Nah... Bloat would be if your program would actually need them both and a third redundant dependancy is introduced in the service pack. Gtk programs only use a subset of all those installed libraries, they are not bloated. Likewise QT programs don't use all those libraries so it is not bloated either. Compare the space needed to install two complete desktop environments including several office suites with just one typical windows install and you will see which one is bloated.
Your patch is corrupted..... The header of that piece states it starts at line 3 for both files (old and new), but the old one is seven lines and the new one is 8 lines. Asuming that the other lines are just whitespace you somehow pasted this patch without atleast the new line that is added.
Without the symbol map the EIP and ESP values are pretty useless since they vary on compile time options (and even the compiler).
What is usefull is the EIP (and call trace) with together with the symbol table, or easier the 2.6 kernels have a build in back trace that spits out the function names itself. (If you want some fun do it yourself for once with the call trace and a symbol table, bonus points for doing hex math on a piece of paper instead of a calculator) Just write down this list of functionnames and send it, that way the developpers immediatly known wath code path your pc took before going boom.
Because our current government likes kissing Bush's ass (They previous government liked kissing Clinton's ass btw, it doesn't seem to have changed much). They would gladly send their own citizens on a one way trip accross the ocean when asked to.
'reversing the polarity' usually only works in Star Trek:)
The problem with such measures is that you will need some kind of special coating on top of the panels (either anti-static, or conducting to hold the charge) and that is going to result in less efficient panels.
I use ctwm on a pentium 120 with 16MB RAM, its perfect for such a machine. dillo for browsing and nedit for editing works fine on it. For real text processing even abiword is workable.
You can use such a machine perfectly well, you just have to be picky about what you use on it.
By the time the hardware goes to market they should already be atleast one or two generations further in their development. So yeah, it doesn't make sense to rely on reverse engineering to compete, likewise it also doesn't make sense to keep it a secret anymore.
Assuming they would do atleast some reverse engineering (they could be doing some magic you hadn't thought of and adding it in your next model can still make sense) it would take so little extra time compared having the source it just doesn't make sense for a harware manufacturor in a pressed market to keep its software closed.
It certainly is possible to shield the electricity grid. (Just hard, the insulation will need to be far better than a normal coax cable) The problem is that the current grid isn't and will radiate like hell when frequencies much higher than 50 or 60 Hertz are used on it.
No I am not. I said that a software product does not need to be sold as if it is a physical product. The only thing scarce in shelved software is the cd or box itself. A real scarcety is the actual time that developpers need to write it, or the support you need later. You can profit from that and it still can be either closed or open source.
I never said you should profit from anything else than scarcety, I also didn't say you shouldn't profit. This guy simple seems to think that the scarcety of a software product is somehow related to the number of boxes you put on the store shelves which in reality this is nothing but a way to let software resemble a traditional product (those that actually have physical costs). As you already said there are more ways to sell something scarce related to software.
He is making a fatal mistake. He is trapped in the old thinking that software is a product that needs to be sold like it is scarce. He thinks free software somehow makes it impossible to profit from.
There is a difference... For a closed source project there is a much higher critical number. Namely the point between profit and loss. You need a certain critical mass to support a closed source program and its backing company.
Even if you are the only one using a open source program you can continue to use and improve it as long as you like. The critical mass here is one.
And not having the need for this backing is the great thing. The moment this backing dissapears for a closed source program you have no option what so ever. If that happens to an open source program than you can still use it, make legal copies of it and can even improve it.
You see software as a product, you should regard is as infrastructure. Somehow a society manages to build and support a road system.... and its not by magic. When the original builder is gone you can still use the road, and if you don't know how to fill a hole you get somebody to do it for you. And if you are really lucky you will get some community of road users to do it collectivly (something like a government perhaps?)
They should stop complaining about it..... I find it ironic that they choose a license that specificly allows relicensing and brag about its abilities and at the same time complain when somebody actually does it.....
BTW since microsoft used the BSD license ip stack doesn't that make their EULA just as viral by this logic?
The nice thing about X is that it doesn't matter for your app which server is runngin... Its called a 'standard' and its a nice thing to have.
The only thing you will have to choose is the library you compile your app against. Very vew apps use the xlibs directly. And even then the various forks of xlib are still compatible.
What happens when closed source developpers stop developping? What if they get another job? If the company doesn't wan't to develop anymore your screwed, otherwise they would have to hire new programmers....
The free software alternative is better: No matter what the original author does, you can always do (or have done) it yourself. And that is just asuming you are the only one that cares. If the project is really interesting someone will eventually pick it up or replace it.
No, in a little while they will prove that nomatter what companies/organizations do it will continue fine without them.... The great thing about free software is that you can only be in control as long as you don't piss off a critical set of developpers.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why you run it over ssh if you have to cross an unsafe network...
Jeroen
Nah... Bloat would be if your program would actually need them both and a third redundant dependancy is introduced in the service pack.
Gtk programs only use a subset of all those installed libraries, they are not bloated.
Likewise QT programs don't use all those libraries so it is not bloated either.
Compare the space needed to install two complete desktop environments including several office suites with just one typical windows install and you will see which one is bloated.
Jeroen
You are confusing glib with glibc (aka libc6).
glib is a library with some higher level stuff than the kernel-user glue that is libc.
Jeroen
Your patch is corrupted.....
The header of that piece states it starts at line 3 for both files (old and new), but the old one is seven lines and the new one is 8 lines.
Asuming that the other lines are just whitespace you somehow pasted this patch without atleast the new line that is added.
was it this?
+ #include
Jeroen
Without the symbol map the EIP and ESP values are pretty useless since they vary on compile time options (and even the compiler).
What is usefull is the EIP (and call trace) with together with the symbol table, or easier the 2.6 kernels have a build in back trace that spits out the function names itself. (If you want some fun do it yourself for once with the call trace and a symbol table, bonus points for doing hex math on a piece of paper instead of a calculator)
Just write down this list of functionnames and send it, that way the developpers immediatly known wath code path your pc took before going boom.
Jeroen
You better not tell them you were once a customer...
they seem to have developped a habit of suing them.
Jeroen
Because our current government likes kissing Bush's ass (They previous government liked kissing Clinton's ass btw, it doesn't seem to have changed much). They would gladly send their own citizens on a one way trip accross the ocean when asked to.
Jeroen
'reversing the polarity' usually only works in Star Trek :)
The problem with such measures is that you will need some kind of special coating on top of the panels (either anti-static, or conducting to hold the charge) and that is going to result in less efficient panels.
Jeroen
I use ctwm on a pentium 120 with 16MB RAM, its perfect for such a machine.
dillo for browsing and nedit for editing works fine on it. For real text processing even abiword is workable.
You can use such a machine perfectly well, you just have to be picky about what you use on it.
Jeroen
PPC is more than just Apple....
But you could replace PPC with any non ati supported platform: AMD64, MIPS, ALPHA, SPARC, whatever-commes-next-week.
Jeroen
By the time the hardware goes to market they should already be atleast one or two generations further in their development.
So yeah, it doesn't make sense to rely on reverse engineering to compete, likewise it also doesn't make sense to keep it a secret anymore.
Assuming they would do atleast some reverse engineering (they could be doing some magic you hadn't thought of and adding it in your next model can still make sense) it would take so little extra time compared having the source it just doesn't make sense for a harware manufacturor in a pressed market to keep its software closed.
Jeroen
It certainly is possible to shield the electricity grid. (Just hard, the insulation will need to be far better than a normal coax cable)
The problem is that the current grid isn't and will radiate like hell when frequencies much higher than 50 or 60 Hertz are used on it.
Jeroen
Did you ever consider the possibility you had a lousy stereo?
Jeroen
No I am not.
I said that a software product does not need to be sold as if it is a physical product.
The only thing scarce in shelved software is the cd or box itself.
A real scarcety is the actual time that developpers need to write it, or the support you need later. You can profit from that and it still can be either closed or open source.
Jeroen
I never said you should profit from anything else than scarcety, I also didn't say you shouldn't profit.
This guy simple seems to think that the scarcety of a software product is somehow related to the number of boxes you put on the store shelves which in reality this is nothing but a way to let software resemble a traditional product (those that actually have physical costs). As you already said there are more ways to sell something scarce related to software.
Jeroen
He is making a fatal mistake.
He is trapped in the old thinking that software is a product that needs to be sold like it is scarce.
He thinks free software somehow makes it impossible to profit from.
Jeroen
thats pretty useless, please read the manpages of echo, cat, rm and mv.
/dev/null
It should be:
mv any_sco_rant_de.txt
or easier:
rm any_sco_rant_de.txt
If you really want to keep the rant it would be:
cat any_sco_Rant_de.txt >/dev/null
Jeroen
There is a difference... For a closed source project there is a much higher critical number. Namely the point between profit and loss. You need a certain critical mass to support a closed source program and its backing company.
Even if you are the only one using a open source program you can continue to use and improve it as long as you like. The critical mass here is one.
Jeroen
How many succesfull open source projects that are now unusable can you name?
Jeroen
And not having the need for this backing is the great thing. The moment this backing dissapears for a closed source program you have no option what so ever. If that happens to an open source program than you can still use it, make legal copies of it and can even improve it.
You see software as a product, you should regard is as infrastructure. Somehow a society manages to build and support a road system.... and its not by magic.
When the original builder is gone you can still use the road, and if you don't know how to fill a hole you get somebody to do it for you. And if you are really lucky you will get some community of road users to do it collectivly (something like a government perhaps?)
Jeroen
They should stop complaining about it.....
I find it ironic that they choose a license that specificly allows relicensing and brag about its abilities and at the same time complain when somebody actually does it.....
BTW since microsoft used the BSD license ip stack doesn't that make their EULA just as viral by this logic?
Jeroen
The nice thing about X is that it doesn't matter for your app which server is runngin...
Its called a 'standard' and its a nice thing to have.
The only thing you will have to choose is the library you compile your app against. Very vew apps use the xlibs directly. And even then the various forks of xlib are still compatible.
Jeroen
What happens when closed source developpers stop developping? What if they get another job?
If the company doesn't wan't to develop anymore your screwed, otherwise they would have to hire new programmers....
The free software alternative is better:
No matter what the original author does, you can always do (or have done) it yourself. And that is just asuming you are the only one that cares.
If the project is really interesting someone will eventually pick it up or replace it.
A rational person that doesn't see that is blind.
Jeroen
No, in a little while they will prove that nomatter what companies/organizations do it will continue fine without them....
The great thing about free software is that you can only be in control as long as you don't piss off a critical set of developpers.
Jeroen
Can you be a terrorist through negligence to? I find that a bit hard to believe.
Yeah he's a moron, but not a terrorist.
Jeroen