The tree dump you're complaining about is actually generated by an XSL stylesheet that's provided in an IE resource file, and used when the XML document doesn't specify a stylesheet
Thank you. (Hint to moderators: parent is Informative.) One question remains, though: which standard stylesheet should I use for XHTML documents? And why isn't it seeing the stylesheet I specify in <link rel="stylesheet" href="/de.css"/> ? (Yes, I do name stylesheets de.css.)
If you install w95 and then edit the msdos.sys file, you can add... and the machine will start up to a command prompt.
However, you'll have to attrib -h -s -r msdos.sys before you can edit msdos.sys. I'll note that the Windows 95 procedure that wildcard023 gave works only on machines with 386 or higher processors, as some parts of DOS have been upgraded to 32-bit. It also works in Windows 98 and 98SE but not in Windows ME. Microsoft didn't want to release an operating system that would be called "DOS ME" because it didn't want kiddies to take that as a request for a packet flood. (What's the difference again between the Slashdot effect and a distributed non-spoofed SYN flood?)
Also, in all Windows 9x operating systems (including ME), you can get DOS by making an emergency boot disk.
what's the difference between this kind of subscription and Microsoft's ?
If you don't pay Red Hat, you can still use the software you have, and you can get new software off rpmfind. If you don't pay Microsoft, on the other hand, you lose your right to use the software because under a rental agreement, you are not the owner of a copy, and in the United States, 17 USC 117 states that the owner of a copy can dictate terms of use.
Last time I checked, we were using something loosely defined as the World-Wide-Web , not the United-States-Web
What about people who use America Online? In fact, the parent company of Warner Home Video (the plaintiff in this case) has "America" in its name (AOL Time Warner Inc; AOL is an acronym for America Online).
As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court.
Unfortunately, it has. This very flawed decision set a precedent in some jurisdictions that 17 USC 117 applies only when the owner of a particular copy says it does. If you merely "possess" a copy of software, but somebody else owns the physical copy (in cases such as rental), some jurisdictions say that the owner of a copy of a work has the right not to license the rights under 17 USC 117 to the person merely in possession of the copy. And software publishers claim under some EULAs to transact a perpetual rental rather than a sale of a copy.
If the courts actually decide that it doesn't and that EULAs are binding (i.e. click-through/assumed agreements, obviously signed contracts for enterprise software ARE binding by contract law)
If you buy anything by credit card face-to-face, the EULA can be assumed to be binding, as you have signed the charge slip, and some crafty lawyer could probably twist that into having signed the EULA.
It's already been established that code is more or less equivalent to speech (no that's not a legal statement but a common sense translation), at least here in the US.
If it's not speech, then it'll have a real hard time qualifying as a Section 102 literary work under U.S. copyright law.
Nevertheless, the argument that a DVD *is* software is absurd - a DVD-Movie is data for a fixed playback algorithm.
Likewise, the argument that a computer program *is* software is absurd - a Windows-Executable is data for a fixed interpreter algorithm, encoded in the hardware of the AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium IV processors.
There is nothing in our law stating that it is illegal to play region one DVD's in region 4. The whole region encoding thing is nothing more than a matter of standards compliance.
Except the typical terms for the CSS licence amount to "If you don't comply with the standard, including the region coding and Macrovision® encoding, you lose your CSS keys on all future titles, and we have paid your Parliament millions of monetary units to get an equivalent to the American DMCA with a few SSSCA provisions thrown in with that, so the only way you can DeCSS discs is through this license, nyeh!"
If it did, then you wouldn't be able to buy region 1 or region free players in Harvey Norman would you?
The MPAA is probably already buying laws making it illegal to ship DVD-Video titles or players outside of their respective regions.
Yes it is code on some titles. These "Region Coding Enhanced" (RCE) discs contain valid content for all regions, but in all but the "correct" region the content is only "Wrong region" (confusing region-free players), and in the "correct" region there's a menu program that reads the player's make and model, and if it's a model known to be region-switchable or too easy to to modify to get rid of Macrovision or region lockout), the disc won't play.
Simple. If they'r formatted as DVD-Video, they're movies with a twist. If they're formatted as DVD-ROMS, they're software that happens to contain motion pictures.
DVDs aren't like CDs. AFAIK, both DVD-ROM discs and DVD-Video discs are formatted in UDF; DVD-Video is simply a standard for the names, formats, and encryption of some files (*.vob and *.ifo). It's perfectly possible to have a folder on a DVD-Video disc containing DVD-ROM data designed for a computer.
Of all the trivializing titles in the world, I think "content producer" is rather near the top.
You can't expect jargon to mean the same as the colloquial word. In the entertainment industry, "content" is simply jargon for "copyrighted works," and "producer" is the manager of a project who is responsible for hiring and firing.
But it prohibits selling copies of the compiler's output. Thus, if you make a CD of your software, you probably can't even sell it for $5 to cover duplication costs. Plus, such a restrictions is incompatible with the "no restrictions on selling" language in the GNU GPL.
Although aren't most Linux distros only compiled for the i386 anyway, ignoring what i686 optimizations exist in GCC?
AFAIK, the Linux distributions are compiled with something like -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 which means roughly "Use only those instructions available in i486 and up, but schedule for i686." (Source: GCC 2.95.3 docs, info gcc invoking submodel i386)
According to your link: "This compiler includes no support and cannot be used to produce products for resale or commercial use." This means that freelance consultants can't use it. Also, it cannot be used to compile binaries with the GNU General Public License, as the GPL prohibits such a restriction on resale of software licensed thereunder.
I believe this misunderstanding comes from the fact that they called their different benchmarks "kernels" for some reason.
Benchmarks are often called "kernels" because they consist of core inner loops representative of applications. Yes, this is confusing with the term "kernel" used to describe the core of a particular operating system (namely, the Linux® kernel), but the term persists. You can't compile Linux with the gratis version of Intel's compiler because of the restrictions on resale of its output.
So if a closed source compiler can provide a significant improvement in performance, I'm not going to rule it out because it's name isn't GNU.
Few hobbyists and freelance developers have $500 to spend on a compiler. I'll use a proprietary compiler if I have to, but it at least has to be freely redistributable.
So? $500 is almost the same thing as $0 for any company.
But $500 times 500,000 isn't. This is why GCC and not Intel CC comes with Linux distributions, because GCC is at least free to redistribute. Besides, not all developers work for a large firm.
[Watcom C++ has been released as open-source software] Some while ago, in fact (August 2000), based on the final commercial version, 11.0b. Take a look at http://openwatcom.org
I did, and they still don't have a release up. It's not open source until it has been licensed to at least one third party under an open-source license.
They're being slow and careful
Some would say "too slow." At this rate, x86 will be dead and we'll all be using Hammer and Itanium processors by the time Open Watcom comes out.
> GCC is the only compiler you can count on being present on every Linux (or BSD) system.
Is that a good thing? [IE example]
No. However, is there a compiler released as free software (or heck even only freely redistributable) that outperforms GCC? It's not like IE, where there exist multiple free web browsers (Mozilla and Konqueror).
Most of that code isn't written with GCC, it's written with VC++, C++ Builder, CodeWarrior, etc. If you're going to do this, standards compliance and ease of portability are very important.
This is not a compiler issue as much a library issue. Most free apps written in C are written in either ANSI C89 or something that approximates C99 (that is, GNU C). A Mac Cocoa application ported to BSD links against GNUStep; a Windows app links against winelib.
If... the Linux community religiously stick with it based on philosophical arguments rather than technical merit, surely they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot?
What about economic arguments? Most hobbyists do not have $500 to spend on an Intel compiler license, and distribution vendors surely can't charge that per copy. Nothing will get bundled with the standard free operating system distributions that is not at least free to redistribute and to use for any purpose.
what really makes the Intel compiler so very interesting is the fact that it delivers the same instruction sequences on both Linux and Windows platforms.
Um... duh! GCC for Windows/x86 and GCC for Linux/x86 also produce the same instructions. This shows that the Open Magazine writers have no ability to use Google, as a simple search for Windows GCC turns up MinGW as the second result. (The first result is Cygwin, which by default uses a more heavyweight C library.)
Slashdot Mirror
it is NOT ILLEGAL TO TAKE THE TAG OFF YOUR MATTRESS. I forget the exact wording, but it's to prevent the tag from being taken off prior to purchase
True. However, if you take the tag off, you may not be able to resell it.
The tree dump you're complaining about is actually generated by an XSL stylesheet that's provided in an IE resource file, and used when the XML document doesn't specify a stylesheet
Thank you. (Hint to moderators: parent is Informative.) One question remains, though: which standard stylesheet should I use for XHTML documents? And why isn't it seeing the stylesheet I specify in <link rel="stylesheet" href="/de.css" /> ? (Yes, I do name stylesheets de.css.)
If you install w95 and then edit the msdos.sys file, you can add ... and the machine will start up to a command prompt.
However, you'll have to attrib -h -s -r msdos.sys before you can edit msdos.sys. I'll note that the Windows 95 procedure that wildcard023 gave works only on machines with 386 or higher processors, as some parts of DOS have been upgraded to 32-bit. It also works in Windows 98 and 98SE but not in Windows ME. Microsoft didn't want to release an operating system that would be called "DOS ME" because it didn't want kiddies to take that as a request for a packet flood. (What's the difference again between the Slashdot effect and a distributed non-spoofed SYN flood?)
Also, in all Windows 9x operating systems (including ME), you can get DOS by making an emergency boot disk.
after a few years this project would gather up enough popularity to get slashdotted
Then what do you call this story?
and after enough time perhaps even be the frist page hit via a "project dolphin" google search
Too bad "Project Dolphin" is already taken. It refers to the project that produced the GameCube video game console.
what's the difference between this kind of subscription and Microsoft's ?
If you don't pay Red Hat, you can still use the software you have, and you can get new software off rpmfind. If you don't pay Microsoft, on the other hand, you lose your right to use the software because under a rental agreement, you are not the owner of a copy, and in the United States, 17 USC 117 states that the owner of a copy can dictate terms of use.
Don't forget that the GPL only requires that you distribute source with the binaries. It does not require that you distribute the compiler you used
What about Linux distribution publishers? Are they supposed to compile their RPMs with ICC but distribute GCC?
Am I the only one that cannot metamoderate?
Have you unchecked 'Willing to Moderate'? It also seems to affect M2.
The only area where 8 and 16 bit chips are of any importance is in embedded systems with low performance requirements.
And a surprising number of those 16-bit embedded systems are based on the x86/DOS platform. The FreeDOS project is still relevant.
Last time I checked, we were using something loosely defined as the World-Wide-Web , not the United-States-Web
What about people who use America Online? In fact, the parent company of Warner Home Video (the plaintiff in this case) has "America" in its name (AOL Time Warner Inc; AOL is an acronym for America Online).
As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court.
Unfortunately, it has. This very flawed decision set a precedent in some jurisdictions that 17 USC 117 applies only when the owner of a particular copy says it does. If you merely "possess" a copy of software, but somebody else owns the physical copy (in cases such as rental), some jurisdictions say that the owner of a copy of a work has the right not to license the rights under 17 USC 117 to the person merely in possession of the copy. And software publishers claim under some EULAs to transact a perpetual rental rather than a sale of a copy.
If the courts actually decide that it doesn't and that EULAs are binding (i.e. click-through/assumed agreements, obviously signed contracts for enterprise software ARE binding by contract law)
If you buy anything by credit card face-to-face, the EULA can be assumed to be binding, as you have signed the charge slip, and some crafty lawyer could probably twist that into having signed the EULA.
It's already been established that code is more or less equivalent to speech (no that's not a legal statement but a common sense translation), at least here in the US.
If it's not speech, then it'll have a real hard time qualifying as a Section 102 literary work under U.S. copyright law.
Nevertheless, the argument that a DVD *is* software is absurd - a DVD-Movie is data for a fixed playback algorithm.
Likewise, the argument that a computer program *is* software is absurd - a Windows-Executable is data for a fixed interpreter algorithm, encoded in the hardware of the AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium IV processors.
There is nothing in our law stating that it is illegal to play region one DVD's in region 4. The whole region encoding thing is nothing more than a matter of standards compliance.
Except the typical terms for the CSS licence amount to "If you don't comply with the standard, including the region coding and Macrovision® encoding, you lose your CSS keys on all future titles, and we have paid your Parliament millions of monetary units to get an equivalent to the American DMCA with a few SSSCA provisions thrown in with that, so the only way you can DeCSS discs is through this license, nyeh!"
If it did, then you wouldn't be able to buy region 1 or region free players in Harvey Norman would you?
The MPAA is probably already buying laws making it illegal to ship DVD-Video titles or players outside of their respective regions.
>region coding is _not_ "nasty malicious code."
No, but it certianly is nasty and malicious.
Yes it is code on some titles. These "Region Coding Enhanced" (RCE) discs contain valid content for all regions, but in all but the "correct" region the content is only "Wrong region" (confusing region-free players), and in the "correct" region there's a menu program that reads the player's make and model, and if it's a model known to be region-switchable or too easy to to modify to get rid of Macrovision or region lockout), the disc won't play.
We can checkout various software titles at our public library here in my town.
Copyright law makes copious exceptions for non-profit libraries and archives. Blockbuster Video is not a non-profit.
Simple. If they'r formatted as DVD-Video, they're movies with a twist. If they're formatted as DVD-ROMS, they're software that happens to contain motion pictures.
DVDs aren't like CDs. AFAIK, both DVD-ROM discs and DVD-Video discs are formatted in UDF; DVD-Video is simply a standard for the names, formats, and encryption of some files (*.vob and *.ifo). It's perfectly possible to have a folder on a DVD-Video disc containing DVD-ROM data designed for a computer.
Of all the trivializing titles in the world, I think "content producer" is rather near the top.
You can't expect jargon to mean the same as the colloquial word. In the entertainment industry, "content" is simply jargon for "copyrighted works," and "producer" is the manager of a project who is responsible for hiring and firing.
The hobbyist licence is free.
But it prohibits selling copies of the compiler's output. Thus, if you make a CD of your software, you probably can't even sell it for $5 to cover duplication costs. Plus, such a restrictions is incompatible with the "no restrictions on selling" language in the GNU GPL.
Although aren't most Linux distros only compiled for the i386 anyway, ignoring what i686 optimizations exist in GCC?
AFAIK, the Linux distributions are compiled with something like -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 which means roughly "Use only those instructions available in i486 and up, but schedule for i686." (Source: GCC 2.95.3 docs, info gcc invoking submodel i386)
Well, that is a philosophical question weather the compiler should compensate for a programmers lack of talent or not.
In that case, why even have compilers? Why not require all programmers to be talented enough to write assembly language directly?
It's free as in beer for uncommercial uses
According to your link: "This compiler includes no support and cannot be used to produce products for resale or commercial use." This means that freelance consultants can't use it. Also, it cannot be used to compile binaries with the GNU General Public License, as the GPL prohibits such a restriction on resale of software licensed thereunder.
I believe this misunderstanding comes from the fact that they called their different benchmarks "kernels" for some reason.
Benchmarks are often called "kernels" because they consist of core inner loops representative of applications. Yes, this is confusing with the term "kernel" used to describe the core of a particular operating system (namely, the Linux® kernel), but the term persists. You can't compile Linux with the gratis version of Intel's compiler because of the restrictions on resale of its output.
So if a closed source compiler can provide a significant improvement in performance, I'm not going to rule it out because it's name isn't GNU.
Few hobbyists and freelance developers have $500 to spend on a compiler. I'll use a proprietary compiler if I have to, but it at least has to be freely redistributable.
So? $500 is almost the same thing as $0 for any company.
But $500 times 500,000 isn't. This is why GCC and not Intel CC comes with Linux distributions, because GCC is at least free to redistribute. Besides, not all developers work for a large firm.
[Watcom C++ has been released as open-source software] Some while ago, in fact (August 2000), based on the final commercial version, 11.0b. Take a look at http://openwatcom.org
I did, and they still don't have a release up. It's not open source until it has been licensed to at least one third party under an open-source license.
They're being slow and careful
Some would say "too slow." At this rate, x86 will be dead and we'll all be using Hammer and Itanium processors by the time Open Watcom comes out.
> GCC is the only compiler you can count on being present on every Linux (or BSD) system.
Is that a good thing? [IE example]
No. However, is there a compiler released as free software (or heck even only freely redistributable) that outperforms GCC? It's not like IE, where there exist multiple free web browsers (Mozilla and Konqueror).
Most of that code isn't written with GCC, it's written with VC++, C++ Builder, CodeWarrior, etc. If you're going to do this, standards compliance and ease of portability are very important.
This is not a compiler issue as much a library issue. Most free apps written in C are written in either ANSI C89 or something that approximates C99 (that is, GNU C). A Mac Cocoa application ported to BSD links against GNUStep; a Windows app links against winelib.
If ... the Linux community religiously stick with it based on philosophical arguments rather than technical merit, surely they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot?
What about economic arguments? Most hobbyists do not have $500 to spend on an Intel compiler license, and distribution vendors surely can't charge that per copy. Nothing will get bundled with the standard free operating system distributions that is not at least free to redistribute and to use for any purpose.
Fortunantly, GCC just about compiles on everything with a CPU
"Unfortunantly," last time I checked, GCC doesn't generate code for 8086 or 80286 processors, only i386 and up, so you can't build an OS that's backwards-compatible with legacy 16-bit apps with GCC.
From the article:
what really makes the Intel compiler so very interesting is the fact that it delivers the same instruction sequences on both Linux and Windows platforms.
Um... duh! GCC for Windows/x86 and GCC for Linux/x86 also produce the same instructions. This shows that the Open Magazine writers have no ability to use Google, as a simple search for Windows GCC turns up MinGW as the second result. (The first result is Cygwin, which by default uses a more heavyweight C library.)