I believe Cygnus is doing a port to ia64 for Intel as well. However, they are not allowed to release it before Intel release the full spec for the processor.
The next release will be gcc 2.95, hopefully out in July, and will _not_ contain the new backend. The new backend is scheduled for gcc 3.0, which is also expected to contain stuff such a new ISO conformant C++ library (i.e. with templated iostreams and living in the std namespace).
I doubt we will see gcc 3.0 this year, which also means the backend will take a long time to reach users.
In Denmark, many politicians are "cand.polit.", which means they have an academic degree in Political Science. Some have degrees in Social Science or in Economics.
France is similar, except that most of them come from the same school. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I suspect it is the same.
There are some exceptions, our Minister of Economics is a public school teacher, and the Minister of Agriculture is a mailman.
Internet standards aren't created by democracy. Unlike in ISO commitees, voting is rare and informal on IETF working groups. Instead, decisions are made by consensus. And, of course, those who do the work has the largest influence.
However, unlike this game, it *would* be interesting to see a game between one very good player, vs. a team of good players, who all have talent for cooperation.
No, I find it quite natural that a MS associated news source tries to create the illusion of a credible threat towards Microsoft, in order to help them in the court.
> Let's say I acquire a GPL'd program and add > a function to it.
The GPL ensures that you _can_ add this function. The right to enhance and redistribute the software you use is (to rms) a fundemental freedom, just like free speech. That is the freedom that the GPL protects.
You are also allowed to take money for the function (thus, no free beer). You just can't deny other the same freedom you yourself received.
I keep seeing the claim that the term "open source" was used before ESR and firends started to promote it as a more precise alternative to "free software". However, I don't remember seeing the term used before. Even Sun, who at one point called everything something starting with "Open" (their bug database was called "Open Bugs") didn't use it.
Can anyone point to some writen document, using the phrase "Open Source", dating from before the O'Reilly open source workshop?
Sony isn't the typical/. advertisor, and the banner add came soon after the original/. article on the bot, so I wonder if the slashdot effect itself atracts advertisers:
"We sudenly got a lot of hits from some place called slashdot, that had a story about out product. Hey, the sell banner adds, and their readers are obviously interested in our product, so lets advertise there!"
That'd be nice.
CLD is not in a nearmonopoly situation
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
I know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you don't. I suggest you read the replies you got (slowly), and try to understand how you misunderstood the critique if MS.
1) If you want CLD without WP, then download and install Debian and KDE, on which it is based. Or download one of the many other Linux distributions.
2) You second point is not making any sense at all, KDE is not hardcoded into 98 or anything else with a near monopoly status.
Apparently you have no idea of what the problems with Microsoft business practices are, so maybe you should just stop commenting on them.
Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do !
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
"We" are not screaming at MS for not releasing their code. You may be, but I haven't seen anyone else do that.
It seems Corel intend to be a good player in the Linux marked, contributing to important free software projects. Their main products won't be free software, but that doesn't prevent free software enthusiasts from enjoying their contributions to free software.
And, no, nobody with a clue is pissed at MS for "bundling" in general. People are worried that MS using their near monopoly on the desktop OS marked to unfairly compete in the application area. Corel has no "near monopoly", they are returning their enhancements to the community, they plan to follow the community standards, and their applications will also work on other distributions. There really isn't any sensible comparison.
Corel should be aplauded for their significant contributions to free software standards, and for being careful about doing this "the right way".
About the idea that this somehow prevent people from forming their own opinion (while studying in a library somehow doesn't), remember the old description of Usenet: "Usenet is great! Ask a question on Usenet, and within five minutes yuu will have at least three answers. Unfortunately, all three will be different."
Well, there are >3000 votes in the new poll now, which is about twice as many as they usually get. That is not bad.
There was at least ten times that number of votes in the previous poll, but this story is no longer on the top of slashdot. Furthermore, the poll is more specific, so those longing for the old games longer have a reason to vote.
Yeah, right. How many of us have *not* threatened to sue Microsoft for using our free software file formats? Obviously, we should expect to get such letters back ourselves.
Please get real. Nobody with a clue are picking on Microsoft for using existing file formats, protocols or API's, it is quite the opposite, MS get flammed for inventing proprietary protocols and proprietary extensions to existing protocols.
Finally, if some companies in some areas can't compete with free software developers, then they should fold or change their business model. Free software may not be the best business model in all areas, but in those areas where it is, it should be allowed to win in a fair fight.
Slashdot Mirror
They both make high-end ia32 computers running Linux. Why would SGI finance a competitor?
Which makes it nice to see Intel doing ir right this time.
Yes, it was noted on the egcs list. The actual code in the compiler is right (it includes an "a = -1" equivalent at the end).
I believe Cygnus is doing a port to ia64 for Intel as well. However, they are not allowed to release it before Intel release the full spec for the processor.
Gcc sucks for ia32, it was designed for register-rich architectures like vax or m68k.
In fact, gcc is probably worse than the vendor compilers on all architectures, except those where it _is_ the vendor compiler.
Gcc wins on portability, features, and price, while not doing "too bad" on speed.
The next release will be gcc 2.95, hopefully out in July, and will _not_ contain the new backend. The new backend is scheduled for gcc 3.0, which is also expected to contain stuff such a new ISO conformant C++ library (i.e. with templated iostreams and living in the std namespace).
I doubt we will see gcc 3.0 this year, which also means the backend will take a long time to reach users.
...are not lawyers.
In Denmark, many politicians are "cand.polit.", which means they have an academic degree in Political Science. Some have degrees in Social Science or in Economics.
France is similar, except that most of them come from the same school. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I suspect it is the same.
There are some exceptions, our Minister of Economics is a public school teacher, and the Minister of Agriculture is a mailman.
Be careful about that, using xor to draw a cursor has already been patented.
Internet standards aren't created by democracy. Unlike in ISO commitees, voting is rare and informal on IETF working groups. Instead, decisions are made by consensus. And, of course, those who do the work has the largest influence.
However, unlike this game, it *would* be interesting to see a game between one very good player, vs. a team of good players, who all have talent for cooperation.
Unix is certainly a DE, and a good one at that, but I'm not sure it qualifies for the I. Emacs does, though.
No, I find it quite natural that a MS associated news source tries to create the illusion of a credible threat towards Microsoft, in order to help them in the court.
Where is the irony in that?
> Let's say I acquire a GPL'd program and add
> a function to it.
The GPL ensures that you _can_ add this function. The right to enhance and redistribute the software you use is (to rms) a fundemental freedom, just like free speech. That is the freedom that the GPL protects.
You are also allowed to take money for the function (thus, no free beer). You just can't deny other the same freedom you yourself received.
I keep seeing the claim that the term "open source" was used before ESR and firends started to promote it as a more precise alternative to "free software". However, I don't remember seeing the term used before. Even Sun, who at one point called everything something starting with "Open" (their bug database was called "Open Bugs") didn't use it.
Can anyone point to some writen document, using the phrase "Open Source", dating from before the O'Reilly open source workshop?
Nice to see a vendor using one of the existing free software licenses. The Mozilla license is quite good, very similar to the LGPL.
Sony isn't the typical /. advertisor, and the banner add came soon after the original /. article on the bot, so I wonder if the slashdot effect itself atracts advertisers:
"We sudenly got a lot of hits from some place called slashdot, that had a story about out product. Hey, the sell banner adds, and their readers are obviously interested in our product, so lets advertise there!"
That'd be nice.
I know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you don't. I suggest you read the replies you got (slowly), and try to understand how you misunderstood the critique if MS.
A hint can be found in the subject line.
1) If you want CLD without WP, then download and install Debian and KDE, on which it is based. Or download one of the many other Linux distributions.
2) You second point is not making any sense at all, KDE is not hardcoded into 98 or anything else with a near monopoly status.
Apparently you have no idea of what the problems with Microsoft business practices are, so maybe you should just stop commenting on them.
"We" are not screaming at MS for not releasing their code. You may be, but I haven't seen anyone else do that.
It seems Corel intend to be a good player in the Linux marked, contributing to important free software projects. Their main products won't be free software, but that doesn't prevent free software enthusiasts from enjoying their contributions to free software.
And, no, nobody with a clue is pissed at MS for "bundling" in general. People are worried that MS using their near monopoly on the desktop OS marked to unfairly compete in the application area. Corel has no "near monopoly", they are returning their enhancements to the community, they plan to follow the community standards, and their applications will also work on other distributions. There really isn't any sensible comparison.
Corel should be aplauded for their significant contributions to free software standards, and for being careful about doing this "the right way".
Asking on the net _is_ doing your own research.
About the idea that this somehow prevent people from forming their own opinion (while studying in a library somehow doesn't), remember the old description of Usenet: "Usenet is great! Ask a question on Usenet, and within five minutes yuu will have at least three answers. Unfortunately, all three will be different."
Well, there are >3000 votes in the new poll now, which is about twice as many as they usually get. That is not bad.
There was at least ten times that number of votes in the previous poll, but this story is no longer on the top of slashdot. Furthermore, the poll is more specific, so those longing for the old games longer have a reason to vote.
Yeah, right. How many of us have *not* threatened to sue Microsoft for using our free software file formats? Obviously, we should expect to get such letters back ourselves.
Please get real. Nobody with a clue are picking on Microsoft for using existing file formats, protocols or API's, it is quite the opposite, MS get flammed for inventing proprietary protocols and proprietary extensions to existing protocols.
Finally, if some companies in some areas can't compete with free software developers, then they should fold or change their business model. Free software may not be the best business model in all areas, but in those areas where it is, it should be allowed to win in a fair fight.
That's how a free market works, when it works.
Hmmm... a software pascifist...
There is nothing wrong with exposing bullies such as IPIX, nor about having build-in self-defence mechanisms in a license like GPL.
Then bundle the interpreter and all the old game datafiles in a nice package, and sell it for Linux.
Oh, yeah, I forgot: /.'ers are unable to form an opinion by themselved. How silly of me.