Yes, KDE people could fix that but there is fundamental issue of GPL being , well , very restrictive what one can do with it. Sooner or later somebody else will get into the same mess. Freedom that is _enforced_ is not freedom at all. As far as I know BSD has no such a problem, it is really free. GPL is not free. Even when RMS says so. There is a simple meaning for the word "freedom" and GPL , unfortunately, doesn't qualify here.
Think about it. It is not KDE, nor QPL but GPL that has limitations here creating various problems for other people. If something is free why limit it use ? Maybe after all, it is not free... just another version of the same old proprietary licenses...
Hehe.. here we go, another limitation included in this mother of all free licenses.
If RMS was so fucking tired of closed and limited licenses that forbid people from doing just about anything with it, why didn't he set example and created license that is free. Why not just simply be really different and say " here it is, you can do anything you want with it" ?
Why this limitation ? Why not actually give people freedom to link to whatever they need to link ? GPL is not about freedom, it is about advancing someone idea about how this world should work. That's hardly freedom...
Hehehe, GPL, free software , all of it was about "code sharing" etc etc.. And now we are stuck with GPL which pretty much forbids any code sharing with any other license. Is that what we wanted ?
Let's see. I can include BSD code in GPLed software. I am absolutely not allowed to include GPL code in software that has BSD type license. And you are talking about freedom ? Just because one maniac calls it freedom?
Either it is about freedom or some social goal of one lunatic? You decide..
Well, it seem like that unreasonanle man is GPL, cause just about every time it is radicality of GPL that makes life harder for people , not the other way around.
Oh well, Linux OS API is nothing more that typical posix stuff. RPM, at least on RH system, could be considered system library since it is such a importand part of the distro.
O yeah, I have tried and it there is no man pages for, say "headerGetEntry()." One has to simply query rpm-devel..rpm to see that there is nothing there.
There are tons of issues that make Netscape real pain to use ( at least as compared to IE or even Opera.) First of all it is slower than IE, second ( and this is specific to Unix lack of asynchronous hostname lookup routines) it hangs quite often doing DNS lokups. It is not fatal error or anything like that , just extremely annoying. MOzilla is way better ( at least version for Windows ) so there is hope after all.
Yes, you are right but we are talking about compatibility for the end user. One of the good things that Windows monopoly created was, well.. virtual monopoly of Windows OS. Situation like that means less problems for customers and less problems for developers. No need to to shit your code with endless ifdefs etc... ( at least to much lesser extend.) Linux lacks that and it shows. One way to solve that would be to create some base standard but, as we have witenesed with old Unix world, companies won't follow that just to diffirentiate themselfs from competition. It is the same story all over again.
Install Suse. Go to RedHat contribs and pull out as many random RPM's as you want. Try to install them on Suse. Watch half of them complain about missing libs, different version of libs.. etc What;s even more funny, half of RPM's created for RH 5.2 won't even install on laters RH distro.
Sure they can lose. Just look at the compatibility between various Linux distros. One is never sure that RPM that installs flawlesly on RH do the same on Suse or Caldera. It is a major paing for the customer to figure out which set of libraries is missing on theis system. Just look at the commercial software available for Linux - most of it is complete static link...
You know what ? I wastly prefere dealing with "undocumented" API's from MS than "documented" stuff from RedHat ( try latest RPM lib.... the only docs you get is source code and h file - how fucking considerate of external developers, one has to follow the source code to understand how to call library which , in the first place, was create to avoid that )
Slashdot Mirror
I saw that once ... I was eating lunch and reading /. ...
I don't click on anything anymore when I eat
Too dangerous.
Yes, KDE people could fix that but there is fundamental issue of GPL being , well , very restrictive what one can do with it.
Sooner or later somebody else will get into the same mess. Freedom that is _enforced_ is not freedom at all. As far as I know BSD has no such a problem, it is really free.
GPL is not free. Even when RMS says so. There is a simple meaning for the word "freedom" and GPL , unfortunately, doesn't qualify here.
You are kidding right ?
This guy just made political statement there...
heheh
Think about it. It is not KDE, nor QPL but GPL that has limitations here creating various problems for other people. ... just another version of the same old proprietary licenses ...
If something is free why limit it use ?
Maybe after all, it is not free
Hehe .. here we go, another limitation included in this mother of all free licenses.
If RMS was so fucking tired of closed and limited licenses that forbid people from doing just about anything with it, why didn't he set example and created license that is free. Why not just simply be really different and say " here it is, you can do anything you want with it" ?
Why this limitation ? Why not actually give people freedom to link to whatever they need to link ? ...
GPL is not about freedom, it is about advancing someone idea about how this world should work.
That's hardly freedom
You are right. A little bit of sanity is always welcomed.
and while we at it, why don't YOU work for free ?
So did B.Gates bashing sharing of his early code , but you guys weren't that excited about him.
Hehehe, GPL, free software , all of it was about "code sharing" etc etc ..
And now we are stuck with GPL which pretty much forbids any code sharing with any other license.
Is that what we wanted ?
Let's see. I can include BSD code in GPLed software. I am absolutely not allowed to include GPL code in software that has BSD type license.
..
And you are talking about freedom ?
Just because one maniac calls it freedom?
Either it is about freedom or some social goal of one lunatic? You decide
Well, it seem like that unreasonanle man is GPL, cause just about every time it is radicality of GPL that makes life harder for people , not the other way around.
Too lazy ? Too dumb ?
What kind of shit is that. They are niether lazy nor dumb. Currently, it simply makes no economical sense to do that.
Why ?
Anything wrong with ICQ ?
And we should all keep cows and skip the fucking middleman who keps the price of milk so high.
Oh well, Linux OS API is nothing more that typical posix stuff. RPM, at least on RH system, could be considered system library since it is such a importand part of the distro.
O yeah, I have tried and it there is no man pages for, say "headerGetEntry()."
One has to simply query rpm-devel..rpm to see that there is nothing there.
There are tons of issues that make Netscape real pain to use ( at least as compared to IE or even Opera.)
First of all it is slower than IE, second ( and this is specific to Unix lack of asynchronous hostname lookup routines) it hangs quite often doing DNS lokups. It is not fatal error or anything like that , just extremely annoying.
MOzilla is way better ( at least version for Windows ) so there is hope after all.
Yes, you are right but we are talking about compatibility for the end user. One of the good things that Windows monopoly created was, well .. ... ( at least to much lesser extend.)
virtual monopoly of Windows OS. Situation like that means less problems for customers and less problems for developers. No need to to shit your code with endless ifdefs etc
Linux lacks that and it shows. One way to solve that would be to create some base standard but, as we have witenesed with old Unix world, companies won't follow that just to diffirentiate themselfs from competition. It is the same story all over again.
Are you implying that Netscape on your Unix box is just as responsive and well behaved as IE on Windows ?
Install Suse. Go to RedHat contribs and pull out as many random RPM's as you want. Try to install them on Suse. Watch half of them complain about missing libs, different version of libs.. etc
What;s even more funny, half of RPM's created for RH 5.2 won't even install on laters RH distro.
Sure they can lose. Just look at the compatibility between various Linux distros. One is never sure that RPM that installs flawlesly on RH do the same on Suse or Caldera. ...
It is a major paing for the customer to figure out which set of libraries is missing on theis system. Just look at the commercial software available for Linux - most of it is complete static link
You know what ? I wastly prefere dealing with "undocumented" API's from MS than "documented" stuff from RedHat ( try latest RPM lib .... the only docs you get is source code and h file - how fucking considerate of external developers, one has to follow the source code to understand how to call library which , in the first place, was create to avoid that )
Here it is , just one example:
www.codeguru.com
Is that how Linux business model works ?
Donations ?