Heh a closed source commercial app modifies an GPL'd app.. you just violated your lic if you didnt release the code which most people dont want to do nor are they going to.
I know.. earlier when I said "who wants to" I didnt mean I wanted something for free, I meant I would rather pay the price of Qt in windows than code the "Free Qt/Windows" port, Ive done just enough Win32 work to know the annoyances it would bring.
I mean its not Hell-On-Earth as some people would have you believe any windows programming is, but it is fuct when you compare it to some of the libraries out there like Qt/Linux.
That is a really good point, if RMS likes Gnome better so what yes he has a lot of influence but thats like saying
ESR You are such a influential member of the Open Source community I dont think you saying Fetchmail is better than xyz mail retrival program is fair.. BITE ME.
Go tell Microsoft to stop saying windows is better than xyz product.
Im not really complaning I dont mind paying for it even it is a very nice library.
It is just contrary to what was expected that is all. I cant just jump up and pay for any software that catches my eye, I do pay its just disappointing, but everyones got to make their money and I can probably get work to buy if it I can show them enough good stuff about it and explain why I need it well enough.. Really the reason I bring it up is because I dont think many people are very aware of the fact.
As I mentioned its not that you cant release a GPL'd program in Qt under windows its that the library is not free in Windows meaning you have to pay to compile your Qt app under windows yet the *nix versions of it are free.
They can get away with this because the interface is the same but all the interfacing with Win32/X11 is going to be totally different and is the thing Qt abstracts you from. You dont ever have to see X11 or Win32 window drawing internals.
but only the Unix version is free see here
Trolltech announced today that it will license the upcoming free version of Qt/Unix 2.2 under the GPL (GNU General Public License). Developers will have the option of using the open-source version of Qt 2.2 under either the QPL (Q Public License) or GPL license, depending on their licensing requirements From there site
Basically they refer to the version most people use as the "Qt Free Edition", which also reads as "Qt/Unix 2.2"
Just means you still have to pay for Qt under windows.. sure your programs GPL'd but you got no lib's to compile it in windows unless you paid.
I read over the article a bit and it seems more as if this guy was just a bit unhappy with the way GCC is being developed still.. Its still not in the public "Cygnus tree"
All I can say is (this is truly simplistic but it works) I have the source to EGCS and if they ever deside to go real psycho I am sure some talented people will step up and continue the work on EGCS, Yes it may not be as perfect for stability but I am not really worried, it is a bit complicated and can probably make things a bit more annoying to develop for EGCS but I cant see anything critically wrong with it... Anyone who can do useful work on a compiler has to be extremly knowledgeable in things most people dont even know about so.. until they start violating the GPL or really becoming a negative influence on Opensource lets just keep an eye on things?
I do some minor development on windows doing some stuff using MFC yes its the most horrible 's h i t' I have ever used as a software developer. Okay a lot of MFC's problems have to do with the fact that Microsoft is so loosely organized their various departments turn good ideas into SHIT anyways enough of the semi-pro microsoft rant I want people to see this post after all...
I was looking into developing an app in Windows using Qt, I checked over the spec sheet looked at some Pure Qt programs and I was damn impressed with how clean the programming for it was.
I did a fair amount of GTK programming as well and I must say that the Syntax for GTK can be tedious.. its very well down for a C library but the syntax can get you some of the time, not that it bothers me but learning it was kind of annoying some late nights.
Anyhow my point is coming, I really liked Qt so much that I was fixing to write a nice app in it.. then I noticed something. Only the Unix version was free. Now they are GPL'ing Qt, my question is and yes I have read maybe I missed it but, wheres the Free version for windows?
Most people dont ever realize that Qt is totally not free in windows (as far as I know:) So that blows. Yeah sure its nice to write an app in Qt but potr it to windows??? Owch.... Ugh.. anyways I dont think they GPL'd anything but the X11 version.
Its okay I mean most of you guys wont ever notice.. but Qt is not totally free
Why does every new video card just have to have better/faster video drivers? This can get matrox a lot of deals with companies like Dell.. who primarily sell to wait no not businesses...
I think its a smart play by Matrox.. sure your average geek is not impressed but all this improvement in the 3D realm when the business market is so much bigger.. heh go Matrox.. I like their cards and own a G400MAX, the QIII framerates are playable on a PIII 500.. But the 2d is awesome on a 19" trinitron monitor:)
Why do people insist on saying because Linux is open source it is insecure. That is patently false. FALSE.
If you make a distro and you do not include the kernel source no one is going to come on and mystically change your kernel.
TO me that says the chances of someone getting ahold of IRIX, Xyz Unix source code and or modifying the kernel is just as good as any well setup Linux boxes. Oh no.. its open source we just cant have that someone might root our system and replace our kernel with a rogue kernel.. *right*.
Are you sure its a government thing or a teachers misinterpretation?
You know people *HAVE* seen the source for all of these OS' so they are just as weak using this severely flawed logic.
So I want an engine that has 350HP and gets 10mpg or a 350HP engine that gets 50mpg? You see? I dont think they are doing things properly they are just shoving mhz out there at a sacrifice of any real gains in engineering and ultimately engineering so I dont want to get stuck with some fucking Piece of shit I just paid twice what I did for an AMD that is less energy hungry, yet faster
See? And who in their right minds puts a Ferrari engine in a Pinto.
Who in their right mind puts a Pound Of cooling on a processor? No one I can think of except maybe OC'ers.
See.. As been pointed out of the G4 can make all these gains in processor speed and run WITHOUT a fan.. what gives what is intel doing differently when we have seen it can be done in a different more smooth way?
So.. I definately disagree with the design philosophy.
Can you say SAMBA? MS could take samba guys out they implmenet windows NT domain controllers cleanroom style, every open napster serer that works with the napster client is in danger all of that.. there are SOOO many products imlpemented like the EQ thing that these guys dont stand a chance in hell on any valid legal ground of trying and winning this case (Sony/Verant) not to say that they wont win.. but really there are soo many examples of this that this really is a weak example... I mean we have the client/server part already out here in use.. how can Sony claim its their IP other than the desing of the protocol which these guys can probably implement cleanroom anyway.
Heh, REALLY? I thought it was just a simple matter of importing old.c files into a Text-MUD OLE Object in Visual Studio. After that it's just a simple matter of drag'n drop the Text-MUD Icon over the neat DirectX7 Icon and voila... Graphical MUD with sound and music! Ta-da!
Right thats what MS wants you to believe, then reality strikes...:)
I imagine you would need some tuned code to deal with several thousand players.
The main idea is the same.
Set the "game" into a main loop.
This loop at varioust ime intervals updates, players, mobs, areas and handles recylcing memory and such as well.
The loop cleans up your sockets, drops freaky connections etc. It is true you would want to GUT a lot of the internal systems for more realism but I bet a MUD is an excellent base with a little work
Yeah I realize that its not just a simple hack.:) you would have to design from the ground up.
However the underlying concept of how to handle the game should be the same given that EQ is turn based.. server side at least.
Given that I have converted several muds to ad@d turn based systems for combat where spells had a casting time and you had to memorize them. I am not much of a graphics programmer (obviously it shows in the way I treat such systems) However I do know enough about the server side to write something of that nature:)
Definately just a mud, instead of sending back the text description of a room you send back instructions the client would process to render a room or render a scene or whatever.. it in fact... is not that hard. It requires some hacking but I thought it out of course nothing is as easy at it seems and its a good idea to only send minimal data such as maybe where you are in the world and the client has all the "look" of the room stored on his machine so that he is not sent complex rendering instructions over the network which I think would make it to snow. Best to do just like a mud actually, send in a command prompt with vital statistics just text even and EQ client can make it all pretty and graphical, so the server side is IMO much easier to do (in thery) than the client.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people call that a non breaking space.. heh
Heh a closed source commercial app modifies an GPL'd app.. you just violated your lic if you didnt release the code which most people dont want to do nor are they going to.
I know.. earlier when I said "who wants to" I didnt mean I wanted something for free, I meant I would rather pay the price of Qt in windows than code the "Free Qt/Windows" port, Ive done just enough Win32 work to know the annoyances it would bring.
I mean its not Hell-On-Earth as some people would have you believe any windows programming is, but it is fuct when you compare it to some of the libraries out there like Qt/Linux.
Jeremy
That is a really good point, if RMS likes Gnome better so what yes he has a lot of influence but thats like saying
ESR You are such a influential member of the Open Source community I dont think you saying Fetchmail is better than xyz mail retrival program is fair.. BITE ME.
Go tell Microsoft to stop saying windows is better than xyz product.
Jeremy
Im not really complaning I dont mind paying for it even it is a very nice library.
It is just contrary to what was expected that is all. I cant just jump up and pay for any software that catches my eye, I do pay its just disappointing, but everyones got to make their money and I can probably get work to buy if it I can show them enough good stuff about it and explain why I need it well enough.. Really the reason I bring it up is because I dont think many people are very aware of the fact.
Jeremy
true.. but who wants to? :)
As I mentioned its not that you cant release a GPL'd program in Qt under windows its that the library is not free in Windows meaning you have to pay to compile your Qt app under windows yet the *nix versions of it are free.
They can get away with this because the interface is the same but all the interfacing with Win32/X11 is going to be totally different and is the thing Qt abstracts you from. You dont ever have to see X11 or Win32 window drawing internals.
but only the Unix version is free see here
Trolltech announced today that it will license the upcoming free version of Qt/Unix 2.2 under the GPL (GNU General Public License). Developers will have the option of using the open-source version of Qt 2.2 under either the QPL (Q Public License) or GPL license, depending on their licensing requirements
From there site
Basically they refer to the version most people use as the "Qt Free Edition", which also reads as "Qt/Unix 2.2"
Just means you still have to pay for Qt under windows.. sure your programs GPL'd but you got no lib's to compile it in windows unless you paid.
Jeremy
It is not that your app would cost anything in windows it is just you have to pay for Qt to get your application to compile in Windows.
Qt is kind of talking from the side of its mouth when it says Free.
Go check out their site you will have a hard time finding Windows, and Free associated with each other.
Jeremy
I read over the article a bit and it seems more as if this guy was just a bit unhappy with the way GCC is being developed still.. Its still not in the public "Cygnus tree"
All I can say is (this is truly simplistic but it works) I have the source to EGCS and if they ever deside to go real psycho I am sure some talented people will step up and continue the work on EGCS, Yes it may not be as perfect for stability but I am not really worried, it is a bit complicated and can probably make things a bit more annoying to develop for EGCS but I cant see anything critically wrong with it... Anyone who can do useful work on a compiler has to be extremly knowledgeable in things most people dont even know about so.. until they start violating the GPL or really becoming a negative influence on Opensource lets just keep an eye on things?
Jeremy
I do some minor development on windows doing some stuff using MFC yes its the most horrible 's h i t' I have ever used as a software developer. Okay a lot of MFC's problems have to do with the fact that Microsoft is so loosely organized their various departments turn good ideas into SHIT anyways enough of the semi-pro microsoft rant I want people to see this post after all...
:) So that blows. Yeah sure its nice to write an app in Qt but potr it to windows??? Owch.... Ugh.. anyways I dont think they GPL'd anything but the X11 version.
I was looking into developing an app in Windows using Qt, I checked over the spec sheet looked at some Pure Qt programs and I was damn impressed with how clean the programming for it was.
I did a fair amount of GTK programming as well and I must say that the Syntax for GTK can be tedious.. its very well down for a C library but the syntax can get you some of the time, not that it bothers me but learning it was kind of annoying some late nights.
Anyhow my point is coming, I really liked Qt so much that I was fixing to write a nice app in it.. then I noticed something. Only the Unix version was free. Now they are GPL'ing Qt, my question is and yes I have read maybe I missed it but, wheres the Free version for windows?
Most people dont ever realize that Qt is totally not free in windows (as far as I know
Its okay I mean most of you guys wont ever notice.. but Qt is not totally free
Jeremy
Why does every new video card just have to have better/faster video drivers? This can get matrox a lot of deals with companies like Dell.. who primarily sell to wait no not businesses...
:)
I think its a smart play by Matrox.. sure your average geek is not impressed but all this improvement in the 3D realm when the business market is so much bigger.. heh go Matrox.. I like their cards and own a G400MAX, the QIII framerates are playable on a PIII 500.. But the 2d is awesome on a 19" trinitron monitor
Jeremy
The patent office will grant almost any patent, as evidenced by the fact that they have actually allowed the wheel to be patented.
They simply just let the courts decide if it is valid.. In the case of the wheel uhm.. look around
But you get the point they will patent damn near anything....Literally
Jeremy
*cough* *cough* That is plain not nice.
I have lived in Georgia all my life and uhm anyways its not true, I hate stereotypes.
Ahhh...
/.
My time for a little rant.
Why do people insist on saying because Linux is open source it is insecure. That is patently false. FALSE.
If you make a distro and you do not include the kernel source no one is going to come on and mystically change your kernel.
TO me that says the chances of someone getting ahold of IRIX, Xyz Unix source code and or modifying the kernel is just as good as any well setup Linux boxes. Oh no.. its open source we just cant have that someone might root our system and replace our kernel with a rogue kernel.. *right*.
Are you sure its a government thing or a teachers misinterpretation? You know people *HAVE* seen the source for all of these OS' so they are just as weak using this severely flawed logic.
I wont stand for it anymore arrrghh.
*goes back to his corner of
Jeremy
This logic does not work so well..
So I want an engine that has 350HP and gets 10mpg or a 350HP engine that gets 50mpg? You see? I dont think they are doing things properly they are just shoving mhz out there at a sacrifice of any real gains in engineering and ultimately engineering so I dont want to get stuck with some fucking Piece of shit I just paid twice what I did for an AMD that is less energy hungry, yet faster
See? And who in their right minds puts a Ferrari engine in a Pinto.
Who in their right mind puts a Pound Of cooling on a processor? No one I can think of except maybe OC'ers.
See.. As been pointed out of the G4 can make all these gains in processor speed and run WITHOUT a fan.. what gives what is intel doing differently when we have seen it can be done in a different more smooth way?
So.. I definately disagree with the design philosophy.
More hidden Funny: stuff. The first 20 posts of /. articles are such utter trash :-P how did this shit get into the 100's?
I totally agree.
Can you say SAMBA? MS could take samba guys out they implmenet windows NT domain controllers cleanroom style, every open napster serer that works with the napster client is in danger all of that.. there are SOOO many products imlpemented like the EQ thing that these guys dont stand a chance in hell on any valid legal ground of trying and winning this case (Sony/Verant) not to say that they wont win.. but really there are soo many examples of this that this really is a weak example... I mean we have the client/server part already out here in use.. how can Sony claim its their IP other than the desing of the protocol which these guys can probably implement cleanroom anyway.
Jeremy
Oh come on, Modding up totally idiotic posts makes me laugh so they are really just 2:funny to me :-P
Jeremy
Having looked at /code it checks for repeated anythingcheck this out
Just knowing this persons reputation as aposter here (reading some of his previous posts) I could wrack this up to semi trollish maybe flamebait.
But you know why I wouldnt?
It is wrong to judge a person for his beliefs as whoever modded this as falmebait did.
That said if this is not a Troll people do truly believe things like that.. although we could ahve done without the final line
"It is our duty as decent Christians to do everything we can to help stop them."
That was rather trollish Jon...
Jeremy
Heh, REALLY? I thought it was just a simple matter of importing old .c files into a Text-MUD OLE Object in Visual Studio. After that it's just a simple matter of drag'n drop the Text-MUD Icon over the neat DirectX7 Icon and voila... Graphical MUD with sound and music! Ta-da!
Right thats what MS wants you to believe, then reality strikes... :)
I imagine you would need some tuned code to deal with several thousand players.
The main idea is the same.
Set the "game" into a main loop.
This loop at varioust ime intervals updates, players, mobs, areas and handles recylcing memory and such as well.
The loop cleans up your sockets, drops freaky connections etc. It is true you would want to GUT a lot of the internal systems for more realism but I bet a MUD is an excellent base with a little work
Jeremy
Yeah I realize that its not just a simple hack. :) you would have to design from the ground up.
:)
However the underlying concept of how to handle the game should be the same given that EQ is turn based.. server side at least.
Given that I have converted several muds to ad@d turn based systems for combat where spells had a casting time and you had to memorize them. I am not much of a graphics programmer (obviously it shows in the way I treat such systems) However I do know enough about the server side to write something of that nature
Jeremy
Definately just a mud, instead of sending back the text description of a room you send back instructions the client would process to render a room or render a scene or whatever.. it in fact... is not that hard. It requires some hacking but I thought it out of course nothing is as easy at it seems and its a good idea to only send minimal data such as maybe where you are in the world and the client has all the "look" of the room stored on his machine so that he is not sent complex rendering instructions over the network which I think would make it to snow. Best to do just like a mud actually, send in a command prompt with vital statistics just text even and EQ client can make it all pretty and graphical, so the server side is IMO much easier to do (in thery) than the client.
Jeremy
I wonder how many people secretly chortle at my signature I am heh.
Jeremy
What is known about the 'sucking' power of newly created black holes?
Perhaps a 'new' blackhole that just collapsed is still taking in matter quicker..
Jeremy