AtheOS Wizard Kurt Skauen Tells All

Not long ago you asked Kurt Skauen about his AtheOS, a GPL'd OS with an integrated GUI and notable commonalities and differences from certain other GPL'd OSes. Kurt responded at length on everything from choice of programming languages to whether you'll see a version of AtheOS soon for the PPC. He also talks about dealing with interoperability (with Windows and with *NIX), why he chose the GPL, and what might drive him to change the AtheOS licensing.

Application framework & Development
by absurd_spork

Two questions, actually:

I think that not having X on board is a good idea, actually, because if you had X on AtheOS, everybody would start porting over X applications and then you'd have a lot of applications with an entirely different look & feel, which would spoil the integration that AtheOS currently offers. However, for the future, there's going to be need for a well-documented application framework in order to facilitate application development (for options such as component development and so on); since you already ported part of Qt to the native AtheOS system, what would you think about porting as much of KDE over to AtheOS as possible without including X, so that not too much of the native system's advantages would be lost, yet you could use the portability of KDE to ensure a broad supply of end-user applications?

I realize that you do very much of the actual development yourself, at the moment. What would you think of partially delegating development, such as putting up a list of "what is needed" to-dos, discussing the actual implementation with some developers, but letting them do more of the actual work? Because you've come really far with the OS, but I presume it's at a critical point at the moment where it needs to gain momentum. You could assume some sort of "benevolent dictatorship," we have at least one case in operating system development history where it worked out fine :-)

Kurt Skauen: Well the "Qt port" used by KHTML for AtheOS only supports exactly those features used by KHTML and nothing more, so I would not really call it a Qt port. It was just that I had to either rewrite the HTML/FORM code in KHTM to use the AtheOS widgets directly or wrap the AtheOS widgets with some "thin" classes that exported a Qt-like interface and used the native AtheOS widget internally. Each widget (like button, checkbox, listview, etc, etc) is implemented individually and the rest of the GUI infrastructure is not ported from Qt but is handled by the AtheOS toolkit itself. I had two main goals when making the port. First to make the browser behave like a true native AtheOS application, and secondly to make as few changes to KHTML as possible and still reach goal one to make it easier to update it when the KHTML team continue to do magic. This solution fulfills both goals pretty nicely.

Making a full Qt port would still be a lot of work. Besides, porting KDE over to AtheOS is not an option. That would just lead to another UNIX with a GUI on top. Not something that I'm very interested in. The AtheOS kernel, filesystem, and GUI have many features that are not found in UNIX and that will play very important roles in the desktop environment. Porting a desktop environment from UNIX would not make AtheOS a new desktop OS. If I wanted to run KDE I would probably have been better off installing FreeBSD/KDE than to write my own kernel/GUI, then wrap the GUI in a foreign toolkit stripping away any special features from the native GUI, and then port KDE to this.

Take a look at the "What are file attributes?" FAQ at www.atheos.cx for one of the reasons why porting KDE or any other UNIX desktops to AtheOS is not something I consider an option.

I don't see why AtheOS is at any critical point or why it needs to gain momentum now. Since the very beginning I have been working on AtheOS on my own, not telling anybody and still the project didn't die. The only change so far was when the TCP/IP stack was finished enough to make it possible to run a web-server on AtheOS. Just for the fun of it I put up a web-site running on AtheOS and suddenly /. found it and a lot of people got a peek at AtheOS.

To me AtheOS is just a hobby that I have been spending a lot of time on. I don't work on AtheOS to "take over the world," or to make Linux obsolete, but simply because I find it interesting to write an OS. Spending 90% of my spare time arguing about technical issues on some kind of discussion forum is just not my piece of cake. I find it much more interesting to implement something than to discuss how it could have been implemented. And I don't know what you mean when you say that this has worked out fine before. So far I have not seen any open-source OS that I personally would consider a successful desktop OS. Take a look at the other non "mainstream" alternate OSes that are developed by a committee or group of developers and compare their progress to AtheOS. Then you can decide whether talking about implementing or implementing is the most efficient way to develop something :)

I am of course greatly welcoming application and device driver developers who target AtheOS though. I clearly don't have the time/resources to concentrate on either device drivers nor applications of any reasonable size at the same time as trying to develop the OS. After all the by far most common kernel-hacking on Linux is on device drivers and not the actual kernel anyway.

How does AtheOS handle Binary Compatibility?
by MeowMeow Jones

(As I'm sure you know) one of the problems with C++ is that modifying a class changes the binary structure of an object. This then breaks any programs that were dynamically linked against this. This problem has been addressed in several ways (CORBA, COM, statically linking in the code, or keeping 800 copies of MFC40.dll on your machine, etc, etc)

This seems (to me, at least) the biggest problem with writing an OS in C++. How does AtheOS deal with this problem?

KS: The fragile-base-class problem will of course always be a PITA when putting C++ code into DLLs but there are ways around it.

There are two problems with the static nature of C++ objects. One is that adding a new data member to a class moves all subsequent members in both the modified class and all classes inheriting from it. Since C++ resolves member offsets at compile time and not run time, this breaks all code that believes it knows where to find a member. The other problem is adding virtual members. Adding a virtual member expands the vtable and moves successive table entries down. Also the vtable offsets are resolved at compile time so this will again break all code that believe it knows where in the vtable to find one of the virtual functions.

The first problem is easy to solve. You just move all data members into a separate private class/structure and only keep a pointer to an instance of this in the API-visible class. Now it is possible to add as many new data members to this private class as needed without changing the layout of the class. This technique makes it impossible to have public data members but that has never been considered good design anyway.

The other problem is a bit more tricky. I know of no absolute solution to this but there is a workaround that give some extra head-room. By adding a few extra (unused) virtual members to each class it is possible to reserve some spare entries in the vtable for leaner times. If it later become necessary to add a new virtual member you just replace one of the unused members with a "real" member. Old applications will still have a reference to the old virtual member so when replacing the dummy I must also add an assembly function labeled with the mangled C++ name of the dummy member that simply returns immediately to avoid undefined references in old applications.

This is of course not a full solution since it is impossible to guess beforehand how many virtual members a class will eventually going to need and sooner or later all the extra-slots are gone and you are left high and dry.

When this happen the only solution (short of declaring the project as finished) is to give the library a new version number. The version number is encoded into the name of the DLL so all old applications will continue to use the old library while new applications will use the new version.

So far I have achieved most of the backward compatibility by making the protocol between the GUI server and the GUI toolkit library backward compatible and then renamed the toolkit library whenever I have had to break backward compatibility in the library. In V0.3.5 however I started to reserve extra virtual members like described above and V0.3.7 will be the first version that achieves backward compatibility by stealing a reserved virtual. The View class in 0.3.7 has an extra virtual callback for mouse-wheel support and this was added without breaking the library.

There are compatibility issues with renaming the DLLs as well, like old applications won't take advantage of bugfixes unless the fixes are backported to the old libs, applications with plugins often can't load plugins linked against a different version of the system libs, and breaking the protocol between the GUI server and the GUI toolkit library will either require a protocol update for the old libraries or the old libraries and the apps that depend on them will become obsolete. Still the techniques described here should be able to give a reasonable degree of backward compatibility and a good overlap allowing people to recompile/redistribute old applications.

It might be worth mentioning that even the latest version of AtheOS is mostly backward compatible with the first released version. I recently unpacked the V0.1.1 archive and tried to run some of the GUI apps and most of them still worked. The most interesting detail here is that between 0.1.4 and 0.2.0 I rewrote the GUI to use floating point instead of integers to describe coordinates. To keep it backward compatible the toolkit library that V0.1.1 - V0.1.4 binaries are linked to are converting all coordinates to floating point before sending them to the GUI server and back to integers when receiving them again. So AtheOS has been backward compatible even across quite dramatic architectural changes.

Embedded devices?
by proxima

Have you ever considered promoting AtheOS as an OS for GUI-based embedded devices? The competition in that arena now is Windows CE, Palm OS, and Linux - but an OO based GUI built into the OS may be beneficial in terms of performance.

With Linux, a device developer has to get the core Linux kernel working and then build a GUI on top of it (XFree86 or a smaller X server). Palm OS doesn't have multitasking and isn't very scalable to powerful devices. Windows CE requires a royalty. AtheOS could provide a powerful operating system for embedded devices for free.

KS: I have no such plans. So far I have no problems filling my todo list with tasks for the desktop version :)

Design an OS with C++
by JWhitlock

According to Bjarne Stroustrup, the core application domain for C++ is systems programming. Having created an OS in C++, what would you say are C++ strengths and weaknesses for your needs? Has the OS evolved along with the evolving standard (the STL, templates, the new type casts, etc.), or have you stuck with the C++ that was around when you started? What features do you depend on, and which do you avoid like the plague? And, of course, if you did it today, would you use another language or make different language choices?

KS: First I might mention that not everything in AtheOS is written in C++. When I first started working on AtheOS C++ was just a post increment to me. Both the kernel and the GUI was written in C. A GUI is pretty much object oriented by definition and almost all GUI toolkits are object oriented in some way. And so was the first AtheOS GUI. It had an object model with objects, inheritance, and virtual members. Writing object oriented code in a function oriented language is of course like shooting yourself in the foot but I didn't know any other way. When I later learned C++ I realized this and rewrote the GUI in C++ and was finally able to 'concentrate on the functionality rather than on how to twist an object oriented design into a function oriented language. The kernel however is much more function oriented so I have not seen any reason to rewrite it in C++. I have often considered to compile it with a C++ compiler to be able to take advantage of some of the "advanced C" features in C++ but so far I have not taken that step. C++ is a bit too implicit to make it comfortable to use in the kernel.

I like C++ for several reasons. It is well supported, integrates easily with C and has a nice balance between highlevelness and efficiency. I sometimes miss the more dynamic structure of higher-level languages but I'm not sure if I would be willing to pay the performance price required to get those into C++.

As for following the evolution of C++ I think AtheOS is doing pretty well. There is nothing in the architecture that prevents me from using any of the C++ features. AtheOS make heavy use of STL. It also uses most other features, like exception handling, RTTI, multiple inheritance (and thus also the new type-casts), operator overloading, templates, etc etc. In short I use all the C++ features I need to get the job done. I would not have chosen another language today. The first choice (C) was a very bad one (for the highlevel stuff) but I'm quite pleased with the current one.

Are you happy?
by An Anonymous Coward

... about not having some bearded weirdo running after you, crying: 'It's GNU/AtheOS, it's GNU/AtheOS!'?

KS: Well, I'm not sure if that is what makes me happy but I believe having some bearded weirdo running after me crying 'It's GNU/AtheOS, it's GNU/AtheOS!' would make me sad :)

CD-Rom support
by timothy

Kurt:

I much prefer to install software (at least anything over several megs) with a CD than over the net, and there are a lot of old documents that I have converted to CD for storage. I wouldn't want to buy a machine without a CD-ROM drive :)

Is bootable (or other) CD-ROM support planned? Perhaps many people would be able to sample AtheOS easier if they could (for instance) order a CD from Cheapbytes and install it locally, pass to a friend etc. Considering the progress on the other aspects of the system, how important do you think this is, or are there technical difficulties (other than time) in getting CD-ROM support to work?

KS: There are some technical issues with a bootable AtheOS CD but nothing that would be a real show stopper. The issue I had in mind is the fact that the AtheOS filesystem have much better support for user defined metadata than traditional filesystems and while the current version of AtheOS don't make any use of this it will be very crucial in a not-too-distant future. This should not be a real problem though. It only means that the boot-CD must contain a native-AtheOS file system rather than a ISO filesystem.

The real problem is lack of drivers that can support a CD-ROM. Personally I don't miss the CD-ROM very much so the driver is not very high on my personal priority list.

I know several developers have been poking around on a IDE driver that Jesper Hansen originally wrote to add support for ATAPI. So far I have not seen any results but I assume that sooner or later someone will come up with at least an IDE driver that can handle a CD-ROM.

AFAIK there is nothing in the kernel that would prevent adding support for any kind of CD-ROM with a regular loadable device driver.

Limiting the scope of AtheOS
by brennan73

It seems to me that it'll be extremely difficult for AtheOS (or any new OS, really) to do everything well; even Linux, which is pretty widely used, isn't a be-all, end-all solution yet (and maybe never will be, or never should be). So have you considered limiting the scope of AtheOS (possibly severely), and aiming at doing a relatively few things exceptionally well? Here I'm thinking of BeOS, which was usually promoted as a "multimedia OS." It seems to me that this might be a way for alternative OSes now and in the future to stake out some territory: do a few things very very effectively rather than trying to be all things to all people.

Of course, if you're doing this as a fun/interesting thing, you may not care as much about a niche or widespread acceptance. But, still.

KS: What few things can be done so exceptionally well that you don't need anything else to make a useful desktop OS? First I might mention that the main motivation behind AtheOS is my interest in OS programming. I have no "strategic plan" on how to lure people to AtheOS. To me the most important thing when it comes to AtheOS is that I work with things that interest me. I'm very interested in making a user-friendly, consistent desktop OS that is easy to configure and where the command-line is only something you use if you are familiar with UNIX and like to do certain things there. Not something you must deal with in your everyday use of the OS to maintain cryptic text-file based configurations. To achieve this I believe it is necesarry to have a quite broad feature set.

PPC?
by mcc

Some minor questions:

Do you consider it likely that at some point in the near future AtheOS will develop a PPC port?

I realize that the AtheOS developers are very busy with the hard work they are doing and that there is no good reason for them to expend effort on a PPC port. However i was wondering if you think that there is enough interest among extant developers familiar with the ppc/chrp/macintosh platform that someone might feel like cobbling together a port.

That being said, I was checking and trying to figure out: does AtheOS have some kind of flexible arbitrary-server auto-upgrade "package"-style system along the lines of the debian apt-get? if not, are there plans to implement one, or perhaps port apt-get and dselect to AtheOS?

KS: I have no interest in such a port at this stage. There is still a lot to do even without trying to support multiple platforms so I don't feel like using any energy on getting AtheOS to run on non-x86 machines anytime soon. Almost everything in AtheOS is written in portable C/C++ and there is nothing in the design that binds AtheOS to the x86, so there is a fair chance that you will see AtheOS on other platforms some time in the future but don't hold your breath. The babes won't like your new face color. This is covered a bit in the FAQ BTW.

AtheOS doesn't have a package manager. Some kind of application installer would be nice but I'm not sure if a regular package manager from Linux would be appropriate. In UNIX all the files from all the packages are blended together in one totally unmaintainable (by humans) soup of files. AtheOS is a desktop OS not UNIX so there is no reason why things should be handled this way under AtheOS. I have built all the CLI packages so each goes into a separate directories to make them a bit more manageable. Native applications will mostly be handled by the desktop manager and there is/will be features in AtheOS that can aid applications in locating their own directory (based on location of the executable) so it will not matter where on the HD an application is installed as long as the desktop manager knows where the executable is.

AtheOS and GPL?
by Midnight Ryder

Greetings ... Another poster mentioned the idea that you were considering moving AtheOS to a different license. Is that the case?

Secondly, if you are considering putting it under a different license, why? And, why did you select GPL licensing for AtheOS as opposed to a number of different licensing choices out there? (Regardless of if you are or aren't moving AtheOS from a GPL license.)

KS: I will probably change the license of the kernel and possibly the application server to LGPL to make sure the AtheOS license don't "leak" into third-party device drivers. I don't want the OS to dictate what license people might choose for their software.

The reason I chose GPL in the first place is more of a coincidence than anything else. I'm no lawyer and the GPL seemed like a decent choice. I must admit that I have grown very tired of all the fanatic GPL advocates screaming loud whenever they see something non-GPL though and if I ever go away from GPL altogether (to for example the BSD license) it would most likely be in protest against the attitude of the GPL advocates.

Now what?
by baptiste

My question: Sure you did this for fun and it is a beautiful OS. But as it gains attention and user interest, do you have a target audience in mind? Who do you think should use AtheOS -- who will derive the most benefit?

KS: The next step is to tie most of the kernel/GUI functionality into a desktop environment that takes better advantage of things like file attributes, mime-types, node-monitoring, the AtheOS messaging system, drag-and-drop, etc etc. Right now AtheOS looks more like a regular UNIX than anything else since few of the AtheOS specific features are really used. This will be a important step to define AtheOS as a desktop OS and not just a UNIX with a GUI.

Still for the forseeable future I guess the target audience will be application and device-driver developers. It doesn't make much sense for anybody else to install the OS before a decent application and HW support base are in place.

Windows apps?
by JohnTheFisherman

I know a lot of people hate Windows here, but it certainly has the lion's share of apps. Can/will/do you plan to add a windows emulation layer, or some fairly painless way of running Windows apps? Same for X/GTK/etc.

KS: I have no plans for a "windows compatibility layer" of any kind. The sheer amount of work this would require is enough to put it down. Beside I work on AtheOS for the fun and trying to emulate something as gross as Win32 and then trying to keep up with newer versions is not really something I consider fun.

As for X11, things are a bit different. It would be nice to have a X11 server for AtheOS that integrated X11 apps as nicely into the native desktop as possible to be able to run remote X11 applications from UNIX machines. This works quite nicely with several X11 server under Windows and I don't see why it shouldn't work for AtheOS. I stress that I consider this a good idea because it would make it possible to run remote UNIX apps on the AtheOS desktop. Not because I want to port GTK or any other toolkits to AtheOS. Having multiple toolkits will just cause the same compatibility and interoperability problems you find on Linux.

Another take on Windows apps
by n3m6

Why not include a DirectX emulation? It would be easier on his OS since its not tied to X and input devices are not a separately controlled ... if he could do that could this be the next gaming platform? Now that would be serious competition ...

KS: There isn't much point in DirectX emulation without the rest of the Windows API's since none of the games would run anyway.

I believe it would be much better to go for an open standard like OpenGL than to try to reverse-engineer a closed standard like DirectX in order to emulate it.

Comments

I'd like to write an OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I do it?

Re:I'd like to write an OS.

[Chairboy]

First, you must steal some eggs....

Re:I'd like to write an OS.

[bloggins02]

Well ok this is a blatant plug, but I'm writing (or trying to write) an OS myself and I've kept a log of my frustrations as well as some starter lists and such. The URL is http://bloggins02.dyndns.org

AtheOS is not at a critical point

[tmark]

I don't see why AtheOS is at any critical point or why it needs to gain momentum now. The only change so far was when the TCP/IP stack was finished enough to make it possible to run a web-server on AtheOS.

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Anonymous Coward]

make it possible to run a web-server on AtheOS.

Why the fuck do people always measure the value of an operating system by its capability to run "web servers".

I couldn't care less about web servers and none of my friends who're in the IT industry need them.

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Chundra]

I couldn't care less about web servers and none of my friends who're in the IT industry need them.

You must be using the new nntp interface to slashdot. Isn't it nice?

Down with the webserver regime!

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually what bothers me is that the true performance of a new computer system is always measured in a) FPS in Quake or b) number of hits the webserver on it can serve.

The real hardware is, however, in computational sciences (fluid dynamics, ab initio calculations and so on). Quake and web-serving is chicken shit compared to what's required from these applications.

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a fucking moron? Lets do a survey.

Do you, the reader, A) Play quake, or B) Do "fluid dynamics [calculations], ab initio calculations" more.

Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the moron.

Think about this: has A) playing quake or B) fluid dynamics done more for the good of the world AND hardware development.

So YOU sit the fuck down and shut up!

Re:AtheOS is not at a critical point

[Anonymous Coward]

But computer users are generally more likely to be using the computer to play Quake than to do stuff "for the good of the world and hardware development". So Quake might not be the best test but for most users it's better than fluid dynamics, let alone "how much good does this do the world and hardware development".

Yes

[teknopurge]

The right tool for the right job.. definately should be applied to operating systems. sounds like this one is good for end users. maybe take on windows? making an os for presenting information to users is a good idea.

TechieNews Network help us beta!!!!

wow

[kilgore_47]

Take a look at the other non "mainstream" alternate OSes that are developed by a committee or group of developers and compare their progress to AtheOS. Then you can decide whether talking about implementing or implementing is the most efficient way to develop something :)
(from the article above)

Wow. This guy has some strong feelings! But hey, it's his project and he certainly has done a lot considering its a one-man deal. I guess different development styles work better for different people...

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point was that the other development style doesn't work. :)

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the AC above is Kurt (see article...)

The use of :) is an obvious tipoff.

Another Interview about AtheOS

[Eugenia Loli]

Just 10 days ago, OSNews also hosted a very interesting interview with AtheOS' Kurt Skauen. Kurt talked about binary compatibility, gcc 3 and a lot of other things.

File attributes

[All Dead Homiez]

Take a look at the "What are file attributes?" FAQ at www.atheos.cx for one of the reasons why porting KDE or any other UNIX desktops to AtheOS is not something I consider an option.

Actually, Linus has all but endorsed including "streams" or "resource forks" in Linux in this posting. These would make the implementation of AtheOS-like attributes trivial, and certainly KDE/Gnome would provide support for them. So, despite Kurt's other arguments against KDE, there will be few technical reasons that keep it from being ported. (Someday.)

-all dead homiez

Re:File attributes

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that KDE and GNOME are geared towards UNIX in general, not only Linux. Having these implemented in Linux does not mean that KDE and GNOME will adopt them right away.

floating point coords?

[kilgore_47]

The most interesting detail here is that between 0.1.4 and 0.2.0 I rewrote the GUI to use floating point instead of integers to describe coordinates

He doesn't elaborate on why. Any ideas on why a desktop OS needs floating point coordinates in it's GUI?

Re:floating point coords?

[Brecker]

Think vector graphics vs. bitmaps?

Re:floating point coords?

[JWhitlock]

The most interesting detail here is that between 0.1.4 and 0.2.0 I rewrote the GUI to use floating point instead of integers to describe coordinates

He doesn't elaborate on why. Any ideas on why a desktop OS needs floating point coordinates in it's GUI? I can only guess, since I'm not a GUI programmer, but...

It's possible that he uses some sort of abstract interface to the screen, rather than a direct, pixel based solution. For instance, you could specify screen size in inches (based on resultion and monitor size), and specify things in inches/cm rather than pixels. Also, you could assume the width of your window is 1.0, and plant something at .5 to put it in the middle of the screen. This may make certain things easier, like drawing apps or porting to different aspect screens - but given his bias toward non-expansive design, this seems unlikely.

Another posibility is that a lot of math is done on the screen coordinates, and the constant conversions between float and integer were getting in the way...

Re:floating point coords?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently discovered the answer. Most video cards these days are 3D accelerated cards. These work with sub-pixel precision. ie. - It's possible to position a pixel at x=1.5, y=4.5, or whatever.

I suspect that allowing your desktop to do the same thing makes integrating this concept much easier.

Here's one example:
http://www.neutralzone.org/home/faqsys/docs/wwh1 .t xt

The Google will provide more for you.

Re:floating point coords?

[CrazyBrett]

Complete speculation:

Maybe he's got some plans to provide some funky "scalable" window feature, where you could draw to an arbitrary location and zoom in/out on windows.

Or maybe he plans to integrate some 3d effects in the desktop which would necessitate using FP coordinates...

Re:floating point coords?

[Anonymous Coward]

Antialiasing. (Notice how everything in the
screenshots is antialiased.)

Re:floating point coords?

[mirko]

Funny but your comment reminded me of Irix...
What do you think the "roulette" to the left of the file manager window is used for ?
Got it : Zoom in and out.

Re:floating point coords?

[Anonymous Coward]

> He doesn't elaborate on why. Any ideas on why a
> desktop OS needs floating point coordinates in
> it's GUI?

Its the only way to do proper anti-aliasing, image stretching, or just plain page layout work.

I'm curious how he handles the edge coordinates of rectangles (I have thought about this problem.) Does he mix the pixels, or does he just clamp?

Re:floating point coords?

[spitzak]

Although he may support other units, floating point coordinates are useful even if 1.0 is a pixel, and even if anti-aliasing is not supported.

If you draw a diagonal line and the endpoints are floating point, you can get quite a few different diagonal lines (different stairstepping) even if the points all round to the same integer value. This becomes important if you want to draw small shapes. For instance (using OpenGL, which supports floating point) try drawing a thin filled rectangle at various rotations, by calculating the endpoints and passing them as floats, and rounding them to the nearest integer and passing them.

Although they will look similar, the floating point rectangle will have a more uniform thickness. The integer one will often be a trapazoid shape.

The reasons to use this when antialiasing is supported should be obvious.

XRender uses 24.8 fixed-point numbers. They give many arguments why (mostly for tranlational consistency), but I feel they may be mistaken. The main reason is that modern processors are highly optimized to handle fp anyway. Fixed point has annoying problems with the need to range-check everything.

Re:floating point coords?

[pslam]

XRender uses 24.8 fixed-point numbers. They give many arguments why (mostly for tranlational consistency), but I feel they may be mistaken. The main reason is that modern processors are highly optimized to handle fp anyway. Fixed point has annoying problems with the need to range-check everything.

Even on modern processors, it's still usually more efficient to handle integers than floating point. There are still a lot of processors in use which (quite sensibly) don't have floating point in hardware because of the cost and power draw. After all, any algorithm written to use floating point can be rewritten for integer with roughly the same performance.

It is a myth that floating point fixes range-check problems. Floating point still has range and truncation problems. A single precision float has only 24 bits of mantissa, which often means you can get worse precision by converting an integer algorithm to floating point if you're not careful about the magnitude of the numbers you're working with.

Basically, floating point is not the magic solution to range problems and the only excuses for its usage are either a) code which isn't time critical, b) code you can't be bothered to write properly, or c) functions which return or take values with huge ranges (greater than 2^64 magnitude between highest and lowest allowed values).

I've seen far too much code which proclaims something like "this is in floating point, so there's no problems with overflows" (a pentium-optimized FFT library springs to mind) but with absolutely no explanation as to why other than "it's floating point".

Re:floating point coords?

[spitzak]

Modern IEEE floating point implementations do "range checking" in hardware, in that any calculation that will result in a number too large to represent will result in Inf or NaN. It is true that this represents a huge loss of precision (there are only 2 values for Inf, positive and negative).

The loss of precision (they called it "translational consistency") is XRender's main reason for not using floating point. It is a legitimate argument, but in my experience this is not a problem. A 32-bit floating-point number will not go below the resolution of a 24.8 fixed number until a value of 2^16, or approximately 218 feet on a 300-dpi device. If you are worried about slightly different intermediate results you can round to .8 precision as a last step.

I don't see any efficient way to do matrix transformations with integers. You have to use 64 bit intermediate products and sums. On those processors you are talking about this is a good deal slower than floating point (on modern 64-bit processors they are about the same speed).

Seems like he has his head screwed on

[tmark]

I must admit that I have grown very tired of all the fanatic GPL advocates screaming loud whenever they see something non-GPL though and if I ever go away from GPL altogether (to for example the BSD license) it would most likely be in protest against the attitude of the GPL advocates.

This (along with his comments about not wanting the GPL to leak out to other code) makes me interested enough to want to check it out. It's nice to see that not everyone (especially, everyone featured *here*) is blinded by GPL zealotry and chauvinism to see that not everything implied by the GPL is good.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be drawn to the zealots, however. Take a break from the license holy wars on Slashdot or the BSD lists or any thread spawned Richard Stallman. Most people don't care what the license is.

Or, consider that life is good, because when it comes to software choices, we face an embarassment of riches, because we can afford to choose not based on technical excellence, utility, price, or even necessity... but based on association with other users.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't care what the license is.

Oh but they will when they realise that their natural right to free software is being infringed by corporate friendly licensing. They'll also come to care about the license when Microsoft's dogs-of-war, BSA, knock on their door.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Ed Avis]

Who are these 'GPL zealots' who claim that anything non-GPL is bad? I have never seen one. If they do exist, you should be able to point out lots of messages on discussion forurms like, oh, I don't know, Slashdot. But I haven't seen one - just strawman arguments about how these mythical 'GPL zealots' are threatening Linux, undermining the community, and so on.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[weston]

not everything implied by the GPL is good.

A better way of putting that -- without being quite so down on the GPL -- is to say that the requirements/restrictions of the GPL are not good for everything. They're not the best in every situation. Even RMS has tacitly admitted this in his endorsement of the ogg vorbis audio libraries being released under BSD/LGPL style licenses.

The solution to the troublesome idea that ALL software should be GPL (and anything else is morally wrong) is NOT to bash the GPL and FSF. The GPL is good for some things. The solution
is to promote the balanced and reasonable idea
that BSD licenses are good for some things, and other licenses and conditions may be good for other things, and that while we should encourage people to write Free Software, we shouldn't force them.

There's a quote attributed to Linus: "He who writes the code chooses the license, and anyone else is a whiner." I can live with that (at least, as long as no one takes away freedom to code).

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have never seen one. "

hehe, okaaaay. :)

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

*rolls eyes* sure , whatever buddy. you're in the fantasy land too.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

that while we should encourage people to write Free Software, we shouldn't force them.

Well at least in the U.S., you can't force a copyright holder to GPL his work.

Sure you can rant and rave and scream for software to use a "GNU/" prefix, but no one has to listen to you. :)

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Sentry21]

The problem I always have is not so much psychotic GPL advocates, but people who advocate the GPL without reason - that is, they chant 'GPL! GPL! GPL!', but when I debate using the GPL vs. using BSD-style, their arguments are, at best, mediocre.

A lot of the end-users (and even some programmers) that use/are involved with open source nowadays seem to think the GPL is great because everyone else thinks the GPL is great, even though they are not aware of any reasons, and thus cannot defend this position.

The real hardcore GPL advocates are charicterized and led by Richard Stallman, the man who created the GPL and the leader of the (misdirected and nearly useless, IMHO) GNU project. He has said lately, personally or through the GNU project, I forget which, that shared libraries should use the GPL now, instead of the LGPL, because companies that write non-open-source binaries should not be allowed to link against open-source libraries.

This seems to me like a good example. I don't see any practical gain in doing this, except for severely slowing down outside development with Linux (or inside, in the case of Loki, for example). The only thing this would really accomplish that Stallman would want is the elimination of closed-source programs for Linux.

Stallman is a good example of a zealot, in my opinion, and you've to look not too far from him to find others like him. The difference is, he has a cause. Many of those following him spew zealotry without even understanding why.

--Dan

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[mkozlows]

Three letters: RMS.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Anonymous Coward]

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

This always conjures for me an image of Stallman as a Svengali, or Dracula-with-the-hypnotic-eyes, controlling a drooling army of weak-minded shlubs by the power of his personality... Okay, maybe there are a few of those on Slashdot, but I'll give software *developers* the benefit of the doubt. On the whole, they seem a pretty independent bunch, who are completely capable of choosing the GPL over BSD license for purely practical reasons, and who don't give Stallman a second thought.

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

That's almost certainly a misquote. It's definitely out of context. However, just because Stallman says so doesn't magically change things. GNU doesn't encopass all free software. It doesn't even encompass all GPL'd software. So Stallman will make his case and do his best to win people over to his point of view, but in the end every developer is responsible for his or her own actions.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[AxelBoldt]

Well at least in the U.S., you can't force a copyright holder to GPL his work.

If his work was derived from a GPLed source, copyright law together with the GPL force the copyright holder to GPL his work.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[redhog]

Then it is partly not his code. He can't use his code independently, and he can not release the GPLed code he used under another license - that would be theft.

No one is forced to use my code. Byu it for the price of giving me (and anyone else) the right to use your modifications, or code your own.

GPL is not a virus infecting others code. Closed Source licenses are viruses infecting other companies sources, so that they can not show them to the public even if they wanted to.

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[wfrp01]

That's almost certainly a misquote.

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

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

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Libertarian001]

(knowing that you're not talking monetary)

Did you just say that free software is a natural right? You're kidding, right?

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Arandir]

The quote "BSD is a license to steal" is so common here that it's become a noxious cliche. But my favorite GPL Zealot was a prominant member of GNU (but not RMS) who wrote me complaining about my choice of the BSD license for one of my applications, warning me that I was opening myself up to "exploitation".

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Ed Avis]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Seems like he has his head screwed on

[Sentry21]

Is this a troll?

Not an intentional one, no, just a statement of opinion. I have better ways of starting debates.

Have you not heard of bash, gcc, glibc, fileutils, ...?

Bash: not everyone uses it
gcc: got worse between version 2.94.x and 3.x, however I very much liked 2.94.x
glibc: is this the same C library that seems to be getting more and more bloated? I might be thinking of something else.
fileutils: doesn't BSD have these already? I hardly think that fileutils are a GNU invention.

It just seems to me that the GNU project has done a lot of work with very little result. I will easily recognize that these people are better programmers than I, but they don't do a lot (with regard to the GNU project) that I think is really worthwhile.

--Dan

Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[Anonymous Coward]

He is right about the GPL advocates in my opinion. Lately [past few years or less] it has been evolving into a huge problem. Many times I've been wanting to move away from GPL, partly because of the ideas it stands for [it feels like a virus to me, don't get me wrong, I'm all for open source, but GPL after some thinking just seems plain viral], and the people that defend those ideas [GNU/whatever, GPL=good - (Universe/GPL)=bad] towards BSD or something.

This may seem a bad reason. But GPL is all for believing in the ideas of programming and software-using entities it stands for. BSD is that as well, and although it's very radical, it still is a good license for either people who strongly believe in what it stands for, or people who believe in OSS and disagree with the hard viewpoints of the (L)GPL and wish to make a stand.

It's all about standing up for what you believe in and/or standing up against what you disagree with. It's pure democracy.

Re:Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[Hard_Code]

Man...such a large amount of words to say nothing...

Re:Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[codeforprofit2]

One big problem as I see it is that only some IP rights are taken away, namely those that you as a individual and author has. Big companies with capitalists investing in them (IBM, redhat, others) still have theirs (trademarks).

Just take a look at great bridge vs. Redhat, that must be one of the most unethical things I have ever seen in any bussiness. How can a company just rip another company off like that, thats just insane.

What effect does this really have? People will associate Linux and all the software for it with those companies, those strong capital companies are really the ones that have a chance selling this software with associated service and hardware (the service&support market is not by far as big as the major part of the /. crowd thinks). It just makes the individual free labour. Is that really a nice world to live in?

I think many are so blinded by their MS hate that they refuse to see anything else that is happening.

Free as in speech has become the same as free as in beer.

Personally I think the best solution would be a licens that is basically a open source licens but makes it possible for the authors to charge for the softwares USE. In other words, you get the source, you may modify it however you want to but you have to pay for it if you use it.

Re:Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[frknfrk]

i hate to get suckered into a BSD v. GPL 'discussion'... but i wanted to add my 2 cents worth this time.

you said you've been wanting to move away from the GPL towards BSD (or something), and i wanted to tell you that i came the other way recently. i've been a BSD zealot/advocate for a long time, as it was easy to see the advantages to using BSD and Apache licenses: my code was 'protected' (as well as modifications) such that i did not have to release my source, etc.

but then i really took a look at the GPL, and freedom. here i was, taking the work of people, bundling them up with some of my work, and releasing them. this was great for me, but somehow it never felt right to not offer the same rights to the people downstream of me that i received.

and i think that is what the GPL is about, a real spirit of sharing and cooperation. you have to feel that way, and no amount of RMS screaming is going to change people's minds. so as for me, the GPL license just fits with my personality, of sharing with others the same benefits that i received, with the added stipulation that they not deny the same rights to those downstream from them.

but at least i can recognise that not EVERYbody wants to share their code in that way. it is like any other idea, you are never going to get everyone to agree to one side or the other, so why try so hard when you could be doing something productive instead?

Re:Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious... can you point to a case where GPL-licensed software has harmed someone by infecting them? Seriously.

You say "it feels like a virus", but you don't say it with the conviction of, oh, Brett Glass. It sounds more like: "GPL has cooties. GPL advocates have cooties. I'm not going to use anything GPL, just to spite those cooties-carriers." Meanwhile, the vast majority of users (and certainly the developers) don't give a fig.

If the fanboys get you upset, take a break from Slashdot for a while. It won't kill you.

Re:Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate)

[Anonymous Coward]

"but then i really took a look at the GPL, and freedom. here i was, taking the work of people, bundling them up with some of my work, and releasing them. this was great for me, but somehow it never felt right to not offer the same rights to the people downstream of me that i received. "

I really don't think he meant that one license is better than the other for what the license itself says.

I think he meant that there are a bunch of socialist lunatics associated with the GPL. And thats quite true.

I must say that it's really nice...

[codeforprofit2]

...that not only fanatics are allowed to post/answer to articles/interviews here on slashdot. To bad that anyone else saying anything similar is modded down as a troll in a few seconds.

"I must admit that I have grown very tired of all the fanatic GPL advocates screaming loud whenever they see something non-GPL though and if I ever go away from GPL altogether (to for example the BSD license) it would most likely be in protest against the attitude of the GPL advocates."

Gosh, A sane person on slashdot, is that really possible?

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[dso]

I agree. Lately, we've been seeing the short comings of the GPL (hard to make money) and I thinks it's time to find a happy medium (for profit and open source). AtheOS seems likes it might be what a lot of people are looking for.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[ichimunki]

If you look at the list of GNU and GPL applications included in AtheOS, I think it's more than a little disingenuous to go around whining about GPL zealotry. If he does "go away from GPL altogether" he's got a lot of stuff to write that right now he's only had to patch.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he does "go away from GPL altogether" he's got a lot of stuff to write that right now he's only had to patch.

Which shows how GPL hurts code-sharing.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[codeforprofit2]

Didn't he meen the OS licens. The applications is a different matter(except for GNU yelling GNU/whatever all the time), what licenses they choose is their bussiness.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. How?

He's apparently a *beneficiary* of the GPL, no?

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

"He's apparently a *beneficiary* of the GPL, no?"

He is, but only so long as he remains in lock-step with the concept behind the GPL. The instant he wishes to do his own thing he loses any benefit the GPL might have had and must either re-implement something from scratch, or at least modify something that has a licens that allows him to make changes (BSD-ish, I suppose). The lock-in is not unique to the GPL, but too many are willing to deny it exists or claim it is universally a good thing if it is the GPL when there are occasions when it becomes a problem.

Each license has a place, and none is The One True License, but all licenses must be approached with eyes wide open. Choosing a license by popularity or peer-pressure is short-sighted at best.

In no particular order...

Closed Source: Developer can do whatever he pleases, but how much buy-in will he have? And with no source, what happens for fixes or if the developer just quits? Needs to be re-implemented (or reverse engineered).

Public Domain (of source): Anybody can do anything, but the original remains, at least in theory, for anyone else to also do as they please.

BSD-ish: Anybody can do anything they want, but the original work is still available for anyone else to what they want. The license is more formal than public domain. (Credit where it's due, perhaps?) Advantage: The original source is forever available, and a developer can keep his changes to himself if need be in order to be compensated for _his_ _work_. Disadvantage: The changes are not _always_ made public in source.

GPL: Modifications can be made, but unless you keep them under wraps in binary form, you can't keep them to yourself in source. Advantage: All publicly used derivatives are also public in source. Disadvantage: Same - the developer risks not being compensated for _his_ _work_.

Sure some, even many, may happily give away hours upon ours of thier work.. but that should their choice, not somebody elses - that's a loss of freedom. Licenses must be chosen with "informed consent" about their ramifications.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[jazman_777]

Gosh, A sane person on slashdot, is that really possible?

The inmates are running the place. If you are sane, you go insane. Which reminds me of Nikolai Gogol, a Russian author from the mid-19th century. His _Diary of a Madman_ is a classic (it's a short story). The narrator is insane but everything comes across quite rationally and logically, even though his content is quite ridiculous. Also, _The Overcoat_ is good dark fun.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure some, even many, may happily give away hours upon ours of thier work.. but that should their choice, not somebody elses - that's a loss of freedom. Licenses must be chosen with 'informed consent' about their ramifications."

A popular anti-GPL fantasy assumes that developers are under the influence of Dr. Evil's^W^W Richard Stallman's mind-control rays, and incapable of making conscious decisions for themselves, so they contribute unwillingly and unwittingly to Stallman's grand scheme to take over the world.

Why assume that when someone explicitly licences their code under GPL, it's not their choice? Why assume that when someone contributes code to a GPL project that they don't understand what they're doing? Why assume that when someone unknowingly contributes code to a GPL project, that it's not their own damn fault?

And I still don't understand how GPL discourages code sharing (a point made further up the thread.)
That claim just boggles my mind.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Point 1: License choice.

As said in the article, he chose the GPL as it was popular. This does not say he chose it as it was best for him. It might BE best for him, (or you, or me, or Joe Bloe) but a bit of checking around to make sure wouldn't hurt.

Point 2: Code sharing.

GPL code is ONLY shareable with other GPL code. This where GPL detractors call it viral, as the choice is to either GPL your work or write all your own. Actually, there has a been a case (somewhere on gnu.misc.discuss or maybe it was netbsd newsgroup, not sure anymore) where a fellow wanted to combine two programs to generate a third, better, program. But one program was GPL and the other was some other open source license - the consensus was that one or the other would need to be rewritten as the licenses didn't play nice with each other. Note that both were open source.

Thus due to the GPL (or the other license if you prefer) the code was not sharable.

Also, if one is choosing to keep something 'BSD clean' (like say, a BSD kernel) they must prevent anything GPL getting into the works. Thus, again, GPL code is not sharable, due to the "viral" nature of it.

The argument you cite is write so long as it's the choice made by the orginal author - anyone after that either must buy in to the GPL and release ther own further work on the program under GPL, or they must write code to replace the function of the GPL code in order to achieve what they desire.

Choosing to release under GPL is fine, but as even the author of AtheOS admits, it's not always done with fully open eyes. Luckily for him, he is the original author of the core pieces and can therefore re-release those under a license of his choosing. I do not assume that _everyone_ using the GPL does so blindly, but also do not believe that _nobody_ has used the GPL and found it to be problematic later.

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[Jeremi]

Which shows how GPL hurts code-sharing

Not at all. He only loses if he abandons the GPL. And if it weren't for the GPL, he might have never had access to that code in the first place (the authors wouldn't have distributed the source if they felt people were going to use it without contributing anything back)

Re:I must say that it's really nice...

[ichimunki]

He chose the GPL for his own work because it was popular. Woohoo. Good for him. He also chose to use a shitload of GPL software-- that he has, yes, had to modify to work with his OS. He is free to continue to write and to relicense his own software, but a great deal of the code he's got holding his system together is actually GNU code, right down to the C library.

I said what I said because I think it sounds ungrateful to rip on the GPL while so obviously benefitting from work licensed as GPL. If he wants to switch to tax-funded BSD code, great for him. He's got a lot of work to do-- especially since his editor of choice seems to be emacs. But all of the GNU software was privately developed. Those developers have offered _their_ work for free, and have a right to expect work based on their work to be similarly free.

GPL is a very appropriate license for private developments that the author wants to make available to the widest audiences. BSD style licensing is the license I would support for tax-funded development (i.e. university or gov research). In cases of tax-funded development, the tax-payers have already paid their share, and rightfully the original source belongs to all. But there is no "deal" between the government and private development at that point. But as a private developer, why would I give away work that *I* paid for without some means of holding others to a similar standard? Or more importantly, why shouldn't I attach that condition to my work, since the GPL is there for me to use for just such a purpose?

Yes, but I can see his point...

[Svartalf]

...mind you, I don't entirely agree with it, but he has a valid one just the same. He wants a consistent (or mostly so) app look and feel not unlike what people see with Windows, MacOS, AmigaOS, etc. With the perponderance of app and gui frameworks out there (Heck, the Fltk bunch are coming up with their own full-fledged app framework...) that the look and feel is completely confused. For most, this is not a problem, but to use this analogy- what would you think Joe Sixpack would do if a car's transmission was a stick-shift and you used a joystick for steering, acceleration, and braking? It'd work (and probably better than what we've already got), but it'd sure as hell confuse him, wouldn't it? Well with all the toolkits, etc. we have in the Unix world, we're presenting the same sort of conflicting interfaces to the user.

Re:Yes, but I can see his point...

[Anonymous Coward]

I already drive with one hand on a joystick.

Re:Yes, but I can see his point...

[mandolin]

(what if) you used a joystick for steering, acceleration, and braking? It'd work (and probably better than what we've already got), but it'd sure as hell confuse him, wouldn't it?

If you grew up playing racing games, you'd only be confused as to why people yell at you when you hit them, and why you're driving a POS instead of a 'vette...

You can use different metrics than pixels

[MeowMeow Jones]

It's actually a pretty good idea to use some other form of measurement. If you just use pixels, then things can get wierd when you change resolution. If your screen is 3 units high by four units wide no matter what, this doesn't matter.

GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Chosing a BSD style license over the GPL is like holding up wads of money in the middle of the street and screeming "rob me!!!!"

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

We, as a community, should boycott this project until he decides to give back to the community instead of licking the corporate ass with his license.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[codeforprofit2]

I don't like either one of them. I certainly don't like the GPL because of the people who created it and what they stand for (fanatism). Look at my respons to "Advocacy (I Am Not A BSD Advocate) " above.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD license means trusting the other people for not to rip your work off.

Trust is not an option.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what most people have against the GPL is not what the words in it says but what it stands for.

What we need is a NEW licens, I would prefer one that makes it possible to charge for your work as an author. Maybe open source with the exception that inlimited distribution is removed.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe open source with the exception that inlimited distribution is removed.

I don't see how that's open source.

It's more like Microsoft's shared source.

Open means unlimited. Unlimited means good.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[VultureMN]

That's dumb. You shouldn't dislike an idea just because of people associated with it; you should judge the idea on its own merits.
I bet Jesse Helms likes beer. Well, I dislike Helms so that must mean I should dislike beer. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[codeforprofit2]

Really, isn't there many readers on slashdot who doesn't use microsoft products because they don't like microsofts bussiness practices?

And...I don't judge it after people, I do judge the idea. I think it's immoral to set out a plan to stop authors to be able to charge for their own work. If people just GPL their own innovation, thats quite ok, thats their bussiness. But the free software foundation is doing what they are doing for the purpose of stopping people from using commercial software (and hey! Don't give me that free speech != free beer bullshit please). That IS to force your will upon others.

Different people have different views on what moral behaiviour are. Mine certainy isn't the same as the FSF one.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see how that's open source. "
Maybe it isn't, I don't care. In that case I don't like open source.

I think that the fact that companies like redhat can just hijack other peoples work (postgresql) is horryfying. The author should have a right over their own work.

The current situation gives companies with trademarks power over the individual.

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you don't care about who uses your work?

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really, isn't there many readers on slashdot who doesn't use microsoft products because they don't like microsofts bussiness practices?"

That's different. ;-) We generally get around that with the conceit that *our* software is technically better.

"I think it's immoral to set out a plan to stop authors to be able to charge for their own work."

So you choose to view the FSF as an immoral organization with a plot to rule the world, instead of a benevolent organization struggling to build excellent tools that everyone can use to improve their lot in life. Okay. (Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.)

Doesn't matter what the FSF's goals or politics are, they can't force anyone to stop using commercial software. Free software, no matter the license, is subject to the same market forces as every other software. The market will decide.

GPL'd software may eventually outcompete commercial offerings, and make it difficult to milk the old business models, but so what? Are businesses somehow *entitled* to success with their old business models as the industry and market change?

Re:GPL vs. BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always nice to see another well thought out argument in favor of the GPL. Congratulations.

Coincidence.

[GiMP]

I was just thinking of installing AtheOS, and possibly doing some development for it. I don't know how AtheOS's graphics system is like, but I thought it would be an interesting task to allow it to use Xfree drivers ala solaris.

Also USB support and a PowerPC port would be neat as well. I would be willing to help on either, although I don't have much experience porting operating systems to PowerPC ;)

Once I get myself a license to vmware, I'll probably take a serious look at doing some development on this.

Re:Coincidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Once I get myself a license to vmware

http://astalavista.box.sk

CD-ROM Driver

[LeftHanded]

The real problem is lack of drivers that can support a CD-ROM. Personally I don't miss the CD-ROM very much so the driver is not very high on my personal priority
list.

Although he doesn't miss the CD-ROM, anyone else using an OS for anything but 'play' purposes certainly would. CDs have become the 'new floppies', mainly because there is almost nothing that will fit on a 1.44M (or even 2.88M) floppy. When you are writing the OS for your own goals, experimentation, and purposes, however, what you don't need doesn't get implemented. Good Luck to Kurt on his work.

Re:CD-ROM Driver

[Cederic]

I totally disagree.

At work, I use a CD-ROM drive maybe once a quarter.

At home, I use a CD-ROM drive for something _other_ than games maybe twice a year.

If you have access to a network, you can actually survive for immense periods of time without needing to use a CD-ROM.

So much so that I'm considering not getting one with my next PC - I can always load stuff over the network from one of the other PCs in my house that do have one, for the rare occasion I'll need it.

~Cederic

an idea

[maddogsparky]

Any ideas on why a desktop OS needs floating point coordinates in it's GUI?

So that you don't have to worry about the resolution of the display. Floating point would enably you to say "print object a 10% from the top and 2 * width_of_object from the left". Then you don't have to worry about supporting weird resolutions to get proportions to appear right.

Props

[Pope Slackman]

That would just lead to another UNIX with a GUI on top. Not something that I'm very interested in. The AtheOS kernel, filesystem, and GUI have many features that are not found in UNIX and that will play very important roles in the desktop environment. Porting a desktop environment from UNIX would not make AtheOS a new desktop OS. If I wanted to run KDE I would probably have been better off installing FreeBSD/KDE than to write my own kernel/GUI, then wrap the GUI in a foreign toolkit stripping away any special features from the native GUI, and then port KDE to this.

Finally, someone with the balls to stand up to the UNIX/X weenies.
I'm glad there are people out there working on alternative OSes geared more towards the desktop than the server, seems like too much focus lately has been placed on making UNIX something it wasn't intended to be, rather than starting from scratch.

UNIX is great, but not for everything. Props to Kurt for defending his vision.

C-X C-S

This geek just wants to have fun...

[ChaoticCoyote]

My god, someone who's writing code for the fun of it! Kurt's not trying to conquer the world or make some deep philosophical point -- he's just having fun.

Congrats man; let me buy you a beer if you're ever in the Tampa Bay area.

As for the GPL zealots -- well, I just switched to releasing my code under a libpng/zlib-style license. I'm not interested in helping RMS & Company win a revolution by berating people to death...

Importance of this OS

[weez75]

I like the fact that he's attacking this as an operating system and not just "Unix with a GUI." While the market splinters for server operating systems we still face dominance at the desktop and that's just not good. There should be someone other than MS and Apple attempting to play in this arena so we can force innovation. I just hope it doesn't end up like BeOS...

Re:Importance of this OS

[Doomdark]

Bolting a GUI on top of an existing OS may look like a losing idea, but what happened to noble goal of modularity? Separation to achieve clarity, layering functionality to allow for more parallelism on development? I'm not claiming Unix with X-Windows is necessarily a good example of this, but it really isn't as bad as some people think. The real beef is of course whether low-level windows management (X-windows) and GUI itself (widgets, toolkits) should be integrated or not.

At one point he said something along the lines of "tying OS more tightly to GUI". I think he miss-phrased it (rather, "modifying GUI to make more use of the nifty features OS provides for"); if he didn't it seems like an ass-backwards way... Windows has been widely criticized for mixing up the separation between OS, GUI and apps. There is such thing as 'too much integration'; for embedded devices it's more acceptable, but on work stations...

Re:Importance of this OS

[kilgore_47]

I just hope it doesn't end up like BeOS...

The big difference (besides budget and staff etc etc) is that this project is open-source, unlike the BeOS, so it won't just 'end' one day when a PDA company buys it's parent company's IP rights.

Fucking fuckers.

You want us to use floppies???

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you moderate this up? I would really like to know how he expects people to use the OS without CDROM support. Thats almost like not having video or keyboard support....

Re:You want us to use floppies???

[Carrot007]

I think the point is that everything you are likely to want is out there on the net.

Although I do agree a physical transference medium is a reasonable requirement of any USEABLE os, and then preferably a common one.

floppys suck and personally nowadays i think the quality of them has gone serverely downhill. (anyone else think this way) I remember using disks all the time without errors, nowadays i usually only get to use a disk once before it starts playing up. BAN THE FLOPPY. (But not before we have an alternative, cd-r(w) is the best alternative atm)

Re:You want us to use floppies???

[DavidRavenMoon]

floppys suck and personally nowadays i think the quality of them has gone serverely downhill. (anyone else think this way)

I sure do.. and my G4 doesn't have a floppy drive, and I don't miss it either!

Good idea, but there's a problem...

[Midnight Ryder]

Free as in speech has become the same as free as in beer.

I think that's one of the areas where RMS's plans have gone wrong. Based on most of thier position information, they advocate the Free Speech part, but not nessisarily the Free Beer part. But, how many people running stuff under Linux even consider the idea of buying something they can download (YES, there are some. Just not most Linux users. Even I've bought one RedHat distro back in the 5.x days, and I'm not a heavy duty Linux user.) But, it's also an inherent 'flaw' in the GPL (depending on how you look at it, it can be a flaw or benefit.)

Personally I think the best solution would be a licens that is basically a open source licens but makes it possible for the authors to charge for the softwares USE. In other words, you get the source, you may modify it however you want to but you have to pay for it if you use it.

Not a bad thought, but, I see one serious problem - license enforcement. How do you enforce a license like that? You can't do monitoring - lord knows I wouldn't run the app if you did. If you distributed the source, then any monitoring or other systems you put in place for it can be easily removed. And redistribution would be a PITA (IE, someone modifies it and passes it to someone else) and quite a few other scenarios would really put a kink in things.

Such a license should have one other clause, IMHO - if you quit selling, supporting, or distributing a version of the software, it becomes public domain within a year. To me, that's one of the reasons I support the GPL (and similar licenses) - if someone quits developing it, and I've been using it, then I can continue to develop the software to further meet my needs, and others can benefit from my changes (and I can benefit from thiers.) I've been looking at such a clause for a license I've been working on for the games I write. (Yes, I know - Yet Another License. Well, I want something that fits both my ethical needs (giving the software I write a future even if I abandon it - customers should always have the right to pick up where I leave off!) and my financial needs (getting PAID to develop games!))

Re:Good idea, but there's a problem...

[codeforprofit2]

"I see one serious problem - license enforcement. "

Agreed, I think such a license would work best against companies. But that could very well be enough for many open source projects today. The financial support from companies using the software is way better than no financial (or some pathetic service&support BS) support at all. Remember that Netscape only charged from companies (free for personal use) and they where the fastest growing (calculated in REAL revenue) company on the planet the first couple of years.

"Such a license should have one other clause, IMHO - if you quit selling, supporting, or distributing a version of the software, it becomes public domain within a year. "

I have to agree again, would be a very good thing for the user and really not much of a drawback for the author(s).

Re:Good idea, but there's a problem...

[cpt kangarooski]

Really? I see a more serious problem - that copyright does not confer upon the copyright holder the ability to dictate the use of a work after it has been distributed to a member of the public.

If they've got the source already, you can't compel them to pay if they want to execute it. (generally - compiling might be a sufficient change to require permission, but if it were run-time interpreted, that's a different kettle of fish)

Re:Good idea, but there's a problem...

[Midnight Ryder]

Really? I see a more serious problem - that copyright does not confer upon the copyright holder the ability to dictate the use of a work after it has been distributed to a member of the public.

You are correct - copyright doesn't. A license does. Which was the discusson here - licensing possibilities. A license is a contract between the developer (or distributor, depending on how things are done) and the end user. (Think Microsoft ELU - End User License) In fact, this is what the GPL does - you, the end user are entering a contractual agreement that determines what rights you as an end user have.

If they've got the source already, you can't compel them to pay if they want to execute it. (generally - compiling might be a sufficient change to require permission, but if it were run-time interpreted, that's a different kettle of fish)

That depends - again, this comes down to licensing. For instance, entering a contract that states "Hey, if you compile this, and use it for more than 45 days, you have to send a check to (x) for $(y) amount, or quit using it and delete the compiled version..." means if you compiled it, you need to comply with that contract. Same as with the GPL - you download a GPL'ed program and modify the source, and resell or redistribute a binary of it, you have to make the source available. Would people do it? Only a percentage. There are those that pirate software now as it is, why would things be any different with a license like that? The biggest difference between people breaking the GPL and someone breaking a license like this is one is fairly visible, the other isn't. Which goes back to the original enforcement argument.

Re:Good idea, but there's a problem...

[codeforprofit2]

"Would people do it? Only a percentage."

If you talk about private individuals that may be true. To make them pay at all it must be easy, like havning an integrated payment system in the software or something.

Companies would on the other hand pay, so if your software is going to be used by companies alot you could expect that they will pay.

Re:Good idea, but there's a problem...

[cpt kangarooski]

But therein is the trick: let us assume here, in the absence of any case law to look at on the subject, that compilation, or run-time interpretation can be done without infringing on the original developer's copyright.

If that's so, _why_ should I agree to the license? I can can compile it and use it for more than 45 days without paying you a penny, because I already have it, and your copyright doesn't extend over usage. It's great if people do out of the goodness of their hearts, sure, but it may be unlikely.

At least with the GPL, it confers rights that users _don't_ already have, and it's entirely optional anyway. (i.e. you can use software w/o it, you just can't disseminate it)

OS development

[Solidblu]

when an OS comes from the fire and passion of someone's hobby rather from the emptiness of their wallet it sparks an instrest in the eyes of true belivers. which in this case goes to show you that its a hobby that he likes to do and that from this only more people who are like him will start developing with him because they feel the same way and other people that want to make more of a muntant *nix with it were more turned off to devoting time towards this. but only time will tell what will come of AtheOS

Re:OS development

[Anonymous Coward]

the emptiness of their wallet it sparks an instrest in the eyes of true belivers

Wrong. An empty wallet and stomach are the most powerful motivators in the world.

Nothing would be done if the incentive to gain money and/or power would be taken away. Just look at what happened to the communist countries.

Re:OS development

[Solidblu]

but that would be a job. this is a hobby hobbies dont' envole making money. for example if I read as a hobby do I make money from reading no because its a hobby not a job. note " I spend 90% of my spare time" key word spare time meaning hobby

Re:How is he a wizard?? - That's how!

[Eugenia Loli]

Dumb a$$. You have no idea the accomplishments done by Kurt in his OS. Getting the OS *so much down the line*, the kernel, vm, fully attributed 64bit journaled fs, gui all written by a single person, it is almost a life's achievement. A LOT of things are still needed to be done just because the OS development is a vast amount of work. Either wake up, or try to learn C/C++ programming a bit, and then you will see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[RocketJeff]

Doesn't feel like making CDROM support?

Someone tell me WHY he's bothering to make an OS....

If you actually read the interview, you'll see that he's writing it for fun. He's not writing a 'take over the world,' 'free people from Micro$oft' operating system.

If you want to write CD-ROM support for it, I'm sure he'd be happy to let you.

Re:How is he a wizard??

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly wabbit, he plays one in D&D. I hear he's past 22nd level too, so watch your mouth.

Irony

[DunbarTheInept]

The irony is that the attitude you exhibit itself is also an example of zealotry. If you make your choice of license based not on the features of the license itself but on the behaviour of the vocal fringe of its promoters, then you yourself are being a zealot. There can be plenty of well thought out reasons not to use GPL for a project, but "I don't like the attitude of its advocates" isn't one of them.

Re:Irony

[dinivin]

There can be plenty of well thought out reasons not to use GPL for a project, but "I don't like the attitude of its advocates" isn't one of them.

Bull... It's a perfectly legitimate reason. If your project is going to be judged by others due to the zealot advocates of the license you use, that is a perfectly well thought out reason not to use that license.

Dinivin

Re:Irony

[DunbarTheInept]

If your project is going to be judged by others due to the zealot advocates of the license you use,...

...then the people doing the judgement are in error.

Re:Irony

[dinivin]

...then the people doing the judgement are in error.

I never said they weren't...

Dinivin

Re:Irony

[jazman_777]

There can be plenty of well thought out reasons not to use GPL for a project, but "I don't like the attitude of its advocates" isn't one of them.

I don't know, "avoiding a lot of trouble with zealots" might be a bullet point in the "pro" column.

I am not a zealot, I just play one on /.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

Extrapolate that...

[TeknoHog]

'If I ever start killing people, it would most likely be in protest against the attitude of peace advocates.'

Just because some GPL fanatics say stupid things, does it mean GPL is bad? Not seeing the logic here...

Re:Extrapolate that...

[dinivin]

Just because some GPL fanatics say stupid things, does it mean GPL is bad? Not seeing the logic here...

Not only did he not say that, he didn't even imply it. He seemd to suggest (and I agree) that disassociating himself from the GPL fanatics is a perfectly valid reason to not use the GPL.

Dinivin

Re:Extrapolate that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the messenger and the message get confused.

California intern working for a democratic politician --> Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky.

Windows Me has DOS baggage. Windows NT does not.

GPL has baggage that other licenses (which may be entirely similar for Kurt's purposes) do not.

Re:Extrapolate that...

[kilgore_47]

'If I ever start killing people, it would most likely be in protest against the attitude of peace advocates.'
Just because some GPL fanatics say stupid things, does it mean GPL is bad? Not seeing the logic here...

Your comparison places killing people in the same place as using a non-GPL liscense.
Would this be one of those examples of GPL fanatics saying stupid things? Must be...

Some GPL Advocates...

[Midnight Ryder]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Some GPL Advocates...

[AxelBoldt]

GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user

You say "forget" as if it were a fact that they knew once. In fact, GPL advocates and others *deny* that you have a right to restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Re:Some GPL Advocates...

[Midnight Ryder]

You say "forget" as if it were a fact that they knew once. In fact, GPL advocates and others *deny* that you have a right to restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Hope you weren't saying that as a blanket statement for all GPL Advocates :-( I know my statement against over-zealous, under educated about the GPL advocates wasn't meant to point at ALL GPL Advocates. Some of them are well educated in the ways of the GPL. Heck, I've even had one reasonable conversation with RMS about proprietary programs in the Industrial Automation field running on GPL or LGPL'ed software. (Of course, a year later, I had a totally unreasonable discussion with him on a similar subject.) I really hope no one took what I said to mean EVERYONE who is GPL follower is an idiot. That's not the case. And when it comes to the rights of me as a developer, even RMS seems to understand the choice is mine, even if he doesn't agree with it.

Re:Some GPL Advocates...

[wfrp01]

The GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user.

I'm a GPL advocate, and I agree with you. I will always argue that the GPL is the better license. But I will also alway agree that it's your choice, as a developer, to choose your own license. There's a big difference between believing fervently in something, and believing that everyone else should agree. I'll do my best to convince you I'm right, but I'll always stop short of, say, recommending legislation that would criminalize your different point of view.

It might seem rather Orwellian, but my great fear is that these sometime unruly discussions about software licensing may, in fact, wend their way to the Senate floor. They have, in fact: witness the DMCA. To anyone who has stinking rightious bug up their ass (which, ahem, includes me), I'd just like to say: let's remember which principles matter most. Good life, health, and happiness. Let's keep these cauldrons of principled "screw-you" stew from boiling over into misguided legislation. Really. Legislation, by definition, defines what is and isn't criminal . Let's not go there.

And if we're not going there, then let's not get so uptight about disagreements about software licensing. I mean really. What are people afraid of?

Re:Some GPL Advocates...

[Midnight Ryder]

I'm a GPL advocate, and I agree with you. I will always argue that the GPL is the better license. But I will also alway agree that it's your choice, as a developer, to choose your own license.

Nice ta' meet you. You are the type of GPL advocate that I like to talk to! (In fact, you are the type of GPL Advocate that I talked to in the first place that explained the GPL to me fairly completly, pros and cons included. That got me into supporting projects like Alliance OS Project, Crystal Space 3D, PHPSlash, and a couple others that I've thrown my hat in with, either by using them or being and active member. Now could ya convince others to become 'good' advocates? :-)

It might seem rather Orwellian, but my great fear is that these sometime unruly discussions about software licensing may, in fact, wend their way to the Senate floor. They have, in fact: witness the DMCA. To anyone who has stinking rightious bug up their ass (which, ahem, includes me), I'd just like to say: let's remember which principles matter most. Good life, health, and happiness. Let's keep these cauldrons of principled "screw-you" stew from boiling over into misguided legislation. Really. Legislation, by definition, defines what is and isn't criminal . Let's not go there.

I totally agree. This should never become an issue of legislation, and the DMCA should have never happened (jees, I can't remember talking to anyone yet that actually even so much as plays Devil's Advocate for DMCA in a discussion!), and most certainly it should never get any more draconian than it is now!!!!!

And if we're not going there, then let's not get so uptight about disagreements about software licensing. I mean really. What are people afraid of?

Religion. :-) It's like anything else - when someone suggests that thier believe system may be flawed in any way, some people go on the attack. Then there are those that take thier system of beliefs and automatically apply it to others (I've been guilty of that one before - but, as I got older and started traveling alot, I saw the light. Live and let live.) But in all honesty, to some people the GPL isn't an issue of rights, but an almost full blown religious issue, no less powerful than some overzealous Christians views of other religions! (Luckly, not all 'bad' GPL advocates are that way. A very small (but vocal ;-) percentage is that way.)

Oh, and add one more group to my list of people who piss me off - people who say there aren't any over zealous GPL advocates out there! (Just kidding...)

Re:Some GPL Advocates...

[Phooey Boy]

Yes, but...

It only seems natural that developers have this right because they always have done.

Those who produce soft drinks, for example, do not have the right to demand that their customers accept conditions in order to use their product. It's not just that they don't want to, or that consumers wouldn't buy if they did - consumers wouldn't care any more about a clause banning the use of the drink in a taste test whose results will be published than users care about licenses which forbid published performance tests. But they can't - you aren't required to agree to the vender's rules to use the product.

Time was, employers had the right to offer whatever terms they wanted, and potential employees could agree or not take the job. Now we have minimum wages, employment rights, unfair dismissal tribunals, sexual and racial discrimination and harrassment laws (pick a subset appropriate for your country), and so on. So employers too no longer have the right to say "If you want my job, it's on my terms".

There are many other cases where there are laws or precedents removing the right to say "My way or nothing!" or where slashdotters would like there to be. Music vendors controlling how their music can be played, TV channels preventing timeshifting or advert skipping, DVDs which won't allow the trailers to be skipped over when played. In all these cases your argument applies - it's their stuff, and the consumer always has the choice of not agreeing. But in all of these cases, most people agree the vendor should not have the right to impose these conditions on the consumer.

So why do we think venders of software should be able to say "My way or nothing!" and get legal backup for it? Nobody else is entitled to pull this kind of "It's my ball and if you won't do as I say you can't play with it" nonsense.

The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[DunbarTheInept]

If you pick your license based on what you think ifs advocates (and not even the majority of its advocates, just the vocal minority of them), INSTEAD of the features of the license itself, then you yourself are being a licensing zealot.
There are valid reasons to pick other licenses instead of the GPL. The (percieved) attitude of its adovcates isn't one of them.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[Snarfvs Maximvs]

It's not zealotry. It's spite. He'd license under something other than the GPL just to PISS THE GPL ZEALOTS OFF.

And I for one heartily approve!

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[codeforprofit2]

You are saying that all the people here bashing Microsoft is still using Microsoft producs if they are the best choice in a lineup of different possible software?

I don't think so :-)

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. Please stop embarrassing yourself, I know it's going to be hard with a sig like yours.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[DunbarTheInept]

Actually Yes - still use MS if it's the best choice. But it's been a long time since the last time I saw a product made by MS that was the best choice. If he has a legitimate complaint with the GPL (and there are several) then THAT should be the reason for not using it, and ONLY that.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[fors]

Bullsh!t. Whether you like it or not everything in life is judged by appearances and associations. That vocal minority as you put it are the most visible. That puts you in jeopardy of being associated with people that no one takes seriously. That means you won't be taken seriously either. You may not like that fact but it is the way the world works. If you intend a work to be taken seriously by people then appearances are something you have to look at. I believe in the GPL but still believe that its so called supporters are its worst enemies.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[Anthony Boyd]

There are valid reasons to pick other licenses instead of the GPL. The (percieved) attitude of its adovcates isn't one of them.

I disagree. When the attitude of its advocates is to try to take over projects that use their license, and steal the very name of Linux away from its owner, then that is a very, very good reason to steer clear. If you don't consider how these people act, then don't be surprised when your own code is hijacked.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[rking]

I disagree. When the attitude of its advocates is to try to take over projects that use their license [slashdot.org]

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Glibc doesn't just use the GPL, it is and always has been a GNU project.

If you'd read the release notes that are linked to from that article you might have noticed they start "Release 2.2.4 of the GNU C library is now available at...".

That's right, GNU as in GNU. It's a GNU project. It was started as a part of GNU. It continues to be a part of GNU.

Re:The statement he made is just as much zealotry.

[Anthony Boyd]

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Glibc doesn't just use the GPL, it is and always has been a GNU project.

Have you any idea what you had to ignore to make that statement? You imply that because it's GNU, it's okay for RMS to treat Ulrich poorly. But that's my point -- there is NO justification for that kind of behavior. I don't care if it's the "RMS GNU GPL" project -- if you treat the core developer like crap, expect to be known as a person who treats core developers like crap, and by extension, expect that core developers may want to distance themselves from you.

Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop the RMS bashing you fucking idiots. This guy was coding systems software & fighting coporate greed when you fucking dorks were playing donkey kong on your commodore 64's. This is getting so sickening.

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if RMS had been playing Donkey Kong and Jungle Hunt on Commodore 64 he might not have turned into the bearded fat communist weirdo he is today.

I don't see why after 50 years of immeasurable suffering brought on by communism world wide, people still buy this crap.

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see why after 50 years of immeasurable suffering brought on by communism world wide, people still buy this crap."

Couldn't agree more, I just can't understand why so many seems to think that socialism is a good thing. It really only brings economic collaps and misary. I think most people here on slashdot are 15 y/o who lives with mommy and daddy and don't know what it's like to live on a communist country.

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

You said: This guy was coding systems software & fighting coporate greed

Oh, really? Is that so?

What do this person really want? He wants socialism, have you ever lived in a communist country? I certainly don't think you have, it sucks!

Re:Just STOP

[maXter]

If you could find a person that has ever lived in a communist country to ask, than this post would have some validity. However, it is widely known by most that no such country has ever existed. Lenin, and all other 'communist' leaders that I know of, have twisted much of the original intent of communism to another purpose. Here is a link that I quickly found that does thorough job of explaining much of this:

Communism or "Socialism"? A Return to Marx and Engels

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good boy. BAAAAAAAHHH BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH.

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh, somebodies offended your psuedo-intellectual ideals. Just go get back to reading Marx and pretending that it isn't all nonsense he just pulled out of his ass.

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't we bash that communist?

Re:Just STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism != Communism, you fucking moron.

Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Junks Jerzey]

It is very nice to see someone forging ahead and implementing his vision. I know he's not the only one, mind you, but there is far too much circular self-justification in the Linux community. I mean that honestly, not in a trolling sort of way. For example, quite a large number of people are unhappy with X for a variety of reasons. But the discussions always go like this:

A: X is from the mid 1980s, back before we knew what we wanted out of a desktop GUI. It is too large and complex for what it gives us. I sure would like to see an alternative.
B: But X exists already! Sure you don't like parts of it, by why throw out the baby with the bathwater! We can improve it and make it work better.

And so on. And then fifteen years later we're still all reliant on X. I'm not trying to bash X specifically, just point out that it is nice to see someout with a different point of view who is following through on his ideas.

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[be-fan]

B: But X exists already! Sure you don't like parts of it, by why throw out the baby with the bathwater! We can improve it and make it work better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, but if you've got the evil demon baby on your hands, you'd best through it out with the bath water!

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to justify throwing out X when:

1. It's been ported to practically every platform under the Sun, and it works.

2. There are dozens of desktop environments and tens of thousands of applications dependent on it.

3. Nine out of every ten X bashers on Slashdot can't put together a valid criticism of X that holds up to scrutiny. In fact, 8 out of the 9 complainers don't even know what X is - they confuse it with a GUI framework or desktop environment.

4. The few real deficiencies in X that have shown up in recent years have either already been addressed (e.g. DRI infrastructure) or are currently being addressed (e.g. render extension).

Now, what exactly are your complaints against X? Let's see if they can hold up to some scrutiny.

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone could fix that disgusting brown screen that appears while X is starting up, I'd be happy.

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Brown screen? What X server are you running that gives you a brown startup screen?

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Arandir]

Now, what exactly are your complaints against X? Let's see if they can hold up to some scrutiny.

In one word: no policy. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that it makes X the most flexible GUI system around. The bad part is that you end up with X/Xt/Motif/GTK/Qt/Fltk/Fox/Zoolib/homegrown. Ever have KDE or GNOME tricked up with an awesome theme to make teh OSX users drool? Then go and open up Emacs or Netscape? Gaaagh! Better yet, go put KDE on Mosfet's Liquid theme, and GTK under the blueHeart theme, then mix those applciations together on Blackbox. Yuck...

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm going to have to count you among the clueless Slashdot crowd that doesn't understand what X11 is.

X is not a GUI toolkit, nor an application framework. How many times does that need to be explained? X is a low level, device indepent, network transparent, client-server system for displaying graphics on a rectangular 2D virtual screen. What it displays is arbitrary, enforcing look & feel policy is left up to a higher layer.

Consider the alternatives to X that fill the same layer on other systems. Does Windows GDI enforce policy? Does Quicktime enforce policy? Does DPS enforce policy? Does Quartz enforce policy? The answer to all the above is no.

Re:Wonderful to see some independent vision

[Arandir]

I didn't call X11 a "toolkit", I called it a system.

Funny ...

[Whyzzi]

KS: There isn't much point in DirectX emulation without the rest of the Windows API's since none of the games would run anyway.

funny ... I heard that 89% of DirectX code was designed to push Windows out of the way.

Re:Funny ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You heard wrong.. have a little read of the DirectX API examples for the C++ SDK

Re:Funny ...

[bloggins02]

It wouldn't matter if DirectX pushed 99.999% of the Windows API out of the way, the other .0001% of the code that relied on the windows API would still render the application unusable under AtheOS without some kind of Windows emulation layer (or a recompile, which we all know ISN'T going to happen)

Re:Funny ...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes well try not to make too many comments based on "what you heard". as a win32/directx programmer I've heard incredible amounts of BS from people who think they know what they're talking about just because they're into playing games and/or have written a simple VB app or two. go learn win32, go learn directx, then you will be able to make informed posts and be able to come to your own conclusions, not just regurgitate "what you heard".

The fact is, no DirectX game on the market will run without also having Win32 around. A typical DirectX game is probably roughly 30% win32 / 70% directx. So his point stands - you would also need to emulate the Win32 layer, which is a freaking huge task (just ask the Wine folk, who have already chalked up nearly 300000 lines of code).

Whered you get "89%" anyway?

Personally i think the most useful would be to port SDL and OpenGL to AtheOS.

And that code would be what exactly?

[Magnus Pym]

Enlighten us, please.

Magnus.

Re:And that code would be what exactly?

[ChaoticCoyote]

I didn't want to use the article as an ad, but if you insist... ;)

Java Indexed Serialization Package
LifeBox - A Cellular Automata Simulator
Traveller - A Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Travelling Salesman Problem

...and much more to come, when i get the time to get it documented and posted.

Is it just me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or does this guy totally HATE linux?

The first time I checked out AtheOS, I read an anti-penguin graphic on their site that said something to the effect of "What good are birds that don't fly?"

Then Kurt writes "If I wanted to run KDE I would probably have been better off installing FreeBSD/KDE.." Wouldn't Linux/KDE be the first example most people would think of? I'm guessing he did this to downplay Linux, much the same way people downplay their admiration for the beautiful girl that won't talk to them.

I can't give more examples right now, but from my impression of this guy is he's a BSD/KDE advocate who has enough time to write his own OS.

Writing your own OS is quite a feat, but i'll respect him more when he stops being the typical KDE/BSD zealot/eliteist.

Re:Is it just me..

[Drache Kubisuro]

Hm. You're being a KDE/Linux zeatlot/eliteist too. Not everyone has to love Linux!

Just like not everyone has to hate Microsoft...

Ryan

Re:Is it just me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or does RMS totally HATE Microsoft?

The first time I checked out Debian GNU/Linux, I read an anti-Microsoft slogan on their site that said something to the effect of "Fuck, Microsoft sucks so much shit it hurts".

Then RMS writes "If I wanted to run Microsoft Office I would probably have been better off installing WINE on GNU/Linux..." Wouldn't Windows be the first example most people would think of? I'm guessing he did this to downplay Microsoft, much the same way people downplay their admiration for the beautiful girl that won't talk to them.

I can't give more examples right now, but from my impression of RMS is he's an open source advocate who hasn't had enough time to write his own OS.

Writing your own OS is quite a feat, but i'll respect RMS more when he stops being the typical GPL zealot/eliteist.

Re:How is he a wizard?? - That's how!

[Anonymous Coward]

You go Girl! heh... congrats on OSNews too... never thought i'd see you using the $$ though...

Driver Emulation Layers

[brsett]

I understand that porting DirectX is unlikely to make any software run on his OS as is, but wouldn't providing a directX api also allow his OS to hook into the directx driver layer, thus giving him a big body of working device drivers. In general I agree that emulation in the OS is a big waste, but emulating the hardware layer of other os'es seems like a good idea.

Of course most drivers are wrappered with configuration programs nowadays, and these would not work, but at least he would get basic support for some HW (accordingly he would probably want to use the most common hardware layer, whatever that is.

Or am I confused about how driver layers work?

World Coordinates

[bloggins02]

From a conceptual standpoint, it makes more since to talk about something in "inches" or "points" than it does to talk about "pixels". Pixels are a different size on every screen. With a floating point system the graphics device can then be abstracted to a surface with dimensions x units X y units where those units are real world. Thus you can make a window that is 3 inches by 5 inches and it will be 3 inches by 5 inches on whatever output device it is presented on. Of course with most of these systems you can still revert to a pixel-based mapping mode (think MM_TEXT vs MM_LOENGLISH if you're a windows programmer). The floating point makes it easy to use various units that aren't defined by some quanta (there's no such thing as 1.5 pixels, that's either 1 or 2, but 1.5 inches is a VERY real measurement)

Re:World Coordinates

[Kalabajoui]

I have always wondered why Microsoft never tried
to make the GUI and fonts scale with the desktop resolution. The way things are currently, many end users used to using older 640 x 480 applications see higher resolution as "making everything smaller". So as a technician without the time on my hands to explain the difference to someone who'd rather have a root canal than hear any "technical talk", I just set the resolution back down to the a pixellated and crappy looking 640 x 480. The end user then gets a noticeable expression of relief on their face and then smugly tells me, "now that's allot better". A GUI that scaled to the desktop resolution, and according to the size of the monitor, would allow computer illiterate end users to use the full visual potential of their machines without any effort or headaches. If Atheos has such a feature, it truly is an innovation worth emulating. One that would take care of one of my personal pet peeves and benefit both advanced and novice users, I might add.

open source and profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's the intent of the BSD license, a symbiotic relationship between business and community.

Hold on

[Srin Tuar]

Who told you that a desktop cannot be a server?
Are they really that different?
Ever heard of a workstation?

They are really not that amazingly different.
The speed increase by having tons of buggy GUI code built into the O/S is unecessary for normal windowing operations, and insufficient for high performance games.

What ever happened to copying your opponents victories and avoiding his mistakes?

Its very convenient to run a server programs on your workstation. Dont be fooled. There is no need to have tons of identical hardware single purpose machines. (one web server-one file server- one desktop). Such is wasteful.

Re:Hold on

[Pope Slackman]

What ever happened to copying your opponents victories and avoiding his mistakes?

Who, pray tell, is my opponent?
It all comes down to the right tool for the job, and I happen to think UNIX/X is not the optimal tool for a GUI "client" box.
I've come to this conclusion from experience, not propaganda.

Its very convenient to run a server programs on your workstation. Dont be fooled. There is no need to have tons of identical hardware single purpose machines. (one web server-one file server- one desktop). Such is wasteful.

Are you seriously suggesting that I run a production {http|ftp|etc} server on the same workstation I develop on?

C-X C-S

Re:Hold on

[Anonymous Coward]

It all comes down to the right tool for the job, and I happen to think UNIX/X is not the optimal tool for a GUI "client" box. I've come to this conclusion from experience, not propaganda.

First of all, UNIX and X are completely independent of eachother. There are a lot of UNIX-like operating systems that don't come with X out of the box. Similarly, X servers are available for a lot of non-UNIX operating systems.

Second, how do you define UNIX? Does your definition of UNIX mean an operating system derived from the AT&T SRV5 source tree, or do you mean an operating system that exposes the POSIX API, or maybe a UNIX-like monolithic kernel design?

So tell me, what is your definition of a "UNIX/X" system, and what specifically makes it unsuitable for a GUI client workstation? And more importantly, what exactly makes you think a project like AtheOS has the potential to do better?

Dual licensing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people who real want there code to be used by everyone should do it.

GPL style and then the less restrictive BSD -style licenses I think are the most common. This way it can be integrated into more programs.

AtheOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Stands for atheism. That's right, he's a godless monster!

Go with god-fearing microsoft software at all times.

Re:How is he a wizard?? - That's how!

[Eugenia Loli]

In the beginning I had the word as "ass" (you know me, I tell the things the way they are), but then I thought that the Slashdot web developers may have added a filter, so I changed it to "a$$". :P

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It only means work he has already released under the GPL stays under the GPL. There's nothing preventing the copyright holder from putting future releases under a new license (see: Ogg Vorbis).

How can a GPL license be changed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the whole point of the GPL to ensure that once code is licensed under the GPL, it will remain GPL? Otherwise, what would prevent me from taking Altheos, making some slight modifications and then releasing it under, say, the BSD license?

please don't go to the BSD license

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I know the trolls have pointed this out a million times, but releasing AtheOS under the BSD license would mean your code would be copied & pasted straight into WinXP. If anybody feels like working for Microsoft without pay, just release their project under the BSD license.

You may call me a troll, but I'm serious & you know what I say is true.
Where'd you think the Windows TCP/IP stacks came from? :)

SDL

[gumleef]

anyone got plans for porting SDL to the AtheOS?

In between the GPL, Linux and RMS bashing...

[small_dick]

...I noticed he uses gcc and the GNU binutils.

So, I have to ask, when is someone going to write a "alternative" set of compilers/binutils from scratch, so he (and the rest of the GNU/bashers) can finally be "free"?

Re:In between the GPL, Linux and RMS bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the other good side of someone doing that would be we'd have a nice compiler rather than that godawful piece of shit gcc. It's archaic, its
internals are a mess..and its increasingly embarassing when generating code for modern chips

Re:In between the GPL, Linux and RMS bashing...

[Arandir]

He didn't bash the GPL. He only mentioned that the linkable parts of the OS would probably be relicensed. And he specifically mentioned GNU's LGPL. What he did bash were the mindless GPL zealots hitting people over the head with words that RMS never uttered.

He didn't bash Linux. He only stated that he had different goals than Linus, and desired a different way of doing things. Not preferring something does not equate to bashing.

And he didn't bash RMS. Someone made a lame joke about bearded weirdos and he replied that bearded weirdos would probably make him sad. It's a joke. Laugh or groan, your choice. But don't take it as RMS bashing.

I think you're starting to take some of this stuff too seriously. You're in danger of making GNU your religion and RMS your prophet. Lighten up and learn to laugh and realize not everyone is going to be your clone. Even RMS doesn't take himself seriously at times. Why else would he wear silly saint outfits and sing lame ditties about software...

Re:In between the GPL, Linux and RMS bashing...

[Rogain]

Yeah, its so fucking horrible, I can't stand it. Too bad we dont live in a country like Chile were worthless programmers like the gcc guys could be put up against a wall and shot. gcc is truely a total fucking crapola waste of shit and glue. Only deranged psychotic fools would even try to use it. gcc and anything compiled by it are total shit worthless fucking crap garbage shit. Totally. Like Je-fucking-sus!

nntp slashdot (was Re:AtheOS is not at a criti...)

[Anonymous Coward]

GNUS makes slashdot look like nntp :)

(Score:-1,Offtopic)

Re:How is he a wizard?? - That's how!

[Vanders]

*cough*

/me mumbles to Eugenia "The VM has been broken since 0.1.2, not fixed although not missed"...*cough*

Although I agree with you that the whiney kid above you should put up or shut up. IDE support for one chipset is no laughing matter, let alone attempting to support the multitude of horribly buggy IDE chipsets. I just hope Joe & Co. come up with something soon; install from CD would be sweet...