Just had to set up 20 or so NT workstations, all needing IE5. Good job I had my trusty GNU(incase the RMS Police are reading)/Linux machine with me to plug into the lan, fire up X, start Nutscape and dl IE, and all of the other miscellaneous patches that you need to stop it BSODing! Samba kicks ass!
Hmmm, Could have booted up the dos (OpenDOS natch.) partition and used Arachne instead, cut out the boot time considerably:)
What's wrong with just getting people to actually do the design work themselves. We created C++ and Java for the reasons of creating better code and creating maintainable programs. We must really look objectively and say is creating stuff for lazy people really worth the effort.
I always thought that lazyness was an essential part of programming, because if we weren't lazy, we wouldn't spend our time trying to find easier and shorter ways to implement our algorithms.
And anyway, if we get a computer generated Compiler, it's still just a compiler. It still needs source to compile, so programmers will still be needed. We just won't need many ASM programmers. Arrghhhh! I'll just have to Assemble for fun instead then!
Re:tom christiensen will probably sabotage it
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
Racist scum, Your as bad as the NAZIS.
Re:Other stuff - like designs?
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
'Program' is defined under condition 0 of the GPL:-
The "Program," below, refers to any such program or work, and a "Work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law...
So that should cover pretty much anything from a piece of software, down to say a piece of farming machinery or a "vegetable extract based soft drink in a red can(tm)":). Therefore Source Code implicitly means the design (for want of a better word) of the Program, be it the.c and.h files of a source tree, or the blueprints to a piece of tecnical machinery (they both contain the overall instructions to re-create the Program.
yeah, maybe Open Source could be seen as raping the community, because some people do not understand the difference between Open Source, and Free Software.
Take the mozilla project for instance, where Netscape Inc. released the mozilla source tree and announced it as Open Source. There were many comparisons in the press, between the mozilla project and GPL Software, which really confused the issue. If you visit www.gnu.org and have a look at the licencing models, they explain the differences between Open Source and GPL Software.
In a nutshell Open Source != GPL Software, Open Source means open access to a specific source tree, whereas GPL Software means FREE (or bare minimum cost) access to the source AND the compiled binary. Basically Open Source software can still remain proprietary whereas GPL Software cannot EVER become proprietary.
Hope that clears things up.
Lollypop_man
Re:Don't GPL if you want to make any money
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, of course you can still make money while still complying with the GPL. For instance, You can always charge for end-user tech support, and there is always that part of your resume that will state that you have worked in cooperation with others on a large scale project.
There is also Condition 1 in the GPL (Version 2 June 1991) which states:-
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you recieve it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this license and to the absence of any warranty; and give any recipients of the Program a copy of this license along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. (emphasis added)
Also Ousterhout, by deriving proprietary extensions from the Tcl source tree (because that is what you do when you create an extension), it is automatically in breach of the GPL Condition 2b:-
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
BTW If you breach the licensing aggreement for proprietry software, then you should expect the owner (or their appointed agent) to 'savage you' so why can't the appointed agent to the free software movement do the same?
Remember, for many free software is a great way to learn new techniques and apply them to your own projects. It is usually a "leisure activity" for most, and many people work highly paid jobs, on the cutting edge of the technology, and if it wasn't for the sharing of Ideas, then the computing world would be still back in the days of the abacus.
The prime example of someone who produces GPL software and still earns a living is Linus Torvalds (who he you ask?:) ) who has been working at Transmeta Corp. for the last few years and whose product will change the face of computing again.
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions, but personally if it wasn't for GPL Software and Free software, I wouldn't have learned as much as I have done, and I wouldn't have the job that I work now.
www.gnu.org Try reading the situations vacant to see that you can really make money by supporting GPL Software.
If you break it down into business terms, GPL Software is a 'loss leader' where you sell as cheaply as possible (i.e. FREE) and Hit 'em for the after sales support.
Hope that clears the air.
Lollypop_man (I'ts just a handle, click user info above for my details, I'm no coward!)
Quote:- If programmers are inherently lazy, then I must be the greatest programmer that ever lived!
A better way to do it would be:- #include "preface.h" #include "contents.h" #include "chapter1.h" #include "biblography.h" #include "index.h" main(){ preface(); contents(); chapter_one();.... biblography(); index(); } create source files thusly:- chapter1.h: void chapter_one(void); chapter1.c: void chapter_one(){ printf("Body Of Chapter One"); } and so on. create a makefile and then compile and pipe to a file. Job done. Then you can use cvs and other forms of source control. The above source is released under the GPL (see 'Copying' for details):) (Yes I do have too much time on my hands this evening!)
Slashdot Mirror
Just had to set up 20 or so NT workstations, all needing IE5. Good job I had my trusty GNU(incase the RMS Police are reading)/Linux machine with me to plug into the lan, fire up X, start Nutscape and dl IE, and all of the other miscellaneous patches that you need to stop it BSODing! Samba kicks ass!
Hmmm, Could have booted up the dos (OpenDOS natch.) partition and used Arachne instead, cut out the boot time considerably :)
LOL
They'll probably get monsato to test it here in the UK first!
What's wrong with just getting people to actually do the design work themselves. We created C++ and Java for the reasons of creating better code and creating maintainable programs. We must really look objectively and say is creating stuff for lazy people really worth the effort.
I always thought that lazyness was an essential part of programming, because if we weren't lazy, we wouldn't spend our time trying to find easier and shorter ways to implement our algorithms.
And anyway, if we get a computer generated Compiler, it's still just a compiler. It still needs source to compile, so programmers will still be needed. We just won't need many ASM programmers. Arrghhhh! I'll just have to Assemble for fun instead then!
Racist scum, Your as bad as the NAZIS.
'Program' is defined under condition 0 of the GPL:-
:). Therefore Source Code implicitly means the design (for want of a better word) of the Program, be it the .c and .h files of a source tree, or the blueprints to a piece of tecnical machinery (they both contain the overall instructions to re-create the Program.
The "Program," below, refers to any such program or work, and a "Work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law...
So that should cover pretty much anything from a piece of software, down to say a piece of farming machinery or a "vegetable extract based soft drink in a red can(tm)"
Lollypop_man
yeah, maybe Open Source could be seen as raping the community, because some people do not understand the difference between Open Source, and Free Software.
Take the mozilla project for instance, where Netscape Inc. released the mozilla source tree and announced it as Open Source. There were many comparisons in the press, between the mozilla project and GPL Software, which really confused the issue. If you visit www.gnu.org and have a look at the licencing models, they explain the differences between Open Source and GPL Software.
In a nutshell Open Source != GPL Software, Open Source means open access to a specific source tree, whereas GPL Software means FREE (or bare minimum cost) access to the source AND the compiled binary. Basically Open Source software can still remain proprietary whereas GPL Software cannot EVER become proprietary.
Hope that clears things up.
Lollypop_man
Hmm, of course you can still make money while still complying with the GPL. For instance, You can always charge for end-user tech support, and there is always that part of your resume that will state that you have worked in cooperation with others on a large scale project.
:) ) who has been working at Transmeta Corp. for the last few years and whose product will change the face of computing again.
There is also Condition 1 in the GPL (Version 2 June 1991) which states:-
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you recieve it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this license and to the absence of any warranty; and give any recipients of the Program a copy of this license along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. (emphasis added)
Also Ousterhout, by deriving proprietary extensions from the Tcl source tree (because that is what you do when you create an extension), it is automatically in breach of the GPL Condition 2b:-
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
BTW If you breach the licensing aggreement for proprietry software, then you should expect the owner (or their appointed agent) to 'savage you' so why can't the appointed agent to the free software movement do the same?
Remember, for many free software is a great way to learn new techniques and apply them to your own projects. It is usually a "leisure activity" for most, and many people work highly paid jobs, on the cutting edge of the technology, and if it wasn't for the sharing of Ideas, then the computing world would be still back in the days of the abacus.
The prime example of someone who produces GPL software and still earns a living is Linus Torvalds (who he you ask?
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions, but personally if it wasn't for GPL Software and Free software, I wouldn't have learned as much as I have done, and I wouldn't have the job that I work now.
www.gnu.org Try reading the situations vacant to see that you can really make money by supporting GPL Software.
If you break it down into business terms, GPL Software is a 'loss leader' where you sell as cheaply as possible (i.e. FREE) and Hit 'em for the after sales support.
Hope that clears the air.
Lollypop_man (I'ts just a handle, click user info above for my details, I'm no coward!)
Quote:- If programmers are inherently lazy, then I must be the greatest programmer that ever lived!
Sorry about the obfuscated code above!
..
..
OOPS Must remember the formatting option below!
Looks just like *nix source when I view it on my windoze box!
It should have read:-
A better way to do it would be:-
#include "preface.h"
#include "contents.h"
#include "chapter1.h"
#include "biblography.h"
#include "index.h"
main(){
preface();
contents();
chapter_one();
biblography();
index();
}
create source files thusly:-
chapter1.h:
void chapter_one(void);
chapter1.c:
void chapter_one(){
printf("Body Of Chapter One");
}
and so on.
Create a makefile and then compile and pipe to a file. Job done. Then you can use cvs and other forms of source control.
The above source is released under the GPL (see 'Copying' for details):) (Yes I do have too much time on my hands this evening!)
A better way to do it would be:- #include "preface.h" #include "contents.h" #include "chapter1.h" #include "biblography.h" #include "index.h" main(){ preface(); contents(); chapter_one(); .. .. biblography(); index(); } create source files thusly:- chapter1.h: void chapter_one(void); chapter1.c: void chapter_one(){ printf("Body Of Chapter One"); } and so on. create a makefile and then compile and pipe to a file. Job done. Then you can use cvs and other forms of source control. The above source is released under the GPL (see 'Copying' for details):) (Yes I do have too much time on my hands this evening!)
what was described by the phrase 'nicking/damaging' describes the act of AGGREVATED THEFT and not just vandalism.