Who wants to run a 5 year old Linux desktop system?
I do, not personally on my Desktop but on the Desktop of my customers who run my software. That way I don't have to worry about retesting my software every time they change something. For most individual Linux users it is not necessary but for those in businesses that rely on custom applications to do their work it is necessary. Note you still need security and bug fixes just not new features.
Another reason could be that I have 100,000 customers. I don't want to buy new hardware every year, and I certainly don't want to deal with any updates breaking the system. So I use a Standard Operating Environment, I choose a set of base level machines that run this software. I buy 150,000 computers the extra 50,000 are spares. If someones computer breaks down we re-image the system, if that fails we use one of the spares. I maintain a group that slowly makes any changes to the SOE but because we use the same OS every year they don't need to spend a fortune in testing the software against new versions, the same with the hardware because we use the same hardware we save on testing. Most applications are pushed back from the clients onto the servers. That way new features can be added to the custom software to meet new buisness needs and we only need to update a few hundred servers not 100,000 clients.
Where did they buy their legal copy of XP for the EEE from? I thought Microsoft wasn't selling it at retail any more. I know I can still get it OEM but most people don't have the connections for that nor do they have the resources to install XP onto a machine without a DVD/CD-ROM drive.
However it is more important to make your game not a clone (unless you intend to). If you want to create a truly innovative game you need know not only what sucks and what is fun but also how to avoid making your game exactly like the game you think is so cool. So you take a concept that is cool from another game and then twist it so that players don't know that it is from the other game.
OT: I have good Karma because I can't be bothered to use my old account with High Karma
Yes the storage question is interesting, it is also related to the length of time that we can contain(is that the right word?) Quantum entanglement to do the original calculations. The more I think about this the more I think do we need to store the data outside of the system, why not just recalculate it again each time we need it? Of course then we have the problem of how do we transmit the data from system to system? Where do we store the programming for the Quantum system? Can we use some sort of binary Quantum hybrid?
Nice Joke but more importantly we should be asking these sort of questions more and more. Giving a quantum computer only a limited set of abilities is silly. If quantum computers are to take over from our current ones then we will need to look at how they can be used to run our current applications and perhaps even run them at mind boggling speed. Recalculating spreadsheets, Running databases, Rendering 3D scenes, Encoding and Decoding media etc are all areas that we could possibly use quantum computers for. I'm sure you could think of many more.
I remember watching a documentary when I was a kid and that laser sound from Star Wars is hitting one of those high tension cables that stops a radio tower from swaying.
This alleged infringement is not part of the myth. The myth goes like this "if you use any GPL type software to develop your code then you lose all rights to your code". The myth is wrong because it ignores the fact that a GPL complier does not make your code GPL and most libraries you would ever link about are LGPLed not GPLed and you don't have to release the code if you don't distribute etc etc. This Sony case would still be a copyright problem if the code was say copyrighted by Microsoft and Sony just put it in their code, which is theft. People get confused because they don't understand both how copyright works and how the GPL works. The GPL just ensures that people who link to GPL code and pass it on also pass on the freedoms that they have in the first place to use that GPL code.
That is what the GPL is, an enforced system of passing on freedom. It is not there to steal your Intellectual Property.
Hi, this is an information post; in that I would like some information.
I do a little bit of programming (for my own personal systems, mainly embedded) and I understand that for personal use the GPL and its lawyers will NOT prosecute me and chase me across the outback as I am one single person.
However, I would like to know (and I am asking on slashdot because I am confused not because I dont understand how to use google) how I can use GPL'ed code and libraries within my own work and NOT have to release my code.
Thanks in advance
I have code that I have put under the GPL and NONE of you can have it (because it shows how crap I am at C++). The reason I can do that is because under the GPL I would have to distribute this code to someone else for the re-distribution of code clauses to have any effect. Even then only those I have given the code to can ask for it from me, then the code is out of my hands and they have the freedom to re-distribute it with the same freedoms as given under the GPL
The GPL is not about stealing peoples code and making it public. It is about ensuring that the freedom you get from the code is passed onto those who you give the code to.
Besides you will rarely encounter GPL'ed libraries most are LGPL and that freedom thing does not apply to that. If you have any real further questions I suggest that you send an email to the FSF and ask them about it.
If they have included GPL code, they would also be infringing just for not showing the GPL text at the execution of the game. If that is the case, there would be no need to wait until a client asked for the source code.
No it would not have to be so discreet it can be hidden away in the menu. It just has to be there. I use many GPLed apps and none of them display any such message at startup, it is always in the help or manual e.g. in Knode Help->About Knode->License Agreement(tab)
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so. From GPL 3
I also note that many others have pointed out that stopping distribution of the code stops the GPL enforcement clauses. And this game is no longer sold by Sony, so they have to disclose zip:)
So either it's not the same libarc or its license has changed or the website is incorrect or the issue happen in some other file but not in libarc..
Yeah I found that libarc too. But the article appears to be talking about another libarc from Link to articles libarc It is written in C the libarc you found is written in C++. Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there?
Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game? I know little about law, so who has the trump card here?
Probably yes. But if a criminal broke into your house and found a drug lab and then phoned the police about it you are sunk. You are confusing the law that stops the police from doing this (entrapment) with the non-existent law that stops normal people from doing this.
I'm kind of confused where you get the idea that they could have to release all of their source code. It doesn't seem to mention that in the link at all, also its very doubtful that sony would do that regardless. I could be missing something though so if thats the cause I apologize.
You are not missing something. Sony does not have to release the source code unless someone who owns a copy of the game ICO asks for that code. If Sony is infringing then that would need to be the scenario. If they do not want to do so then it would lead to a court case the results of which anyone would be guessing at this stage. And unless they do lose such a court case then no code gets released.
Of course the big question in my mind is are they infringing? In order for them to be infringing they need to have compiled into their game some source code that is licensed under the GPL. It is not totally clear from the article that this is the case it just appears to be so at the moment.
Obtaining or even manufacturing the basic transistor is orders of magnitude easier than producing even the simplest CPU
You have no clue.
Actually he does. Some of the simplest of CPUs require at least 1000's of transistors. Therefore it is over 1000 times easier to produce one transistor than it is to produce one CPU. Not to mention that to pack those 1000's of transistors onto a single IC is work in itself. Just creating something like a simple transistor is child's play compared to that.
Or to put this another way which came first the transistor or the CPU?
This is not to infer that making a transistor is simple but compared to a simple CPU it is orders of magnitude easier to do so.
By the way - I have yet to come across a reason why I wouldn't want to mount a CD-ROM drive at boot. I'm sure there's a good reason out there. Okay, no, I'm not sure there's a _good_ reason, but somebody has probably found at least poor reason - other than sheer lazyness - to not mount CD drive on a machine. (and don't complain about small memory footprints...why would you have a CD-ROM drive connected _and_ not mount it?). He said automount which means to mount the CD-ROM when it is inserted into the machine at run time, not at boot up.
I know it sound weird, but I just can't handle Ubuntu, It's so user-friendly it's lame! I mean, why would I want an auto-mount for my cd-rom?!
If I wanted all that I would have used Windows at first place, I mean, If you're a user which came to Linux to look for alternative, Ubuntu is for you, but if you came to look for something better then Windows, the last thing on earth I would suggest is Ubuntu (I'd suggest Slackware, which is my favorite). That's why also I don't there's a need for Ubuntu handbook, I mean, it's all GUIish (jesus!).
I hope I will not get -1 flamebait cause that's what I really thing (plus, my karma now is terrible, and I'm doing my best to fix it, don't make me sad:(, that's really my opinion.).
Happy 10Th Slashdot birthday!
You don't get it do you. There are two types of computer users, those who understand how it works and those who just want it to work. Now since we want FOSS to overtake the world we need either a Distro for both users or separate Distros for each. Ubuntu supplies that separate Distro. It is not a MS Windows clone either. Ubuntu is about making the computer easier to use. MS Windows is about making a profit which somehow matches making the computer easy to use. However MS Windows can only go so far, Ubuntu can go much further. If you actually used both Ubuntu and MS Windows you would realize that they are chalk and cheese. Don't associate MS Windows with easy to use because it is actually not, it just has the trappings of it.
As far as I am concerned both Slackware and Ubuntu have a future, they are aimed at different users. Don't dismiss these Ubuntu newbies as the worst thing since the GUI. You have a lot to teach them, you have a purpose that is defined by the fact that you know how the system works. They have different purposes. Don't get confused by this new world order, or you will just end up bitter.
P.S. I am writing this from a Slackware machine.
P.P.S I notice that somehow you have been voted offtopic when you should have been modded flamebait. This just proves that most of the moderators are on crack.
This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.
Actually, it ensures nothing of the sort... "profitable" (read, for-profit) OSS projects aren't protected; only non-profit ones. I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit".
Consider this case: As a computer technician I charge people for fixing their Microsoft Windows systems. Microsoft has no problem with this and I would mostly be out of business if it was not for their crappy products. This is referred to as a third party service and is the business model most companies look at when they get into OSS. Microsoft can do stuff all about this business model which is why they are so scared of GNU/Linux and OSS in general. Of course they could just get over themselves and move into the services model but they are like the old IBM they think the world should work their way.
But the best post here in Slashdot was that somebody's Linux was able to download and install network card driver for his network card from internet automatically. Wow! I just couldn't figure out how his Linux was able to do that since he didn't have driver for that network card in the first place...
The other day I installed Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 and it didn't have a driver for my 3COM network card. Luckily for me I know that my ADSL modem has a USB connection and I just used that. Got any more GEM's of wisdom for us?
Maybe if you remove Vista from your argument you might have a point. But the minute you add Vista into the mix your argument collapses in a heap on the floor crying out "please help me up".
on Slackware 11 I just used./configure --with-apr-config=apr-1-config --with-apu-config=apu-1-config
and it worked.
How did I know to use apr-1-config first I ran./configure and got the same error then I looked in the package listing for apr-1.2.7-i486-1 and it says usr/bin/apr-1-config
I match that to./configure --help saying
--with-apr-config=FILE Use the given path to apr-config when determining
APR configuration; defaults to "apr-config"
and the same goes for apu however it 0.9.4 does not compile as there is an error I google the error `OnOK' is not a member of `CheckoutDlg' rapidsvn Get one page saying it works in 0.9.3, so I try that and get the same error. I try to download the latest build but all they have on their site is win32. They however have a link down the bottom of their page to their subversion repository. $ svn co --username guest http://rapidsvn.tigris.org/svn/rapidsvn/trunk $ mv trunk rapidsvn-$(date +%F) $ cd rapidsvn-2007-10-23 $./autogen.sh $./configure --with-apr-config=apr-1-config --with-apu-config=apu-1-config $ make $ su -c 'checkinstall'
Slashdot Mirror
I do, not personally on my Desktop but on the Desktop of my customers who run my software. That way I don't have to worry about retesting my software every time they change something. For most individual Linux users it is not necessary but for those in businesses that rely on custom applications to do their work it is necessary. Note you still need security and bug fixes just not new features.
Another reason could be that I have 100,000 customers. I don't want to buy new hardware every year, and I certainly don't want to deal with any updates breaking the system. So I use a Standard Operating Environment, I choose a set of base level machines that run this software. I buy 150,000 computers the extra 50,000 are spares. If someones computer breaks down we re-image the system, if that fails we use one of the spares. I maintain a group that slowly makes any changes to the SOE but because we use the same OS every year they don't need to spend a fortune in testing the software against new versions, the same with the hardware because we use the same hardware we save on testing. Most applications are pushed back from the clients onto the servers. That way new features can be added to the custom software to meet new buisness needs and we only need to update a few hundred servers not 100,000 clients.
Phenom low end CPU's quad core, Spider platform to run Phenom on and quad core Opterons.
Where did they buy their legal copy of XP for the EEE from? I thought Microsoft wasn't selling it at retail any more. I know I can still get it OEM but most people don't have the connections for that nor do they have the resources to install XP onto a machine without a DVD/CD-ROM drive.
However it is more important to make your game not a clone (unless you intend to). If you want to create a truly innovative game you need know not only what sucks and what is fun but also how to avoid making your game exactly like the game you think is so cool. So you take a concept that is cool from another game and then twist it so that players don't know that it is from the other game.
OT: I have good Karma because I can't be bothered to use my old account with High Karma
Yes the storage question is interesting, it is also related to the length of time that we can contain(is that the right word?) Quantum entanglement to do the original calculations. The more I think about this the more I think do we need to store the data outside of the system, why not just recalculate it again each time we need it? Of course then we have the problem of how do we transmit the data from system to system? Where do we store the programming for the Quantum system? Can we use some sort of binary Quantum hybrid?
Nice Joke but more importantly we should be asking these sort of questions more and more. Giving a quantum computer only a limited set of abilities is silly. If quantum computers are to take over from our current ones then we will need to look at how they can be used to run our current applications and perhaps even run them at mind boggling speed. Recalculating spreadsheets, Running databases, Rendering 3D scenes, Encoding and Decoding media etc are all areas that we could possibly use quantum computers for. I'm sure you could think of many more.
I remember watching a documentary when I was a kid and that laser sound from Star Wars is hitting one of those high tension cables that stops a radio tower from swaying.
That was in the directors cut 15 disk DVD edition
Are you sure he said that, I read that book again quite recently and I don't remember any such proclamation. What chapter is it from?
That is close but not fully it
This alleged infringement is not part of the myth. The myth goes like this "if you use any GPL type software to develop your code then you lose all rights to your code". The myth is wrong because it ignores the fact that a GPL complier does not make your code GPL and most libraries you would ever link about are LGPLed not GPLed and you don't have to release the code if you don't distribute etc etc. This Sony case would still be a copyright problem if the code was say copyrighted by Microsoft and Sony just put it in their code, which is theft. People get confused because they don't understand both how copyright works and how the GPL works. The GPL just ensures that people who link to GPL code and pass it on also pass on the freedoms that they have in the first place to use that GPL code.
That is what the GPL is, an enforced system of passing on freedom. It is not there to steal your Intellectual Property.
I do a little bit of programming (for my own personal systems, mainly embedded) and I understand that for personal use the GPL and its lawyers will NOT prosecute me and chase me across the outback as I am one single person.
However, I would like to know (and I am asking on slashdot because I am confused not because I dont understand how to use google) how I can use GPL'ed code and libraries within my own work and NOT have to release my code.
Thanks in advance
I have code that I have put under the GPL and NONE of you can have it (because it shows how crap I am at C++). The reason I can do that is because under the GPL I would have to distribute this code to someone else for the re-distribution of code clauses to have any effect. Even then only those I have given the code to can ask for it from me, then the code is out of my hands and they have the freedom to re-distribute it with the same freedoms as given under the GPL
The GPL is not about stealing peoples code and making it public. It is about ensuring that the freedom you get from the code is passed onto those who you give the code to.
Besides you will rarely encounter GPL'ed libraries most are LGPL and that freedom thing does not apply to that. If you have any real further questions I suggest that you send an email to the FSF and ask them about it.
No it would not have to be so discreet it can be hidden away in the menu. It just has to be there. I use many GPLed apps and none of them display any such message at startup, it is always in the help or manual e.g. in Knode Help->About Knode->License Agreement(tab)
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so. From GPL 3I also note that many others have pointed out that stopping distribution of the code stops the GPL enforcement clauses. And this game is no longer sold by Sony, so they have to disclose zip :)
So either it's not the same libarc or its license has changed or the website is incorrect or the issue happen in some other file but not in libarc..
Yeah I found that libarc too. But the article appears to be talking about another libarc from Link to articles libarc It is written in C the libarc you found is written in C++. Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there?
Probably yes. But if a criminal broke into your house and found a drug lab and then phoned the police about it you are sunk. You are confusing the law that stops the police from doing this (entrapment) with the non-existent law that stops normal people from doing this.
You are not missing something. Sony does not have to release the source code unless someone who owns a copy of the game ICO asks for that code. If Sony is infringing then that would need to be the scenario. If they do not want to do so then it would lead to a court case the results of which anyone would be guessing at this stage. And unless they do lose such a court case then no code gets released.
Of course the big question in my mind is are they infringing? In order for them to be infringing they need to have compiled into their game some source code that is licensed under the GPL. It is not totally clear from the article that this is the case it just appears to be so at the moment.
You have no clue.
Actually he does. Some of the simplest of CPUs require at least 1000's of transistors. Therefore it is over 1000 times easier to produce one transistor than it is to produce one CPU. Not to mention that to pack those 1000's of transistors onto a single IC is work in itself. Just creating something like a simple transistor is child's play compared to that.
Or to put this another way which came first the transistor or the CPU?
This is not to infer that making a transistor is simple but compared to a simple CPU it is orders of magnitude easier to do so.
Yeah but that is harder than catching a bus to another city and dropping your anonymous letter threat in a mail box.
If I wanted all that I would have used Windows at first place, I mean, If you're a user which came to Linux to look for alternative, Ubuntu is for you, but if you came to look for something better then Windows, the last thing on earth I would suggest is Ubuntu (I'd suggest Slackware, which is my favorite). That's why also I don't there's a need for Ubuntu handbook, I mean, it's all GUIish (jesus!).
I hope I will not get -1 flamebait cause that's what I really thing (plus, my karma now is terrible, and I'm doing my best to fix it, don't make me sad
Happy 10Th Slashdot birthday!
You don't get it do you. There are two types of computer users, those who understand how it works and those who just want it to work. Now since we want FOSS to overtake the world we need either a Distro for both users or separate Distros for each. Ubuntu supplies that separate Distro. It is not a MS Windows clone either. Ubuntu is about making the computer easier to use. MS Windows is about making a profit which somehow matches making the computer easy to use. However MS Windows can only go so far, Ubuntu can go much further. If you actually used both Ubuntu and MS Windows you would realize that they are chalk and cheese. Don't associate MS Windows with easy to use because it is actually not, it just has the trappings of it.
As far as I am concerned both Slackware and Ubuntu have a future, they are aimed at different users. Don't dismiss these Ubuntu newbies as the worst thing since the GUI. You have a lot to teach them, you have a purpose that is defined by the fact that you know how the system works. They have different purposes. Don't get confused by this new world order, or you will just end up bitter.
P.S. I am writing this from a Slackware machine.
P.P.S I notice that somehow you have been voted offtopic when you should have been modded flamebait. This just proves that most of the moderators are on crack.
Actually, it ensures nothing of the sort... "profitable" (read, for-profit) OSS projects aren't protected; only non-profit ones. I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit".
Consider this case: As a computer technician I charge people for fixing their Microsoft Windows systems. Microsoft has no problem with this and I would mostly be out of business if it was not for their crappy products. This is referred to as a third party service and is the business model most companies look at when they get into OSS. Microsoft can do stuff all about this business model which is why they are so scared of GNU/Linux and OSS in general. Of course they could just get over themselves and move into the services model but they are like the old IBM they think the world should work their way.
But the best post here in Slashdot was that somebody's Linux was able to download and install network card driver for his network card from internet automatically. Wow! I just couldn't figure out how his Linux was able to do that since he didn't have driver for that network card in the first place...
The other day I installed Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 and it didn't have a driver for my 3COM network card. Luckily for me I know that my ADSL modem has a USB connection and I just used that. Got any more GEM's of wisdom for us?
Maybe if you remove Vista from your argument you might have a point. But the minute you add Vista into the mix your argument collapses in a heap on the floor crying out "please help me up".
on Slackware 11 I just used ./configure --with-apr-config=apr-1-config --with-apu-config=apu-1-config
./configure and got the same error
./configure --help saying
./autogen.sh ./configure --with-apr-config=apr-1-config --with-apu-config=apu-1-config
and it worked.
How did I know to use apr-1-config
first I ran
then I looked in the package listing for apr-1.2.7-i486-1 and it says
usr/bin/apr-1-config
I match that to
--with-apr-config=FILE Use the given path to apr-config when determining
APR configuration; defaults to "apr-config"
and the same goes for apu
however it 0.9.4 does not compile as there is an error I google the error
`OnOK' is not a member of `CheckoutDlg' rapidsvn
Get one page saying it works in 0.9.3, so I try that and get the same error.
I try to download the latest build but all they have on their site is win32. They however have a link down the bottom of their page to their subversion repository.
$ svn co --username guest http://rapidsvn.tigris.org/svn/rapidsvn/trunk
$ mv trunk rapidsvn-$(date +%F)
$ cd rapidsvn-2007-10-23
$
$
$ make
$ su -c 'checkinstall'
open up a prompt and
$ rapidsvn
There we go