This differance is, with the NPL, Netscape retains rights to relicense code under other terms. For example, if you modify a file in Mozilla that is NPL licensed, Netscape aka. AOL can sell that modification, or use it elsewhere in binary only form. Netscape claims that this clause was nessisary due to exsisting contracts they had at the time they released the netscape source, which was why they could not use the GPL.
The MPL is similar to the NPL, but it has the relicense parts removed. The purpose of this license is to all new code to be submitted to the Mozilla project, that can legally be linked to the MPL'd code, but which Netscape/AOL can not relicense. You cannot submit GPL'd code to mozilla, because it would be compiled with the NPL code.
The idea is all well and good, but how far can this really scale? Gnutella has a feature that lets you watch all the searches that flow though the network, and with only 900 users connected right now, the rate is approximetly 2 per second. I don't see this being scalable. At 900,000 users (not an unreasonable number), you have 4,000 searches per second, that have to be relayed between all 900,000 nodes. Peer-to-peer uncentralized networking sounds nice, but it simply can't scale.
Is it possible to get decent performace out of root window updates? A while ago there was a small utility released on themes.org that would take a pixmap and animate it on the root window, sliding/floating it around. It was a neat effect, but unless you set it to a delay-so-long-its-not-really-animated-anymore, it sent processor usage to 100%. Is this a deficiency in X, that root window updates are slow, since they werent really meant to happen that often?
IANAL, but, as the lawyer guy said, this is not a test of the GPL. What's worse, I believe, if this is brought to court, and loses (it shouldn't, but c'mon, these are braindead american courts we're talking about here, it wouldn't be the first time). If it loses, it may damage the GPLs power for when it finally is tested. And we don't want that.
Do you think there are any/enough "interface hackers" out there willing to contribute time to GNOME like code hackers do, or is the project doomed forever to simply copy Windows and MacOS features, who have the ability to do usability studies.
Are there any papers by the GNOME team regarding this, or about how not to destroy the power of UNIX in a GUI useable by the masses? I'm all for getting rid of the command line, as soon as theres a better interface. If it's going to be developed, I think it's up to the free software/research communities, and/or universities. GNOME is a nice Win95 clone, just like CDE was a fair Win3.1 clone, but if I want those interfaces and the limitations they impose, I know where to get them (and with a whole lot more application support).
> Tell me. As a consumer, how will i be any better off with Microsoft being sued?
Tell me, have you R E A D the findings of fact? Can't you S E E how unbelivable evil they are? Isn't it O B V I O U S that the govenment has to intervene? Do you realize how U N I N F O R M E D your opinions are?
And theres plenty more material I can point you to. Work on those first. Or try Stephenson's stuff.
Without the Sherman Act, your entire life would be run by GlobalMegaCom. It's a patch to the flaw of capitalism.
Please note that the link to the findings of fact is to the original version, released in November 1999. A version, apperantly with slight corrections, was released a month later "by court order", but it's HTML format has quite a few problems... which comes as no surprise: META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"
They are considering giving away the source code to "encourage [application] developer support". They are not considering Open Source'ing it though. So it's useless. The point of true opensource is freedom, the point of whatever the heck this is is PR.
> but now, many people believe that soon we will > see the transition from that era into the age > of the distributed/network system
I believe the opposite. Right now, companies are paying 2500* when they build their network, and that 700MHz processor on Jane from Accounting's desk is being about 5% used.
I think diskless, dumb, networked workstations are the future, and what better to use are the clients and servers for all these, then Linux, with GNOME/KDE 3.0. The workstation costs come down to under $1000, maybe even under $500, and management is completly centralized.
While I personally believe this is more of a personal dispute between the OBSD folk and the.org guy, the "real danger" that the.org domain could pose wasn't even mentioned. The guy who owns openssh.org could put up a page similar to openssh.com's, and distribute the software, with a backdoor. I've downloaded openssh to quite a few hosts recently, and I always assumed the domain was.org, which I went to, and which previously redirected me to.com (though i never noticed till/. posted this article)...Had it simple shown me and fake OpenSSH page, with a backdoored version, well, all my servers would be rooted by now.
The mere fake de Raadt didn't mention this makes me think all the more that it is a personal dispute, as he hasen't even thought the issue though.
While I refuse to use (much less pay) for any type of closed source applications, I view games more as entertainment then an application. A side effect of this is that when I shell out $50US for a game, I'd like to be assured I can enjoy said game whenever I'd like, for the next 5-10 years. With DOS/Windows games, I have this assurance. Two of my all-time favorites, "Master of Orion", and "X-COM", were written for plain old DOS 6.22. Today, many years later, I can still (and do!) play these games on my Windows 98 machine. Aside from Microprose, I'm a huge ID fan. When Quake 3 came out for Linux and Windows, I purchased the Windows version, even though I have to reboot every time I want to play it. I felt I had no assurance that Quake 3 for Linux would still run on Linux 2.4, much less 3.0, or 4.0, with glibc 8.5. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. What type gaurantee can you give the gaming community, so we know our closed-source Linux entertainment purchases will still be usable for an acceptable ammount of time.
I realize part of DOS/Windows problem is the overhead incurred by backwards compatibility, but, on the other hand, I sure do enjoy being able to whip out my copy of "Karateka", or "Leisure Suit Larry 2" and know it will still run.
Is Kerberos Windows 2000's only option for authentication? I really only see this as weakening their OS if it isn't. Extending and embracing may work with a 90% desktop share, but on network servers, they don't have the share to get away with this.
As far as I am conserned, *WINDOWS 2000 DOES NOT SUPPORT KERBEROS*. It supports some lame "Kerberos-like" protocol, which is useless.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if this produces just one shorter ladder, its a 'success'...as far as producing *THE*SHORTEST*ONE*, well, I wouldn't say that this is a gauruntee it is produced. But, so what?
While I like the idea of trading off a bit of performance from today's way overpowered chips (for general workstation use, anyway) for compatibiliy, I'm not quite sure on what Crusoe provides. Can I run a win32 and linux binary similtaniously without rebooting? Because if I have to reboot, hell, I can do that with my current intel systems. Some comments mentioned performance would be terrible for RISC emulation...what other CIRC processors are out there that are even worth emulating? The only advantage I'm clear on is the power savings, which Intel can easily compete with before Transmeta ever gets off the ground. It's a nice idea, but with Intel having more of a monopoly then the Redmond crew, I don't see what we need to emulate.
Slashdot Mirror
alright! screw competition! horah for packs between evil corporations! Next thing you know, AOL/Time Warner/Netscape will be acquiring NSI.
doesn't XFree 4.0's DRI qualify as a new rendering model?
# grep ILOVEYOU /var/spool/mail/* |wc -l
12
nyahahahahah... should I warn them?
This differance is, with the NPL, Netscape retains rights to relicense code under other terms. For example, if you modify a file in Mozilla that is NPL licensed, Netscape aka. AOL can sell that modification, or use it elsewhere in binary only form. Netscape claims that this clause was nessisary due to exsisting contracts they had at the time they released the netscape source, which was why they could not use the GPL.
The MPL is similar to the NPL, but it has the relicense parts removed. The purpose of this license is to all new code to be submitted to the Mozilla project, that can legally be linked to the MPL'd code, but which Netscape/AOL can not relicense. You cannot submit GPL'd code to mozilla, because it would be compiled with the NPL code.
Wow, ATI says their chip is fastest? GET OUT! I thought they were going to say it sucks. And ATIs benchmarks prove it? NO WAY!
The idea is all well and good, but how far can this really scale? Gnutella has a feature that lets you watch all the searches that flow though the network, and with only 900 users connected right now, the rate is approximetly 2 per second. I don't see this being scalable. At 900,000 users (not an unreasonable number), you have 4,000 searches per second, that have to be relayed between all 900,000 nodes. Peer-to-peer uncentralized networking sounds nice, but it simply can't scale.
gpo.gov doesn't have it online yet, but it is available here:
n s.html
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-conclusio
Is it possible to get decent performace out of root window updates? A while ago there was a small utility released on themes.org that would take a pixmap and animate it on the root window, sliding/floating it around. It was a neat effect, but unless you set it to a delay-so-long-its-not-really-animated-anymore, it sent processor usage to 100%. Is this a deficiency in X, that root window updates are slow, since they werent really meant to happen that often?
Yay, go U.S. Court system!
Now it's Jackson's turn.
Jackson Jackson he's our man...
IANAL, but, as the lawyer guy said, this is not a test of the GPL. What's worse, I believe, if this is brought to court, and loses (it shouldn't, but c'mon, these are braindead american courts we're talking about here, it wouldn't be the first time). If it loses, it may damage the GPLs power for when it finally is tested. And we don't want that.
Do you think there are any/enough "interface hackers" out there willing to contribute time to GNOME like code hackers do, or is the project doomed forever to simply copy Windows and MacOS features, who have the ability to do usability studies.
Are there any papers by the GNOME team regarding this, or about how not to destroy the power of UNIX in a GUI useable by the masses? I'm all for getting rid of the command line, as soon as theres a better interface. If it's going to be developed, I think it's up to the free software/research communities, and/or universities. GNOME is a nice Win95 clone, just like CDE was a fair Win3.1 clone, but if I want those interfaces and the limitations they impose, I know where to get them (and with a whole lot more application support).
> Tell me. As a consumer, how will i be any better off with Microsoft being sued?
Tell me, have you R E A D the findings of fact? Can't you S E E how unbelivable evil they are? Isn't it O B V I O U S that the govenment has to intervene? Do you realize how U N I N F O R M E D your opinions are?
Please read:
Halloween I
Halloween II
Findings of Fact
And theres plenty more material I can point you to. Work on those first. Or try Stephenson's stuff.
Without the Sherman Act, your entire life would be run by GlobalMegaCom. It's a patch to the flaw of capitalism.
Please note that the link to the findings of fact is to the original version, released in November 1999. A version, apperantly with slight corrections, was released a month later "by court order", but it's HTML format has quite a few problems... which comes as no surprise: META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"
They are considering giving away the source code to "encourage [application] developer support". They are not considering Open Source'ing it though. So it's useless. The point of true opensource is freedom, the point of whatever the heck this is is PR.
> but now, many people believe that soon we will
> see the transition from that era into the age
> of the distributed/network system
I believe the opposite. Right now, companies are paying 2500* when they build their network, and that 700MHz processor on Jane from Accounting's desk is being about 5% used.
I think diskless, dumb, networked workstations are the future, and what better to use are the clients and servers for all these, then Linux, with GNOME/KDE 3.0. The workstation costs come down to under $1000, maybe even under $500, and management is completly centralized.
While I personally believe this is more of a personal dispute between the OBSD folk and the .org guy, the "real danger" that the .org domain could pose wasn't even mentioned. The guy who owns openssh.org could put up a page similar to openssh.com's, and distribute the software, with a backdoor. I've downloaded openssh to quite a few hosts recently, and I always assumed the domain was .org, which I went to, and which previously redirected me to .com (though i never noticed till /. posted this article)...Had it simple shown me and fake OpenSSH page, with a backdoored version, well, all my servers would be rooted by now.
The mere fake de Raadt didn't mention this makes me think all the more that it is a personal dispute, as he hasen't even thought the issue though.
While I refuse to use (much less pay) for any type of closed source applications, I view games more as entertainment then an application. A side effect of this is that when I shell out $50US for a game, I'd like to be assured I can enjoy said game whenever I'd like, for the next 5-10 years. With DOS/Windows games, I have this assurance. Two of my all-time favorites, "Master of Orion", and "X-COM", were written for plain old DOS 6.22. Today, many years later, I can still (and do!) play these games on my Windows 98 machine. Aside from Microprose, I'm a huge ID fan. When Quake 3 came out for Linux and Windows, I purchased the Windows version, even though I have to reboot every time I want to play it. I felt I had no assurance that Quake 3 for Linux would still run on Linux 2.4, much less 3.0, or 4.0, with glibc 8.5. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. What type gaurantee can you give the gaming community, so we know our closed-source Linux entertainment purchases will still be usable for an acceptable ammount of time.
I realize part of DOS/Windows problem is the overhead incurred by backwards compatibility, but, on the other hand, I sure do enjoy being able to whip out my copy of "Karateka", or "Leisure Suit Larry 2" and know it will still run.
Is Kerberos Windows 2000's only option for authentication? I really only see this as weakening their OS if it isn't. Extending and embracing may work with a 90% desktop share, but on network servers, they don't have the share to get away with this.
As far as I am conserned, *WINDOWS 2000 DOES NOT SUPPORT KERBEROS*. It supports some lame "Kerberos-like" protocol, which is useless.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if this produces just one shorter ladder, its a 'success'...as far as producing *THE*SHORTEST*ONE*, well, I wouldn't say that this is a gauruntee it is produced. But, so what?
So where are the stats on how much fossil fuel was wasted *this* time? I had 5 machines running the client all last week...
While I like the idea of trading off a bit of performance from today's way overpowered chips (for general workstation use, anyway) for compatibiliy, I'm not quite sure on what Crusoe provides. Can I run a win32 and linux binary similtaniously without rebooting? Because if I have to reboot, hell, I can do that with my current intel systems. Some comments mentioned performance would be terrible for RISC emulation...what other CIRC processors are out there that are even worth emulating? The only advantage I'm clear on is the power savings, which Intel can easily compete with before Transmeta ever gets off the ground. It's a nice idea, but with Intel having more of a monopoly then the Redmond crew, I don't see what we need to emulate.