So because of the competition, Linus decides not to make a competing product... That's marketing.
Ext3fs, Tux2fs are still waiting for merge. 2.4.1 was nothing more than 2.4.0 with Reiserfs merged in. You can't merge too much at the same time, that's the policy that makes you deserve the keyword "stable".
I don't know how all the kernel folks manage to exchange parts of these different trees each time and keep an overview of what they're doing, but I guess that's they way things go at the kernel. Until stuff can merge it has to wait in a custom kernel source tree. 2.4 is still very young so there must be a lot of stuff in wait. Linus said he would for now not make much big changes in order to maintain stability. People said the inclusion of Reiserfs in 2.4.1 was a miracle because of that.
So I guess the real reason is that the PowerPC folks are just bad at sweet-talking Linus. They don't have to feel ashamed about that: as far as I can tell, it's a real skill an sich.
Suddenly I can imagine Sun as an Open Source company.
It's already starting to prefer humor to PR. Admitted, this was just PR with a layer of humor on top, but it's a lot better than that cheap WW II-propaganda that we got so used to take from Microsoft. Once Sun couldn't care less than Linus what other companies claim about their products, I think Sun can really be trusted:-)
In yesterday's paper there was an article about terrorists (from a large organization that I can't recall) using the combination of the Internet and open source privacy programs to distribute their plans around the world. The idea was that they posted on silly-subject and porn newsgroups and hid data like maps etc. in "normal" images.
So I guess this is proof. Open Source makes better software for everyone.;-)
I guess that's one of the really cool things about the Crusoe; it adapts the speed of the processor to the load it has to manage. Recently people discovered that Crusoe is actually quite useful on server systems.
Coming from an Amiga history, I still think it's a crime that normal home computers require a fan, anyway;-), so that should also be dealt with sooner or later. Having a constant 1% CPU usage (deh except with Mozilla of course;-), I think I don't really need that fan most of the time, if only the design of my computer was a little more thought over.
...does this new code integration mean that Debian will have to move KDE into non-free again? I never see the licence issues with this discussed (this stuff was announced before). ViaVioce is not Free Software. So, how do they plan to solve this?
It's... It's...
How 'bout creating AND bitching?
on
Freshmeat II
·
· Score: 2
Well, I would like this OSDN thing a lot better if it wouldn't trash up every site ('xcept/.?) it acquired. I liked the previous version of themes.org a whole lotta better. And now? "Adjust your monitor"-colors, a little grey OSDN bar at the top followed by a LARGE grey OSDN bar with silly baner-shaped banners (I *liked* the VA Linux community ads they had before - nice shape, not so much in the way, often even a very nice design). gtk.themes.org has become the worst, but they're ALL so DULL! Before this, every t.o website would be in the spirit of a theme itself, from head to toes. Some of them were simply adorable. Now where did that go?
And hey, that grey OSDN bar always makes me feel like some silly viewer plugin has been loaded...
And now Freshmeat. For years a very clean portal, a website where you would go if you wanted to sort out a few programs WITHOUT having to load all the accompanying trash as you would with e.g. linuxberg. Well, I can only say that I am glad they left the biggest part of that spirit intact (you really thought I was gonna brag about this, weren't ya?;-). But well, I must say that I like the stuff they didn't change best, and that I do lament some interface stuff that they threw away... Yet I guess I'll get used to this stuff really soon. (It's just the stupid OSDN bar again! %)
So I guess this bitching makes me impotent at creating. But I don't feel that is really correct. OK, so I didn't do FM's new design, nor am I doing such stuff for daily work, granted, but being creative is a big part of my life.
(OTOH I perfectly understand the motivation for CmdrTaco to say what he said, and I also understand that it's almost impossible to say something in a Slashdot headline without getting critisized about it, but hey, he did almost take away my possibility to long back to the times before OSDN borgified every cool website around:-)
OK, so I recently discovered PHP too, and I think it's a lot better than plain Perl CGI.
But you should see CGI as a low-level protocol (the Common Gateway Interface) for transferring data, not as "a webscripting environment for Perl".
And you should (definitely) see PHP as a high-level language using the CGI protocol internally (to transfer form data, mostly).
I guess it's valid to compare the difference between PHP and plain CGI to the difference between Bonobo and plain CORBA (for as far as I know Bonobo, this seems quite a useful comparision).
Pfff... If this was a Dutch legal article, it would be rejected because of formal errors. None of the links in it work (all share the same mistake), and some of them are idiotic, like this one:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt?number=1321
OK, I know, it's no big deal, Especially not if you compared this to the "cease and decist" letters that started this whole lawsuit. They were sent, over e-mail, in Microsoft Word format.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd return such documents immediately, claiming that they are unreadable because they are formatted in a secret format that is the intellectual property of a company called Microsoft, and it would be illegal to try and find out what the letter says without the help of Microsoft Office which I wouldn't want to buy solely because I need to read a letter containing offensive bureaucratic language.
Yeah, in Holland, we'd have won this case at forehand;-)
You are in fact right that all this fuzz is about a silly, practically unreadable piece of pseudocode.
That makes a strong case for treating this as Free Speach (instead of treating this as a real Circumvention Device).
And secondly, it makes me wonder exactly how far the DMCA goes. I mean, the crypto community claims that the CSS system contains a lot of weaknesses for a crypto system. But the DMCA says it is a copy protection system and thus it may not be circumvented.
What if there was no real copy protection system at all? Would it be illegal to go out on the street say (or rather, post on your website) "hey, folks, you can just copy a DVD, takes no pain". Would that be considered harming a trade secret?
I'm sure judges would laugh their head off when the MPAA tries to sue someone for saying just that. But it's not substantially different. What I'm trying to say is that this DMCA stuff is bound to move the line that divides simple everyday knowledge and computer crime.
One of the results might be that hardcoded passwords and other idiotic "security measures" will be introduced into everyday systems because the companies developing it know that they can silence everyone that discovers their stupid code. That would mean to me that the world gets what it deservers, so I don't really fear this situation -- it would be heaven for those amongst us being a little bit less than avarage skilled in computers, right? So in fact it means, power to us -- and we never abuse our powers, do we?:-)
But another result might be the trendy fear of "power to the industries". Which means they decide whether you can see your favourite movies or you have to watch those stupid commercials again. This isn't cool, but hey, it can get worse:
The worst result of all is, however, control of your knowledge. You will not be allowed to discover things that are meant to be "secret". One day they'll declare it to be a "secret" that you can also run Linux on Apple's latest hardware platform. They might even get so far that you'd have to pay $1 for an on-line service to change your desktop background in Windows, and that you'd have to pay Disney $1 extra if you used an image of Winnie the Pooh (whereas the original author of WtP doesn't get a nickel because they can't buy the law as Disney can), and you'd go into jail if you discovered how to put your own image there for free.
You may think I'm being ridiculous here, but again, it is not substantially different from the DVD case.
And slowly but gently we'd become a race of apathic zombies that gladly stick our heads in our asses if the brothers Warner ask us to do so.
No. Knowledge should always be freely spreadable. If you can do something yourself (playing DVD's, movies, music) and don't really need any external services for that (a "licenced DVDplayer", a bioscope, CD's), then you should never be forced to rely on the external services in any way. "We know what's good for you" has never been any good to me. Let the users decide. That's what they call "free market" and "democracy".
This is the first time I see such an obvious troll making it to a Slashdot topic... usually only the comments are so low...
But never mind, I assume you wrote this out of ignorance and innocence, and not bad will... so here's the answer:
BSD licenses allow you to do with the code whatever you want. Read the license. That's what it says.
If you start doing ANYTHING with GPL licenses like you just described, it will NOT be appreciated. Fear for your life if you do so. Run.
It seems to me to be quite reasonable to include code from open source projects in closed source projects ...
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly
Why?
All I can observe is:
You make a game and call it your own, while you use code from other people in it. If this code is GPLed, it is given to you with a statement like "do with it what you want, but please don't be so unthankful to keep your changes to yourself". And here you are trying to construct a way around that promise --> that's silly!
It doesn't seem anything like reasonable to me to use the code of an open source project in a closes source one unless it is really how the creators of the OSS meant it to be. People develop this stuff with idealistic reasons in mind, not opportunistic reasons.
That being said, you are lucky that OpenSSL and OpenSSH are both BSD licensed programs (IIRC) and thus you can do with it whatever you want. But I am really concerned about your attitude towards Open Source. Why the heck is it "silly" to make your own program open? Why on earth did you choose it to be closed anyway?
I know I sound like a hippie father trying to understand why his son joined the army, but please do consider this. Open Source has got tons of benefits (see here for more info) PLUS idealistic advantages (see here for more info). Why go closed? Your program would hardly have any impact to the Linux community in closed source form, nor would people contribute to your work, etc.
How long before this is in GNOME as well? Methinks personally that it will be there sooner or later. The "competition" between the desktop environments has until now shown that a Very Good Idea is soon to be adopted by all the players. (So s/"competition"/innovation/ here!)
How exactly can OpenGL do stuff like this? I know that OpenGL is now added to Xfree 4 hardware-accelerated whenever possible, and otherwise software-wise, so I understand people will start to use the OpenGL API just because they know it is always as fast as possible. But I thought OpenGL was about 3D? (OpenGL is still a bare terrain for me.)
So why are normal X extentions not hardware accellerated? That's what X is supposed to do: work with your video card, right? I mean, why can't this be done through Xrender or whatever deals with antialias etc.?
I tought myself most stuff. The teachers I had on my previous school didn't really teach me all that much interesting, really (gym -- yuck). The teachers I have now are supposed to teach me informatica, but well...
So I learnt most stuff myself. That doesn't mean I didn't have teachers, because I read an awful lot of documentation and stuff to get there. So more or less, I am the one to decide what I want to know and to keep myself involved, and, well, just anybody out there is my teacher. From that perspective, viva open source!;-)
Well, I'd like to have them named Crap Code, Inc. It will probably never cause trademark problems.
And no no no no no this is not because I think they suck, I use Helix Code all the time. It's just that I could see the humor of a "guaranteed trademark-free" name like Crap Code, Inc. and I think the name of Ximian is even more of an insult to the Good Stuff they write.
So H.C.: I'll give you 3 months time to pick up the name, with no response I might just start using it myself;-)
OK, so this is the Stupid Question of the week, but maybe I am not the only one wondering.
Are these 0.x releases:
a) a continutation of the Mxx releases (Milestones) with a new name (to show that they are approaching 1.0); or
b) a forked development started by Netscape 6 with the Milestones development abandoned (say, a branched development like GCC->EGCS->GCC but then more planned); or
c) a forked development started by Netscape 6 that stands independent of the Milestone builds (something like GCC->EGCS before these two developments met again)?
You're calling the Linux *kernel* GNU/ Linux? That's plain filthy, you RMS! There's no GNU code in that thing (yes, it's GPLed, but no part of the GNU project)! And GNU/ Linus? What's that supposed to mean? Were his parents hippies?
Instead, we might rather talk about Linux/ HURD when referring to the HURD by now...
I don'I don't know much about Tux2, but it seems to me that everything Tux2 offers is already being shown by ReiserFS.
Ow, c'mon. At least you forgot the coolness factor. Tux2 is a "whole new technology", it has to face a patent to a similar system that is probably invalid or at least not applicable to Tux2 (because Tux2's predecessors itself form the prior art), it doesn't have to journal so it comes per definition with less overhead, and it introduces all kind of fluffy terms. Plus it didn't take all kinds of flames to get into the darned kernel (sorry Hans, I know emotions can run high on mailinlists sometimes).
I mean, comparing Tux2 to ReiserFS is like comparing Linux to BSD. They may both validly work in practice, but Linux seems to be the more sexy and to have the buzzword factor.
Despite of the few rough edges that remain left, I think that this is Good News. Why? Because before this, I thought Apple didn't give a damn about open source, except that it serves them well. Now they are showing that they are listening to the comments of the public.
Remember, true open source is about an open mind, not just about an open license.
The rough edges that remain left are license compatibilities, I guess. Despite of what most people claim here, RMS is right by seeing GPL incompatibility as an issue. Because the more compatible the Open Source licenses are, the better we can share code. And the BSD guys can claim what they want here - and be right -, but the GPL family of licenses do serve a good case and serve it well.
Agreed, it is hard for a license to be GPL compatible because of the restrictions set up in it. But that wouldn't be a problem if it was agreed upon to be the Golden Standard fo copyleft licenses (blerk;-). Then, if you develop a program, you can just pick a license out of {BSD, LGPL, GPL}, whichever serves your needs, and as long as you keep in mind that BSD < LGPL < GPL in terms of restriction.
Geekers, that would be an easy world to live in...
So in fact, I am unsure about the new APSL's compatibilities, and I hope that it can be clarified sooner or later. But for now:
I guess they only figured out that Linux was cool after they tried to forbid Free DVD software...? They _are_ part of the MPAA. Too bad the target audience won't be able to view this movie once it's kicked out of the bioses.
Dehh.
Interesting thought. I was just thinking whether we should be more secure if we used public keys as 'net addresses, so that the address and the authentication are coupled together (I know, I know, this is puuure fiction). Sending data to one address then ensures no-one is tapping that line.
In your scheme, the following might occur:
- client: hey router, pass this package on to the server, will ya?
- evil router: OK (looks inside the package, finds a key request. Starts producing a fake key) Hey client, I just got this package from server. Any idea what's in it? Open it, quick!
- client: none of your biz! (turns side to router and opens package) Aah, finally, the keys from server! (encodes a package o'data) Hey router, pass this package on to the server, will'ya?
- evil router: Well, OK.
This would for instance mean that your ISP can still check out on you if you use SSH and if they desperately want to do so (government!).
OK, 8-bit processor instructions are 8-bit, and 32-bit instructions are 32-bit. Moreover, memory pointers on 8-bit systems are normally 16-bit (relative and zero-page pointers are 8-bit), and on 32-bit systems they are, well, 32-bit (rel. and 0-page 16-bit). With 1-byte alignment, data structures are as big on 8-bit systems as they are on 32-bit systems.
So the VM might indeed be shrunk a lot, say it may become a little more than 1/4 of its original size if you put it on an 8-bit system. This would be a nice rate for any "embedded" program.
Alas, the VM is not the program. It simply is the VM. The program is written in "run once, compile everywhere" code[*], so this code has the same size no matter where you put it.
And I recall the class libraries are something like 20 Mb of code. And while an embedded program might just not require, for instance, Swing, it is part of standard Java AFAIK. What I am trying to say is that programs expect the standard class library to be there, so it'll cost you 20 Mb of space anyway. To set up 20 Mb of space on an 8-bit machine, you would cross some 64k boundaries;-)
One solution might be to get rid of the class libraries, and write the code yourself, or "statically link" the code. This makes your program bigger...
You might argue that e.g. a wrist watch wouldn't need class libraries (e.g. Swing;-) for its simple tasks. Then again, this makes me wonder why a wrist watch needs Java; it doesn't really benefit from "run once, compile everywhere" code[*], the only thing that really matters to such a watch is how it communicates with the outside world. Well, maybe system updates... I don't know. I just don't yet see the use of my fridge talking in a 4gl. He can just use compiled-to-machinecode programs as far as I'm concerned. Then, if it's an 8-bit processor, the program itself will be about 1/4th of a 32-bit program, and the VM will be 0 bytes.
While I'm talking about this, does anyone know how many bits a single Java instruction is?
[*] OK, I wanted to write "compile once, run anywhere", but this appeared instead. Given that much Java VM's are Jitter-based (compile to machinecode on the fly), I actually think that this typo isn't that goofy;-)
Very much of the Free codebase seems to be coming into a "final rethink" state, after having left a "better attempt" state -- and before that was, of course, the "initial (serious) attempt" state. It is like the good old saying that software is expected to become useful at its 3.0 release.
Now, because Free software often uses release versions in the sense of., and because most of these projects begin with 0 instead of 1 (which is often nothing but a honest thing to do), I happen to believe that, even though the version numbers are still smaller, lots of code reaches a "symbolic 3.0 release". Still with me? OK!:-)
A few examples:
Linux kernel: the Linux kernel has a history of major rewrites, but still a smaller history of API changes. One might argue that it had its "initial (serious" attempt" around 2.0, a first rethink around 2.2, and now yet another major rethink for 2.4, with Linus saying that they have now learned enough from the past to make the kernel structure workable, so it should be considered a "final rethink".
GNOME: 1.0/ 1.2 "initial (serious) attempt", 1.4 "better attempt" and 2.0 "final rethink" (yes, I _do_ realize that 1.4 as well as 2.0 are future music for now, but there's good thoughts being done about this already.
GTK+ follows about the same course, only it is a little bit further (has already got 2.0 alpha code). There is a good API rethink being done in 2.0.
And now the GIMP. I applaud all this work, because I realize how much courage it takes to make these radical steps, and how _good_ it is that this work is being done. A lot of open source projects have a tendency to become lazy bloatware by a lack of strong leadership (and competition...). Take for example the comments concerning XFree86 that are on the rise again. (Note: this is not to even _suggest_ that the XFree86 team doesn't do a good job. I believe it could have been done better, but that it requires very special leadership skills to take the right decisions in such matters.)
So, I wish you a lot of luck with the re-thinking!
(P.S.: I heard rumours about GIMP 2.0 to have a cross-platform GUI library thingy. After reading this I don't believe much about it at all anymore. Anyway, I think it would be an odd move for the GIMP to move away from the GIMP toolkit!;-) So if there is anything of truth in this story, my comment is that it seems a useless and confusing move, don't do it...:-)
In what ways could WINE benefit from some kind of integration with Plex86? For instance, to run DOS/ Windows hybrid programs quicker/ better, or to make some kind of a cross-over between hardware and software emulation (with the help of a native Windows partition).
[And only if no-one else yet asked: when can we expect a "stable" release? }:-) Don't worry, I won't pin you on any estimated release date;-)]
Slashdot Mirror
So because of the competition, Linus decides not to make a competing product... That's marketing.
Ext3fs, Tux2fs are still waiting for merge. 2.4.1 was nothing more than 2.4.0 with Reiserfs merged in. You can't merge too much at the same time, that's the policy that makes you deserve the keyword "stable".
I don't know how all the kernel folks manage to exchange parts of these different trees each time and keep an overview of what they're doing, but I guess that's they way things go at the kernel. Until stuff can merge it has to wait in a custom kernel source tree. 2.4 is still very young so there must be a lot of stuff in wait. Linus said he would for now not make much big changes in order to maintain stability. People said the inclusion of Reiserfs in 2.4.1 was a miracle because of that.
So I guess the real reason is that the PowerPC folks are just bad at sweet-talking Linus. They don't have to feel ashamed about that: as far as I can tell, it's a real skill an sich.
It's... It's...
Sucker ;-) I could only afford half-dead 1200's
It's... It's...
Heh. There's a /. article about it about 5 articles back... Plus it's on HNN etc.
It's... It's...
Suddenly I can imagine Sun as an Open Source company.
:-)
It's already starting to prefer humor to PR. Admitted, this was just PR with a layer of humor on top, but it's a lot better than that cheap WW II-propaganda that we got so used to take from Microsoft. Once Sun couldn't care less than Linus what other companies claim about their products, I think Sun can really be trusted
It's... It's...
In yesterday's paper there was an article about terrorists (from a large organization that I can't recall) using the combination of the Internet and open source privacy programs to distribute their plans around the world. The idea was that they posted on silly-subject and porn newsgroups and hid data like maps etc. in "normal" images. So I guess this is proof. Open Source makes better software for everyone. ;-)
It's... It's...
I guess that's one of the really cool things about the Crusoe; it adapts the speed of the processor to the load it has to manage. Recently people discovered that Crusoe is actually quite useful on server systems.
;-), so that should also be dealt with sooner or later. Having a constant 1% CPU usage (deh except with Mozilla of course ;-), I think I don't really need that fan most of the time, if only the design of my computer was a little more thought over.
Coming from an Amiga history, I still think it's a crime that normal home computers require a fan, anyway
It's... It's...
...does this new code integration mean that Debian will have to move KDE into non-free again? I never see the licence issues with this discussed (this stuff was announced before). ViaVioce is not Free Software. So, how do they plan to solve this?
It's... It's...
Well, I would like this OSDN thing a lot better if it wouldn't trash up every site ('xcept /.?) it acquired. I liked the previous version of themes.org a whole lotta better. And now? "Adjust your monitor"-colors, a little grey OSDN bar at the top followed by a LARGE grey OSDN bar with silly baner-shaped banners (I *liked* the VA Linux community ads they had before - nice shape, not so much in the way, often even a very nice design). gtk.themes.org has become the worst, but they're ALL so DULL! Before this, every t.o website would be in the spirit of a theme itself, from head to toes. Some of them were simply adorable. Now where did that go?
;-). But well, I must say that I like the stuff they didn't change best, and that I do lament some interface stuff that they threw away... Yet I guess I'll get used to this stuff really soon. (It's just the stupid OSDN bar again! %)
:-)
And hey, that grey OSDN bar always makes me feel like some silly viewer plugin has been loaded...
And now Freshmeat. For years a very clean portal, a website where you would go if you wanted to sort out a few programs WITHOUT having to load all the accompanying trash as you would with e.g. linuxberg. Well, I can only say that I am glad they left the biggest part of that spirit intact (you really thought I was gonna brag about this, weren't ya?
So I guess this bitching makes me impotent at creating. But I don't feel that is really correct. OK, so I didn't do FM's new design, nor am I doing such stuff for daily work, granted, but being creative is a big part of my life.
(OTOH I perfectly understand the motivation for CmdrTaco to say what he said, and I also understand that it's almost impossible to say something in a Slashdot headline without getting critisized about it, but hey, he did almost take away my possibility to long back to the times before OSDN borgified every cool website around
It's... It's...
OK, so I recently discovered PHP too, and I think it's a lot better than plain Perl CGI.
But you should see CGI as a low-level protocol (the Common Gateway Interface) for transferring data, not as "a webscripting environment for Perl".
And you should (definitely) see PHP as a high-level language using the CGI protocol internally (to transfer form data, mostly).
I guess it's valid to compare the difference between PHP and plain CGI to the difference between Bonobo and plain CORBA (for as far as I know Bonobo, this seems quite a useful comparision).
It's... It's...
Pfff... If this was a Dutch legal article, it would be rejected because of formal errors. None of the links in it work (all share the same mistake), and some of them are idiotic, like this one:
;-)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt?number=1321
OK, I know, it's no big deal, Especially not if you compared this to the "cease and decist" letters that started this whole lawsuit. They were sent, over e-mail, in Microsoft Word format.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd return such documents immediately, claiming that they are unreadable because they are formatted in a secret format that is the intellectual property of a company called Microsoft, and it would be illegal to try and find out what the letter says without the help of Microsoft Office which I wouldn't want to buy solely because I need to read a letter containing offensive bureaucratic language.
Yeah, in Holland, we'd have won this case at forehand
It's... It's...
You are in fact right that all this fuzz is about a silly, practically unreadable piece of pseudocode.
:-)
That makes a strong case for treating this as Free Speach (instead of treating this as a real Circumvention Device).
And secondly, it makes me wonder exactly how far the DMCA goes. I mean, the crypto community claims that the CSS system contains a lot of weaknesses for a crypto system. But the DMCA says it is a copy protection system and thus it may not be circumvented.
What if there was no real copy protection system at all? Would it be illegal to go out on the street say (or rather, post on your website) "hey, folks, you can just copy a DVD, takes no pain". Would that be considered harming a trade secret?
I'm sure judges would laugh their head off when the MPAA tries to sue someone for saying just that. But it's not substantially different. What I'm trying to say is that this DMCA stuff is bound to move the line that divides simple everyday knowledge and computer crime.
One of the results might be that hardcoded passwords and other idiotic "security measures" will be introduced into everyday systems because the companies developing it know that they can silence everyone that discovers their stupid code. That would mean to me that the world gets what it deservers, so I don't really fear this situation -- it would be heaven for those amongst us being a little bit less than avarage skilled in computers, right? So in fact it means, power to us -- and we never abuse our powers, do we?
But another result might be the trendy fear of "power to the industries". Which means they decide whether you can see your favourite movies or you have to watch those stupid commercials again. This isn't cool, but hey, it can get worse:
The worst result of all is, however, control of your knowledge. You will not be allowed to discover things that are meant to be "secret". One day they'll declare it to be a "secret" that you can also run Linux on Apple's latest hardware platform. They might even get so far that you'd have to pay $1 for an on-line service to change your desktop background in Windows, and that you'd have to pay Disney $1 extra if you used an image of Winnie the Pooh (whereas the original author of WtP doesn't get a nickel because they can't buy the law as Disney can), and you'd go into jail if you discovered how to put your own image there for free.
You may think I'm being ridiculous here, but again, it is not substantially different from the DVD case.
And slowly but gently we'd become a race of apathic zombies that gladly stick our heads in our asses if the brothers Warner ask us to do so.
No. Knowledge should always be freely spreadable. If you can do something yourself (playing DVD's, movies, music) and don't really need any external services for that (a "licenced DVDplayer", a bioscope, CD's), then you should never be forced to rely on the external services in any way. "We know what's good for you" has never been any good to me. Let the users decide. That's what they call "free market" and "democracy".
It's... It's...
I sure hope they use the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0) (rfc2324) for that thingy. It is an RFC in the Informational stage.
We need open standards for coffee. If you don't grasp that, go read more Multatuli.
It's... It's...
But never mind, I assume you wrote this out of ignorance and innocence, and not bad will... so here's the answer:
It seems to me to be quite reasonable to include code from open source projects in closed source projects
...
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly
Why?
All I can observe is:
That being said, you are lucky that OpenSSL and OpenSSH are both BSD licensed programs (IIRC) and thus you can do with it whatever you want. But I am really concerned about your attitude towards Open Source. Why the heck is it "silly" to make your own program open? Why on earth did you choose it to be closed anyway?
I know I sound like a hippie father trying to understand why his son joined the army, but please do consider this. Open Source has got tons of benefits (see here for more info) PLUS idealistic advantages (see here for more info). Why go closed? Your program would hardly have any impact to the Linux community in closed source form, nor would people contribute to your work, etc.
It's... It's...
Thanks.
It's... It's...
I tought myself most stuff. The teachers I had on my previous school didn't really teach me all that much interesting, really (gym -- yuck). The teachers I have now are supposed to teach me informatica, but well...
;-)
So I learnt most stuff myself. That doesn't mean I didn't have teachers, because I read an awful lot of documentation and stuff to get there. So more or less, I am the one to decide what I want to know and to keep myself involved, and, well, just anybody out there is my teacher. From that perspective, viva open source!
It's... It's...
Well, I'd like to have them named Crap Code, Inc. It will probably never cause trademark problems.
;-)
And no no no no no this is not because I think they suck, I use Helix Code all the time. It's just that I could see the humor of a "guaranteed trademark-free" name like Crap Code, Inc. and I think the name of Ximian is even more of an insult to the Good Stuff they write.
So H.C.: I'll give you 3 months time to pick up the name, with no response I might just start using it myself
It's... It's...
OK, so this is the Stupid Question of the week, but maybe I am not the only one wondering.
Are these 0.x releases:
a) a continutation of the Mxx releases (Milestones) with a new name (to show that they are approaching 1.0); or
b) a forked development started by Netscape 6 with the Milestones development abandoned (say, a branched development like GCC->EGCS->GCC but then more planned); or
c) a forked development started by Netscape 6 that stands independent of the Milestone builds (something like GCC->EGCS before these two developments met again)?
Thanks in advance.
It's... It's...
You're calling the Linux *kernel* GNU/ Linux? That's plain filthy, you RMS! There's no GNU code in that thing (yes, it's GPLed, but no part of the GNU project)! And GNU/ Linus? What's that supposed to mean? Were his parents hippies?
Instead, we might rather talk about Linux/ HURD when referring to the HURD by now...
;-)
It's... It's...
I don'I don't know much about Tux2, but it seems to me that everything Tux2 offers is already being shown by ReiserFS.
Ow, c'mon. At least you forgot the coolness factor. Tux2 is a "whole new technology", it has to face a patent to a similar system that is probably invalid or at least not applicable to Tux2 (because Tux2's predecessors itself form the prior art), it doesn't have to journal so it comes per definition with less overhead, and it introduces all kind of fluffy terms. Plus it didn't take all kinds of flames to get into the darned kernel (sorry Hans, I know emotions can run high on mailinlists sometimes).
I mean, comparing Tux2 to ReiserFS is like comparing Linux to BSD. They may both validly work in practice, but Linux seems to be the more sexy and to have the buzzword factor.
It's... It's...
Remember, true open source is about an open mind, not just about an open license.
The rough edges that remain left are license compatibilities, I guess. Despite of what most people claim here, RMS is right by seeing GPL incompatibility as an issue. Because the more compatible the Open Source licenses are, the better we can share code. And the BSD guys can claim what they want here - and be right -, but the GPL family of licenses do serve a good case and serve it well.
Agreed, it is hard for a license to be GPL compatible because of the restrictions set up in it. But that wouldn't be a problem if it was agreed upon to be the Golden Standard fo copyleft licenses (blerk
Geekers, that would be an easy world to live in...
So in fact, I am unsure about the new APSL's compatibilities, and I hope that it can be clarified sooner or later. But for now:
Even then, still to solve is the riot between OSI and SPI
It's... It's...
I guess they only figured out that Linux was cool after they tried to forbid Free DVD software...? They _are_ part of the MPAA. Too bad the target audience won't be able to view this movie once it's kicked out of the bioses. Dehh.
It's... It's...
Interesting thought. I was just thinking whether we should be more secure if we used public keys as 'net addresses, so that the address and the authentication are coupled together (I know, I know, this is puuure fiction). Sending data to one address then ensures no-one is tapping that line.
In your scheme, the following might occur:
- client: hey router, pass this package on to the server, will ya?
- evil router: OK (looks inside the package, finds a key request. Starts producing a fake key) Hey client, I just got this package from server. Any idea what's in it? Open it, quick!
- client: none of your biz! (turns side to router and opens package) Aah, finally, the keys from server! (encodes a package o'data) Hey router, pass this package on to the server, will'ya?
- evil router: Well, OK.
This would for instance mean that your ISP can still check out on you if you use SSH and if they desperately want to do so (government!).
It's... It's...
OK, 8-bit processor instructions are 8-bit, and 32-bit instructions are 32-bit. Moreover, memory pointers on 8-bit systems are normally 16-bit (relative and zero-page pointers are 8-bit), and on 32-bit systems they are, well, 32-bit (rel. and 0-page 16-bit). With 1-byte alignment, data structures are as big on 8-bit systems as they are on 32-bit systems.
;-)
;-) for its simple tasks. Then again, this makes me wonder why a wrist watch needs Java; it doesn't really benefit from "run once, compile everywhere" code[*], the only thing that really matters to such a watch is how it communicates with the outside world. Well, maybe system updates... I don't know. I just don't yet see the use of my fridge talking in a 4gl. He can just use compiled-to-machinecode programs as far as I'm concerned. Then, if it's an 8-bit processor, the program itself will be about 1/4th of a 32-bit program, and the VM will be 0 bytes.
;-)
So the VM might indeed be shrunk a lot, say it may become a little more than 1/4 of its original size if you put it on an 8-bit system. This would be a nice rate for any "embedded" program.
Alas, the VM is not the program. It simply is the VM. The program is written in "run once, compile everywhere" code[*], so this code has the same size no matter where you put it.
And I recall the class libraries are something like 20 Mb of code. And while an embedded program might just not require, for instance, Swing, it is part of standard Java AFAIK. What I am trying to say is that programs expect the standard class library to be there, so it'll cost you 20 Mb of space anyway. To set up 20 Mb of space on an 8-bit machine, you would cross some 64k boundaries
One solution might be to get rid of the class libraries, and write the code yourself, or "statically link" the code. This makes your program bigger...
You might argue that e.g. a wrist watch wouldn't need class libraries (e.g. Swing
While I'm talking about this, does anyone know how many bits a single Java instruction is?
[*] OK, I wanted to write "compile once, run anywhere", but this appeared instead. Given that much Java VM's are Jitter-based (compile to machinecode on the fly), I actually think that this typo isn't that goofy
It's... It's...
Very much of the Free codebase seems to be coming into a "final rethink" state, after having left a "better attempt" state -- and before that was, of course, the "initial (serious) attempt" state. It is like the good old saying that software is expected to become useful at its 3.0 release.
., and because most of these projects begin with 0 instead of 1 (which is often nothing but a honest thing to do), I happen to believe that, even though the version numbers are still smaller, lots of code reaches a "symbolic 3.0 release". Still with me? OK! :-)
;-) So if there is anything of truth in this story, my comment is that it seems a useless and confusing move, don't do it... :-)
Now, because Free software often uses release versions in the sense of
A few examples:
Linux kernel: the Linux kernel has a history of major rewrites, but still a smaller history of API changes. One might argue that it had its "initial (serious" attempt" around 2.0, a first rethink around 2.2, and now yet another major rethink for 2.4, with Linus saying that they have now learned enough from the past to make the kernel structure workable, so it should be considered a "final rethink".
GNOME: 1.0/ 1.2 "initial (serious) attempt", 1.4 "better attempt" and 2.0 "final rethink" (yes, I _do_ realize that 1.4 as well as 2.0 are future music for now, but there's good thoughts being done about this already.
GTK+ follows about the same course, only it is a little bit further (has already got 2.0 alpha code). There is a good API rethink being done in 2.0.
And now the GIMP. I applaud all this work, because I realize how much courage it takes to make these radical steps, and how _good_ it is that this work is being done. A lot of open source projects have a tendency to become lazy bloatware by a lack of strong leadership (and competition...). Take for example the comments concerning XFree86 that are on the rise again. (Note: this is not to even _suggest_ that the XFree86 team doesn't do a good job. I believe it could have been done better, but that it requires very special leadership skills to take the right decisions in such matters.)
So, I wish you a lot of luck with the re-thinking!
(P.S.: I heard rumours about GIMP 2.0 to have a cross-platform GUI library thingy. After reading this I don't believe much about it at all anymore. Anyway, I think it would be an odd move for the GIMP to move away from the GIMP toolkit!
It's... It's...
In what ways could WINE benefit from some kind of integration with Plex86? For instance, to run DOS/ Windows hybrid programs quicker/ better, or to make some kind of a cross-over between hardware and software emulation (with the help of a native Windows partition).
;-)]
[And only if no-one else yet asked: when can we expect a "stable" release? }:-) Don't worry, I won't pin you on any estimated release date
It's... It's...