You could already have seen some of SVG through the mozilla-bonobo plugin. As this plugin actually activates Eye Of Gnome for the image viewing, and EOG is actually more of a pixel-graphics viewer that happens to read SVG through the (still lagging) librsvg, the capacities are limited though.
For instance, you can only view SVG images as object tags, and complex stuff (like copied/ rotated graphics) aren't rendered well. (And it just so happens that Sodipodi produces SVG with a lot of copied/ rotated objects.)
The term "viral" is not in place because it suggests something you have to fear, and that spreads without control. It suggests all kind of stoopid ideas like some hacker infecting M$ft code with his own GPL software, forcing M$ft to release the code to their "entire" Windows 3.1. Or some chef waking up in the morning to find himself forced to release their propietary paycheck system to the world, passwords and all, just because some nerd on the workfloor put a box up with Debian on it.
NO definition of a virus that I know of, talks about willfully accepting a virus into the host system (except for the Belgian email virus -- please destroy some random files and mail me to all your friends; thank you very much).
If you insist on your biology, I'd rather say that the GPL is the dominant gene, being visible any time an "other-license" gene and a GPL gene cross. Yet, the GPL look only applies to the newly created work (where OL and GPL code are combined), and not to the parent work. New babies may only become GPL when the GPL "gene" is still there, or a "mutation" (relicensing) occurs (when that's at all possible).
Example: M$ steals Linux kernel parts, puts them in Windows 2003. Whoops. GPL applies. M$ has a choice to cancel Win2k3 (because its closed distribution is illegal) or release its source under the GPL. Chances are big that Win2k3 is cancelled. Abortus; back to the bedroom and try again. Nine months later, M$ may still release a Win2k3 w/o Linux code. Note that the code to "parent" Windows products (e.g. Win98) are not affected in any way.
Deeper example: M$ releases Win2k3 under GPL, with Linux kernel parts. Later, M$ releases Win2k4, based on Win2k3 code with Linux kernel parts removed. All clear. The GPL does not apply to this product, and a "recessive" license may be applied instead. (E.g. a sublicense that applies to this code by another company, or M$'s own license.)
Also note that this is the difference, and the important aspect within the GPL vs. BSD discussions. The BSD license is utterly recessive -- even more than red hair. It always loses the fight, whether it is against the GPL, or against a propietary license. That is not the fault of the GPL. (Hint;-)
The GPL is just as dominant as any license being just a weeny bit pickier than the BSD license. For instance, the Old BSD license (with advertising clause) isn't GPL-compatible, so you can't mix them. With Old and New BSD licenses mixed, the Old license is dominant ("viral" if you wish...) because it says "you must do this", where the new BSD license says "whatever" ("I am recessive, you can almost ignore me").
So most license mixing (especially with closed source licenses) results only in a license clash (bang!) followed by alotta nothing. The only exception is self-owned, public domain or BSD code, which can mix with almost ANY other licensing scheme at the risk of being "embraced and extended" in almost any possible way. And history has shown us that this is what happens.
Here's another one for you... Our company (0 employees, no xerox) recently got a bill for 45 euro's for "an estimated number of copies made of copy-protected work". Seems like some Dutch organisation is now capable on sending these bills on behalf of...yeah, of who?
My "company" helps starting artists to get a visible spot on the web to showcase and sell their art. So if there's any organisation that should be on the receiving side of this law, it should be ours. However, the information only goes as far as that we're supposed to either pay or complain.
It is very unclear who benefits from this, but it immediately reminded me of American music industry lobby practices. Luckily for us, this stupid law didn't apply to other forms of copy than "xerox". I'm still pretty stupified by the fact that this law could just exist in Holland, and in fact I'm still trying to forget this.
It would become interesting if they would get in contact with the old game manufacturers and convince them to license those games in a "legal to copy" sense, or if they would ship like ALL those games (and assemblers, etc.) with the new C64 (on one CDROM or so;-). This way, you'd have all the C64 nostalgy together without the legal trouble you get with emulators.
Not that I don't think this is stuff that should be in the public domain by now, but hey, I'm just thinking practically now.
I'm somewhat amazed that there used to be a standard package format for SysVr4, which I think many Linux distros model after. Why is it historically so that every distro seems to need its own package format, instead of adapting towards the standard?
An award often also communicates some kind of an ideological thingy. It would be interesting to see what would happen in terms of community reactions when OSI awards an OSS project that isn't Free Software.
What? Come on, will you? Dijkstra (both the name and the person) is as Dutch as in "Dijkstra en De Gier" (huh, I believe that's a detective series). Although I must say that "stra" is mostly a dialect thingy, like "Mac" and "O'". "Dijk" means "dyke". How dutchy wantcha havvit.:D
Different Latin spelling of Dutch last names can only be attrubuted to historical issues.
one can tell a lot about people from their handwriting.
This is going to be really off topic, but it might be of interest to you...
I'm a lefty and have a terribly messy handwriting. As I aspire to be a comic artist (and have done so for years:-P), this really is a vote against me; hand-lettering your comics makes them personal and makes the work a whole, but with my handwriting, it makes the work look like sh*t.
I've had, what? 20 years to develop a proper handwriting letter.
It took me less than a year to develop the capability of writing an appreciable letter, by writing IN REVERSE, a la Da Vinci (although mine is of course a clear block letter). This mirrored lettering perfectly matches my current style of drawing, and I'm very satisfied with it.
My conclusion? Handwriting might say something, like people's faces do. But if you really want to judge beyond looks, you'd have to read what's written instead of caring about the handwriting.
I'm currently spending some free time on a VM compiler/ interpreter system, which I obviously like because of the interesting architectural choices you can make during the development process.
I'm also working on a Gothic cathedral though, but for some reasons nothing happens when I give the "make all" command...;-)
Uhh, I really don't know how to say this without completely stupifying you, but what you say is actually reality.
I'd say 90% of these 8-bit monsters normally chunk BASIC for lunch that was written by...Microsoft. (This includes at least the C64, Vic-20 and Apple ][.)
So yes, M$ dominates the 8-bit world, and installing another OS over those BASIC ROMs is probably the only way to change that. Sadly a cold restart will always put you into BASIC mode again, making the "I was forced to buy Windows with my PC" problems of today look bleak in comparison.
Although I do think that a multitasking OS is a killer app for those 8-bit BASIC systems...
Already now people have asked "why" and gotten "because we can" as an answer. While this is probably true for this project, I think this is also quite interesting Operating Systems material. Remember, this is a small system that multitasks, is portable, and has some coherent (G?)UI stuff.
(OK, it's a joke -- or is it? -->) So apart from the multitasking, it's way ahead of *nix;-)
While the 8-bit part may certainly be a little bit too much '80's for many of today's practical purposes, I think this is a hell of a reference system which can be re-used and studied by many people who think MINIX contains too much code already. And all that under an old BSD license (with advertising clause).
Anyway, to get back on my original subject. I've downloaded the 1.0 source code and noticed there was a target "gtksim", as well as a directory "arch/unix-gtk". So I guess this stuff is available under *nix as well -- for demonstration purposes, of course.
The odd thing is that when I wanted to compile that target, it said it required stuff from cc65, an 8-bit C compiler for the Commodore 64. So unless this means that GTK+ is ported to the C64, I wonder what this is all about.
(*nix was already "ported" to the C64, and it's called Lunix Look at for more info, and insert your SCO jokes here.)
XPM is a text-based file format looking a lot like C code. I've never understood why on earth someone would make that a picture file format. I don't believe it supports stuff like translucency, etc.
PNG is a modern picture file format supporting all stuff needed to make modern, fancy raster-based icons, where large icon sizes != large ASCII icon files.
We still have NT4 at home. And it still looks and feels quite modern (although yes, people are complaining). So I was kind of surprised to realize that Win98 actually came after NT4.
The problem is that these are still by far experimental. I'm a long-time Debian user, and I like to play with the HURD every now and then. But for doing so you still need to be in a hacker's mood. Using GNU/ Hurd is not yet like using a "mainstream OS such as GNU/ Linux" (bite me:-). Which I do regret for the same reasons as the original author does.
You went to the source when you had issues, yes, but with a well-documented library you wouldn't need to do that.
I would as soon as I had issues. Now what do you want to say; that not-widely used software gets no reviews, or that widely used, well-documented software doesn't?
"I can audit the code myself to see what it's doing," but how many people do you think actually do that? [..] I know I don't, and I don't know anybody who does.
But now you do.
If you keep claiming nobody ever looks at OSS source code, then I'm starting to wonder who is making this stuff. But the answer is simple: a small group of programmers and a larger group of interested people, bug reporters, etc. that spam the programmers with bug reports as soon as they're not satisfied about something. Maybe looking at the source would still be the last thing they'd do, but the overall involvement is much bigger than in the case of "like it or just don't buy it" software.
Even if I'd ever finish anything, it would merely function as a great practical joke about the "your Sofinumber will only be used for fiscal stuff and will not become a general number the government will use to track your every step with" guarantee that's been firmly stated to the people when the SSN was introduced in America and later in the Netherlands.
Social Security Numbers have since become part of the Dutch (and American, I believe) passport and identity card system. I belive that in America SSN abuse can be a real topic for those who still care about such things. As for students, the study finance system works with your Sofinummer as well here (not that that is so bad).
So actually, if your country's system can't be abused for a concept like SoFiNet, you can just consider yourself lucky. Or you might always still be able to hop in using your Slashdot ID. Whatever:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You could already have seen some of SVG through the mozilla-bonobo plugin. As this plugin actually activates Eye Of Gnome for the image viewing, and EOG is actually more of a pixel-graphics viewer that happens to read SVG through the (still lagging) librsvg, the capacities are limited though.
For instance, you can only view SVG images as object tags, and complex stuff (like copied/ rotated graphics) aren't rendered well. (And it just so happens that Sodipodi produces SVG with a lot of copied/ rotated objects.)
snort.
;-)
The term "viral" is not in place because it suggests something you have to fear, and that spreads without control. It suggests all kind of stoopid ideas like some hacker infecting M$ft code with his own GPL software, forcing M$ft to release the code to their "entire" Windows 3.1. Or some chef waking up in the morning to find himself forced to release their propietary paycheck system to the world, passwords and all, just because some nerd on the workfloor put a box up with Debian on it.
NO definition of a virus that I know of, talks about willfully accepting a virus into the host system (except for the Belgian email virus -- please destroy some random files and mail me to all your friends; thank you very much).
If you insist on your biology, I'd rather say that the GPL is the dominant gene, being visible any time an "other-license" gene and a GPL gene cross. Yet, the GPL look only applies to the newly created work (where OL and GPL code are combined), and not to the parent work. New babies may only become GPL when the GPL "gene" is still there, or a "mutation" (relicensing) occurs (when that's at all possible).
Example: M$ steals Linux kernel parts, puts them in Windows 2003. Whoops. GPL applies. M$ has a choice to cancel Win2k3 (because its closed distribution is illegal) or release its source under the GPL. Chances are big that Win2k3 is cancelled. Abortus; back to the bedroom and try again. Nine months later, M$ may still release a Win2k3 w/o Linux code. Note that the code to "parent" Windows products (e.g. Win98) are not affected in any way.
Deeper example: M$ releases Win2k3 under GPL, with Linux kernel parts. Later, M$ releases Win2k4, based on Win2k3 code with Linux kernel parts removed. All clear. The GPL does not apply to this product, and a "recessive" license may be applied instead. (E.g. a sublicense that applies to this code by another company, or M$'s own license.)
Also note that this is the difference, and the important aspect within the GPL vs. BSD discussions. The BSD license is utterly recessive -- even more than red hair. It always loses the fight, whether it is against the GPL, or against a propietary license. That is not the fault of the GPL. (Hint
The GPL is just as dominant as any license being just a weeny bit pickier than the BSD license. For instance, the Old BSD license (with advertising clause) isn't GPL-compatible, so you can't mix them. With Old and New BSD licenses mixed, the Old license is dominant ("viral" if you wish...) because it says "you must do this", where the new BSD license says "whatever" ("I am recessive, you can almost ignore me").
So most license mixing (especially with closed source licenses) results only in a license clash (bang!) followed by alotta nothing. The only exception is self-owned, public domain or BSD code, which can mix with almost ANY other licensing scheme at the risk of being "embraced and extended" in almost any possible way. And history has shown us that this is what happens.
If you try to run Free Software instead of propietary stuff, you're:
a) behaving from a certain philosophy;
b) making a statement;
c) probably saving money as well;
d) vendor independent.
<heh>
That's:-
a) Free as in Liberty
b) Free as in Stallman
c) Free as in Beer
d) Free as in Jail
</heh>
So anyway, there is a point to attempt to run "Linux" (or whatever).
Here's another one for you... Our company (0 employees, no xerox) recently got a bill for 45 euro's for "an estimated number of copies made of copy-protected work". Seems like some Dutch organisation is now capable on sending these bills on behalf of ...yeah, of who?
My "company" helps starting artists to get a visible spot on the web to showcase and sell their art. So if there's any organisation that should be on the receiving side of this law, it should be ours. However, the information only goes as far as that we're supposed to either pay or complain.
It is very unclear who benefits from this, but it immediately reminded me of American music industry lobby practices. Luckily for us, this stupid law didn't apply to other forms of copy than "xerox". I'm still pretty stupified by the fact that this law could just exist in Holland, and in fact I'm still trying to forget this.
It would become interesting if they would get in contact with the old game manufacturers and convince them to license those games in a "legal to copy" sense, or if they would ship like ALL those games (and assemblers, etc.) with the new C64 (on one CDROM or so ;-). This way, you'd have all the C64 nostalgy together without the legal trouble you get with emulators.
Not that I don't think this is stuff that should be in the public domain by now, but hey, I'm just thinking practically now.
I have been able to convince my little brother (then a fan of the new "house" music), that the audio noise on C64 tapes was a new sort of house.
He told me and my other brother that he liked the "music".
I'm somewhat amazed that there used to be a standard package format for SysVr4, which I think many Linux distros model after. Why is it historically so that every distro seems to need its own package format, instead of adapting towards the standard?
An award often also communicates some kind of an ideological thingy. It would be interesting to see what would happen in terms of community reactions when OSI awards an OSS project that isn't Free Software.
or was the detective series about another "stra"...
;-)
Hmm... anyway, I just guess that the Fortune has a misspelling... You'd better feel lucky for having so much Fortune anyway...
What? Come on, will you? Dijkstra (both the name and the person) is as Dutch as in "Dijkstra en De Gier" (huh, I believe that's a detective series). Although I must say that "stra" is mostly a dialect thingy, like "Mac" and "O'". "Dijk" means "dyke". How dutchy wantcha havvit. :D
Different Latin spelling of Dutch last names can only be attrubuted to historical issues.
one can tell a lot about people from their handwriting.
:-P), this really is a vote against me; hand-lettering your comics makes them personal and makes the work a whole, but with my handwriting, it makes the work look like sh*t.
This is going to be really off topic, but it might be of interest to you...
I'm a lefty and have a terribly messy handwriting. As I aspire to be a comic artist (and have done so for years
I've had, what? 20 years to develop a proper handwriting letter.
It took me less than a year to develop the capability of writing an appreciable letter, by writing IN REVERSE, a la Da Vinci (although mine is of course a clear block letter). This mirrored lettering perfectly matches my current style of drawing, and I'm very satisfied with it.
My conclusion? Handwriting might say something, like people's faces do. But if you really want to judge beyond looks, you'd have to read what's written instead of caring about the handwriting.
Odd. I have this same combination of passions.
;-)
I'm currently spending some free time on a VM compiler/ interpreter system, which I obviously like because of the interesting architectural choices you can make during the development process.
I'm also working on a Gothic cathedral though, but for some reasons nothing happens when I give the "make all" command...
Forget assembly, run the least resource-eating GUI system ever.
;-)
That, or quit reacting to trolls
Uhh, I really don't know how to say this without completely stupifying you, but what you say is actually reality.
...Microsoft. (This includes at least the C64, Vic-20 and Apple ][.)
I'd say 90% of these 8-bit monsters normally chunk BASIC for lunch that was written by
So yes, M$ dominates the 8-bit world, and installing another OS over those BASIC ROMs is probably the only way to change that. Sadly a cold restart will always put you into BASIC mode again, making the "I was forced to buy Windows with my PC" problems of today look bleak in comparison.
Although I do think that a multitasking OS is a killer app for those 8-bit BASIC systems...
Already now people have asked "why" and gotten "because we can" as an answer. While this is probably true for this project, I think this is also quite interesting Operating Systems material. Remember, this is a small system that multitasks, is portable, and has some coherent (G?)UI stuff.
;-)
(OK, it's a joke -- or is it? -->) So apart from the multitasking, it's way ahead of *nix
While the 8-bit part may certainly be a little bit too much '80's for many of today's practical purposes, I think this is a hell of a reference system which can be re-used and studied by many people who think MINIX contains too much code already. And all that under an old BSD license (with advertising clause).
Anyway, to get back on my original subject. I've downloaded the 1.0 source code and noticed there was a target "gtksim", as well as a directory "arch/unix-gtk". So I guess this stuff is available under *nix as well -- for demonstration purposes, of course.
The odd thing is that when I wanted to compile that target, it said it required stuff from cc65, an 8-bit C compiler for the Commodore 64. So unless this means that GTK+ is ported to the C64, I wonder what this is all about.
(*nix was already "ported" to the C64, and it's called Lunix Look at for more info, and insert your SCO jokes here.)
XPM is a text-based file format looking a lot like C code. I've never understood why on earth someone would make that a picture file format. I don't believe it supports stuff like translucency, etc.
PNG is a modern picture file format supporting all stuff needed to make modern, fancy raster-based icons, where large icon sizes != large ASCII icon files.
I'd say it's easy to choose.
"home" should be "school" there.
(I mean, before I've got someone at my door asking about my licence for my home PC...)
We still have NT4 at home. And it still looks and feels quite modern (although yes, people are complaining). So I was kind of surprised to realize that Win98 actually came after NT4.
(Not that I care, I use neither myself.)
GNU did.
...not that it matters.
They finished their libc, shell, editor, commands, etc. before Linus finished its kernel.
Not that it matters. But it was GNU. That was first. So. There!
The problem is that these are still by far experimental. I'm a long-time Debian user, and I like to play with the HURD every now and then. But for doing so you still need to be in a hacker's mood. Using GNU/ Hurd is not yet like using a "mainstream OS such as GNU/ Linux" (bite me :-). Which I do regret for the same reasons as the original author does.
Yup, and so in response to their picket signs: now who are the crack-smoking, lawless hippies? (Not that that has ever been unclear...)
Yup, I'm still wondering what (if any) the guy on the other end of the line was thinking when reading my email :-)
You went to the source when you had issues, yes, but with a well-documented library you wouldn't need to do that.
I would as soon as I had issues. Now what do you want to say; that not-widely used software gets no reviews, or that widely used, well-documented software doesn't?
"I can audit the code myself to see what it's doing," but how many people do you think actually do that? [..] I know I don't, and I don't know anybody who does.
But now you do.
If you keep claiming nobody ever looks at OSS source code, then I'm starting to wonder who is making this stuff. But the answer is simple: a small group of programmers and a larger group of interested people, bug reporters, etc. that spam the programmers with bug reports as soon as they're not satisfied about something. Maybe looking at the source would still be the last thing they'd do, but the overall involvement is much bigger than in the case of "like it or just don't buy it" software.
(No flame intended, I seriously want to know)
;-)
:-)
A little too serious, perhaps?
Even if I'd ever finish anything, it would merely function as a great practical joke about the "your Sofinumber will only be used for fiscal stuff and will not become a general number the government will use to track your every step with" guarantee that's been firmly stated to the people when the SSN was introduced in America and later in the Netherlands.
Social Security Numbers have since become part of the Dutch (and American, I believe) passport and identity card system. I belive that in America SSN abuse can be a real topic for those who still care about such things. As for students, the study finance system works with your Sofinummer as well here (not that that is so bad).
So actually, if your country's system can't be abused for a concept like SoFiNet, you can just consider yourself lucky. Or you might always still be able to hop in using your Slashdot ID. Whatever
I guess both of the protestors hope to see him lose sooo hard ...and then they'll forever have good feelings watching that photograph.