietary any time they want. They have done so for OSX-specific parts.

If you use -fno-exceptions, throwing an exception will just call abort(). Which is exactly what will happen if he has exceptions enabled but doesn't catch it, but without the extra overhead.

It's a strange mindset to see run-time type information, available by standard in widespread languages such as Java and C#, as 'really crazy shit that you can do in C++'.

Because it can either work correctly, or be fast. Pick one.

What does a distribution license have to do with a compiler?

Division support in C on some platforms (such as ARM) and exception support in C++ rely on libraries called libgcc and libsupc++. These libraries are GPLv3 with an exception. Were it not for the exception, anything compiled with the would either be GPL (because of libgcc and libsupc++) or produce a linker error (because the libraries are called and not present). The exception applies only if the compiler has not been modified to introduce non-free optimization passes performed in an independent process. See GCC Exception FAQ.

Who does believes in GPL cuties? Apple, FreeBSD, 6 year olds, anybody else?

You can add Nintendo. See the case of Pajama Sam for Wii, where Atari was willing to distribute the source code to a GPL interpreter used for the game but Nintendo didn't want GPL software on its platform.

the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2

It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.

MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason.

Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.

That's your opinion, or is it legal advice? And are you seriously suggesting that the FSF does not pay careful attention to the accuracy of information it posts on its license information page? Why don't you email Eben Moglen and ask?

the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2

It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.

MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason.

Yes... and that description hasn't changed since MS-PL first made headlines on Slashdot... which was before GPLv3 first made headliens on Slashdot. My guess is that nobody at FSF has bothered to update the MS-PL description since GPLv3 was created.

the MS-PL is compatible with GPLv3, just not with GPLv2

It depends who you ask. The FSF states clearly that Ms-PL is incompatible with GPL, period, no version specified.

MS-PL.. a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason.

Not necessarily. It seems that the wavelengths where n is close 1 (refractive index close to the one of air), k (the absorption) is large, so the light will not get far. This might be fine for a few inches of snow, but not for seeing through meters of snow. It also helps that the lines on the side of the rode is covered with retroreflectors. Unless you can convince skiers to where reflective clothing, this won't be the case in avalanche victims. Or Frosty's underwear (I hope, but please don't tell me if it is).

Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF and the Ms-PL license text,
"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."

I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.

It looks toxic. An intentionally toxic license by Microsoft with patent ties, or in other words, a patent grant that ties it to the Microsoft license thus being incompatible with all the open source licenses people actually want to use. And the patents are all bogus no doubt, they are the "my lawyer budget is bigger than yours" kind of intellectual property. Prove me wrong please, I would love that, but I am not optimistic.

multi volume tarJust mount a new usb disk whenever it is full.

However to have reasonable retrieve rate (going through 24 TB of data will rake some days over USB2), You better split the dataset in multiple smaller sets. That also has the advantage that if one disk chrashes (AND Consumer grade USB disk will chrash!) not your entire dataset is lost.

For that reason (diskfailure), do not use some linux spanning disk feature. File systems are lost when one of the disks they write on are lost. Unless you use a feature that can handle lost disks (Raid/ Zraid)

And last but not least: Test your backup. I have seen myself cheap USB interfaces failing to write the data to disk without a good error messages. All looks ok until you retreive the data and some files are corrupted.

Have a look at tar and it's "multi-volume" option.

If I make contributions to the code under the GPLv3, then the code as a whole is GPLv3, and he cannot license it however "he" wants unless he gets an assignment of rights, or excises my contributions.

This lack of foresight is the same reason Linus doesn't have assigns for Linux, and therefore why it's impossible for Linux itself to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, or for a third party to offer Linux under the terms of GPLv3.

When contributing to GCC, you have to execute assigns as well, as the FSF is well aware of this issue. See:

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters

The problem with putting it out there where he did, without a dual license + assigns clause, is that he can't act as a gatekeeper for "Legally Signifcant Changes".

Note that dual licensing doesn't necessarily require that the alternate license permit distribution, so it's not like it would undermine the GPLv3.

I've gone all the way up to calculus 3 (vectors, multi-dimensional functions, and doing differentials and integrals therein) and I've yet to see calculus applied by any programming. I am curious how one actually implements it though, in what (limited) programming I've done, I haven't seen any clear way to calculate say an integral using something like c++ or c#.

Is it typically library/api driven and you just feed an equation to those functions? Or do most programmers hardcode them?

I'd like to see some code examples. I'd probably never have a use for it, but I am curious.

I haven't tried it, but it appears that the GNU Scientific Library contains functions for linear algebra, numerical differentiation, differential equations etc. You can download it here, and it's also in the standard Debian repositories (and I suspect also included with most other Linux distros).

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

sine qua non

Firstly, the article was written by Richard Stallman himself (you know, the founder of the FSF, and the architect of much of GNU); I would think he would know what its goals are.

Linus's goal is to provide a free core system. The goal of the FSF is to convince the world that proprietary software is bad and should not exist. ("GNU" is a system, and therefore cannot have goals in and of itself.) Please refer to such fine articles like "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html ) or Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html )

Frankly, I'm surprised that there was some non-trivial number of Slashdot mods equally ignorant of who RMS is and the goals of the FSF.

Firstly, the article was written by Richard Stallman himself (you know, the founder of the FSF, and the architect of much of GNU); I would think he would know what its goals are.

Linus's goal is to provide a free core system. The goal of the FSF is to convince the world that proprietary software is bad and should not exist. ("GNU" is a system, and therefore cannot have goals in and of itself.) Please refer to such fine articles like "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html ) or Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html )

Frankly, I'm surprised that there was some non-trivial number of Slashdot mods equally ignorant of who RMS is and the goals of the FSF.

1000 different text editors and solitaire clones

Don't forget text editors which run solitaire!

Or is that a solitaire game which permits text editing...?

Intel has complete free software graphics drivers, they work very well, 3D and all bells and whistles.

Nvidia doesn't have free drivers at all but the driver has been reverse-engineered by the nouveau project and some cards work fairly well, with 3D.

AMD doesn't have free drivers either (the firmware is proprietary to be exact) and the support is fairly lousy. You get working 2D with some artifacts.

It's easy to test how well your hardware is supported by free software, just burn a live CD or live USB of e.g. Trisquel (a fully free distro) and give it a spin. Graphics (esp. 3D) and Wifi are the most problematic areas.

ESA Summer of Code in Space 2012 (SOCIS 2012) is a program run by the European Space Agency. It aims at offering student developers stipends to write code for various space-related open source software projects. Through SOCIS, accepted student applicants are paired with a mentor or mentors from the participating projects, thus gaining exposure to real-world software development scenarios. In turn, the participating projects are able to more easily identify and bring in new developers.

Let's see...

Are the students in space? No.

Is someone in space communicating with the students? No.

Is the coding going on in space? No.

Is this just trying to capitalize on Google Summer of Code and tack on "in space"? No....I mean, yes.

Is the code going to end up in space? Not really... -- most of the projects are viewers for data here on earth. I clicked on a bunch of them and I don't think any of them are trying to actually do dev work that will end up "In Space."

How about calling it "ESA Summer of Coding for Space Projects" or "ESA Summer of Code Destined for Space" (actually "Code for analyzing heavenly data" would be more accurate) or even go over the top and sound actually funny with "ESA Summer of Code: To Infinity and Beyond" ?

*shakes head*

And doesn't writing javascript in, say, Arabic, just make it inaccessible to 99% of the people who like look at your code?

Yeah - it'll be interesting to find out what the LibreJS people think about it: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/

From TFA: "Unlike other multilingual programming languages, Babylscript allows people to write programs in a mix of different languages. A programmer can take a library written in French, mix it with their own program written in Spanish, and use code snippets they found on a Chinese help forum."

...if it really is that easy, going from one language to another should be trivial (and presumably built into the interpreter). Code comments are another thing, obviously.

LibreJS currently requires developers to self-identify javascript as freedom-respecting, using a few different formats (such as javascript web labels). I wouldn't be surprised if future versions identify popular libraries (jQuery, Modernizr, HTML5 Shiv, etc.). Most of the big javascript libraries are hosted by Google and are MIT/Expat licensed, so it shouldn't be too difficult to identify them and, although linking to the libraries directly on Google Code etc. is a really bad idea, a lot of sites do it.

And doesn't writing javascript in, say, Arabic, just make it inaccessible to 99% of the people who like look at your code?

Yeah - it'll be interesting to find out what the LibreJS people think about it: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/

Huh, you're unaware of this rant? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html rms doesn't work for open source. He works for free software.

Richard's story, The Right To Read, has already sort of predicted this move.

But not only were [free operating systems] illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Despite what people say about Restricted Boot, it opens up the world of computers to a whole new set of attacks... by megacorporations like Microsoft.

'Liberated software' is a term I use, which describes his philosophy better than the term he uses - 'Free software', which suggests that the software he backs must not have a price tag, despite his protestations that it may (it's one of the main reasons that ESR helped start the Open Source Initiative, and promoted the term 'Open Source'). More recently, FSF uses the term 'Libre-software', which is Spanish. Anyway, RMS has himself described the difference b/w the 2 here. So I'm not the one who's nitpicking on any differences - he is. So don't ever suggest to him whether one implies the other.

If you look @ all his essays, very few things in life meet w/ his seal of approval. But it doesn't stop him from making demands and accusations @ people & companies that do claim to support his message - see, for instance, what the FSF has to say about some of the leading Linux distros. Another advocacy of his has been that 'Software should not have owners'. This is one of the major reasons that the term 'Liberated Software' makes more sense than 'Free Software', since it denies any intellectual property rights in the same way that 'Liberation Movements' of the 20th century denied property rights.

'Liberated software' is a term I use, which describes his philosophy better than the term he uses - 'Free software', which suggests that the software he backs must not have a price tag, despite his protestations that it may (it's one of the main reasons that ESR helped start the Open Source Initiative, and promoted the term 'Open Source'). More recently, FSF uses the term 'Libre-software', which is Spanish. Anyway, RMS has himself described the difference b/w the 2 here. So I'm not the one who's nitpicking on any differences - he is. So don't ever suggest to him whether one implies the other.

If you look @ all his essays, very few things in life meet w/ his seal of approval. But it doesn't stop him from making demands and accusations @ people & companies that do claim to support his message - see, for instance, what the FSF has to say about some of the leading Linux distros. Another advocacy of his has been that 'Software should not have owners'. This is one of the major reasons that the term 'Liberated Software' makes more sense than 'Free Software', since it denies any intellectual property rights in the same way that 'Liberation Movements' of the 20th century denied property rights.

'Liberated software' is a term I use, which describes his philosophy better than the term he uses - 'Free software', which suggests that the software he backs must not have a price tag, despite his protestations that it may (it's one of the main reasons that ESR helped start the Open Source Initiative, and promoted the term 'Open Source'). More recently, FSF uses the term 'Libre-software', which is Spanish. Anyway, RMS has himself described the difference b/w the 2 here. So I'm not the one who's nitpicking on any differences - he is. So don't ever suggest to him whether one implies the other.

If you look @ all his essays, very few things in life meet w/ his seal of approval. But it doesn't stop him from making demands and accusations @ people & companies that do claim to support his message - see, for instance, what the FSF has to say about some of the leading Linux distros. Another advocacy of his has been that 'Software should not have owners'. This is one of the major reasons that the term 'Liberated Software' makes more sense than 'Free Software', since it denies any intellectual property rights in the same way that 'Liberation Movements' of the 20th century denied property rights.

Some of those things mentioned in TFA aren't software, so I'm not sure the term "open source" even applies. H.264 is not software, but there is Free software that supports it. The issue regarding H.264 is freedom, because it is encumbered by software patents.

Perhaps relevant:
http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

... However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them.
...
Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then.

On a side note, will this person be using Free BIOS and Free firmware? RMS uses a Lemote computer (MIPS) in order to achieve this. Also, his website linked to Vimeo, which requires non-free JavaScript in order to run.

(replace "Free" with "open source" if you prefer that term)

It couldn't possibly be that most content consumers are simply not interested in creating content?

Rephrased without loaded language:

It couldn't possibly be that most people who view works are simply not interested in creating works?

Nor could it possibly be that people who view works may want to try their hand at creating works without having to buy a $1,000* PC? Sure, PC don't cost that much yet, but it is conjectured that in a post-PC market, PCs will become more expensive because PCs are priced for businesses.

The copyright assignment contributors sign to the FSF might be violated if the FSF did that to GRUB2. It would also be counter to their goals of spreading software freedom. I mean, if the FSF weren't fighting against DRM why even bother updating the GPLv2?

Source: I had to sign one of those agreements a couple of years ago.

The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work", that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.

If I don't have the keys to my computer, it's not mine.
RMS's The Right to Read looks less and less paranoid all the time.

Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

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

Uh, you might want to read up what the FSF says about RedHat:

Fedora does have a clear policy about what can be included in the distribution, and it seems to be followed carefully. The policy requires that most software and all fonts be available under a free license, but makes an exception for certain kinds of nonfree firmware. Unfortunately, the decision to allow that firmware in the policy keeps Fedora from meeting the free system distribution guidelines. Red Hat's enterprise distribution primarily follows the same licensing policies as Fedora, with one exception. Thus, we don't endorse it for the same reasons. In addition to those, Red Hat has no policy against making nonfree software available for the system through supplementary distribution channels.

In short, Red Hat/Fedora aren't exactly in the good books of RMS. Neither, for that matter, is anyone else - Debian, Centos, Canonical, Gentoo, Mandriva, Slackware, Suse. Read about all the others in the above link. But that shouldn't surprise anyone - as Bob Young once said, Stallman treats his friends as his enemies. (Incidentally, did RMS finally get out of Argentina? Did he get his Lemote Yeelong back? ;-) )

How are these strongarm tactics? Sveasoft provides the software - both source and binaries - to the customer, and does not prevent them from re-distributing it. Only thing it does - if they do, they terminate their paid subscription accounts, and do not sell or give future versions of the software. There is nothing in the GPL that forces anybody to give or sell GPL software. All GPL does is require licensees to provide source code alongside binaries whenever something is being distributed. But if someone does not want to distribute, the GPL doesn't force them.

Now, you could say that by using the paid for account support contracts as the stick, Sveasoft is effectively preventing their customers from 'helping their neighbor'. Except that those customers still have 2 choices:

1. They could direct their neighbors to Sveasoft, and Sveasoft could negotiate w/ them whatever deals are mutually agreeable, and the neighbor will get GPL software, along w/ the same sort of support contracts
2. They could sacrifice their paid-for accounts by helping their neighbor, so that both they and their neighbor have only the current version of that software, but that's it.

Like I said, the only thing I'm curious about is how Sveasoft addresses the issue of multiple seats for a customer. Does the customer have to pay on a per seat basis, or do they have the right to install this on all their routers, and then have the support contract cover any and all of them?

"The GPL stipulates that the source code (with build instructions) must be available." It does?? Where exactly?

None of these words appear in the GPL: "build", "instruction", "makefile"

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

The fact that you *wish* the GPL required build instructions does not mean that it does.

When your boot menu comes up, hit e to enter the faulty boot entry. You can then modify the line one character at a time.
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/Menu-interface.html#Menu-interface

In the announcement they said GRUB 2.00 supports FreeDOS as a boot protocol. I'll have to test that out to see what they mean - it's not that hard to boot DOS. But I am thrilled that the GRUB developers recognized us with explicit support. And of course, all the extra technical details they've added in the 2.00 release. Thanks!

Also, I saw that GRUB 2.00 supports a few other "alternative" operating systems, including Ntldr/bootmgr (to load Windows bootloader) and Darwin 11 (Mac OS X Lion.)

For starters, let's stop calling it "intellectual property." Because thought is the property of no individual. Let's call it copyrights (the right to make copies), patents (limited monopolies), and trademarks (brand identifiers).

Richard Stallman, is that you?

I agree with you 100%, but just wanted to point out that RMS was spot-on with his essay on exactly this newspeak redefinition.

We're really excited because we think this is going to help students, teachers, and^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H publishers.

Fixed that for Apple.

This is a chance for McGrawHill to jack textbook prices up from $100 each to $300 each. "But it's not just a textbook anymore! It has video! And interactivity! And lets you take notes! Push the Agree button on the EULA now!!! Wtf are you doing?! Don't read it! Just push!"

Apple's walled garden + phenomenal greed of textbook publishers + DMCA/ACTA/SOPA = Holy fuck Richard Stallman called this one.

Too bad about that interactive dream though. It might have been nice.

No, not free. Usually about $15...

Free software is about freedom, not price.

No, it's a mutual incompatibility between the App Store and the GPL. Apple chose to make it this way.

The App Store (and by extension, Apple's walled garden) is decisively anti-end user freedom. The GPL is totally pro-end user freedom. But since Apple controls the store, the only way to legitimately get GPL software on there is to own all the copyrights to the code, strip the GPL (because it will be replaced with Apple's onerous terms,) and post it. Users can then go figure out how to make use of the GPL code with a platform that is outright hostile to them.

Correction - GPLv3.

There's nothing inherently incompatible with walled gardens and the GPLv2 (it's really a case of TiVoization).

Heck, if someone wanted, they probably can alter the build system to include the source inside the IPA file submitted to Apple (thought at increased size of final file). Or even fun stuff like auto-downloading the sources on launch.

Remember - the GPL apps that were removed fro mthe App Store were removed at the request of the authors, who believed in slightly different interpretations of the GPL.

Now, the GPLv3 is completely incompatible with any App Store model that imposes DRM (which is probably why Google Play apk's have no DRM on them, other than what the author has to put in via Google Licensing Services API. I believe that Amazon's APKs are, however, DRM'd). Of course, the GPLv3 is also incompatible with GPLv2 (GPLv2-only code can NOT be mixed with GPLv3(or v3+) code at all.) because of things like this (which is why the GPLv3 was created).

...they just start releasing the GPL version again. The removal of the GPL version is why there is Savannah, gForge, and a number of others. No need to go to the APL.

I think you should first limit yourself to distributions that are fully free. Teach the kids solid values. Here's the list http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Then make a Live CD and go to a brick-and-mortar and give the candidate laptops a test drive. The components that most likely will give you grief are graphics cards (3D) and wifi.

Not that I'm otherwise a huge fan of RMS, but I'm surprised I haven't seen any reference to the "Right to Read" in this discussion yet. Given the direction US copyright and education are going, it gets scarily closer every day.

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

oldest I see is http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz
circa 1992
not sure, but I think at some point the version # jumped too. the net.ancients might remember better

Sigh...he is NOT talking about putting it into ROM, that is impossible with that chip. What he is talking about is putting a software "lock" on the chip so you can NOT UPDATE and that somehow magically makes it a "circuit" which just shows how cult like the man is, how he can just manipulate language to his own ends.

Its like how his FSF sues people for violating the GPL but he says stealing copyrighted code is fine and dandy, even labels it "sharing with a neighbor"...WTF? Ya can't have your cake and eat it to ya nutter, either infringement is GOOD, or it is BAD, it is NOT possible to make it ONLY good when you do it to the other guy. If you want the link here you go, and I think the hypocrisy is pretty damned self evident. Its okay to steal the OTHER guy's stuff without their permission, but if you steal HIS stuff without permission, aka following his rules? prepared to be sued.

Look, I'm not asking for much here, as one movie reviewer put it "Just be consistent in your bullshit" but RMS has been very much NOT consistent in his bullshit, its quite clear that according to him the rules are pretty much whatever he wants the rules to be to fit with his bullshit this week, like the circuit crap. The chip is STILL firmware, it STILL has to interact with the kernel, but if you can't update it it magically becomes 'freer"...yeah and my dick is 14 foot long and plays jungle bells when you rub it. Bullshit is bullshit is bullshit, and what RMS has been slinging lately, in fact for the last 6 or so years, hasn't even been consistent bullshit JUST bullshit.

Finally as for Torvalds? remember this is the same guy that posed at a Win 7 booth in Japan on release day with a snarky smile and a double thumbs up,that's just the kind of BS he likes to pull. That's why we need snark and sarcasm tags because its hard to tell when someone who is naturally a smart ass like Torvalds is being snarky and teasing or joking and when they are being serious. OTOH its quite clear that what RMS was writing was NOT being snarky and he was actually requesting the community to help achieve these aims which as I pointed out aren't even consistent in his rhetoric, it was just his way of magically cooking up a loophole to jump through so he could get what he wanted because his dogma didn't work. Well if your dogma don't work you crazy then CHANGE THE DAMNED DOGMA instead of cooking up insane logic hoops to jump through. as I said be consistent in your bullshit, which RMS hasn't been for awhile now.

Another suggestion - how about making all the GNU packages a part of Emacs? So that one can run, for example M-x-gnucash?

Is it any sillier than the realization that web browsers have become at least as much of an operating system as Emacs is? But then Emacs has become a web browser too...

And I bet Alexey Pajitnov is still not happy about M-x tetris, seeing as he thinks free software destroys the market.