Man nothing brings 'em out like GNOME or RedHat. Maybe slashdot should put the topic of AC posting to a vote.
Moving on to the topic:
I can't see how anyone could view this in a negative light. More documentation makes for better programs, and some is better than none. Atleast there now is a central point for GNOME developers to look for information, in an organized matter. Keep up the good work GNOME developers.
Just to mix things up a bit: What about the LGPL vs. a BSD style license?
I believe that if you want to keep control of your code and still allow its use proprietary products the LGPL is the only way to go. For me the BSD license seems too close to just releasing as to the public domain(which is the *most* free technically).
Re:Promulgating Code vs. Promulgating Standards
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Exactly, however I might tend to release under the LGPL for that reason, its the best of both worlds. It allows propritary linking, but keeps the source free. Under a BSD Style license company large company X takes great new piece of code under a BSD license, changes it to suit them and releases it closed form. If that company has enough market share, clout, whatever, that new closed standard takes precedence. However if it was LGPLd, the changes must be made available, and therefore cuts down on that kind of shady standards tweaking.
Re:Bad arguments from the GPL side yank MY chain.
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
As for forking, the Linux camp holds up the GPL as the anti-fork for Linux. The 32 different flavors (FORKS) of Linux help the anti-fork argument how?
Thats a pretty little argument you got there but let me tell you why you're wrong. I totally agree that there might be too many Linux distributions, but they are not forks. "Linux" is the kernel. There have been no major kernel forks to my knowledge. There are unofficial patches here and there, but were talking about small diff files here, not a true fork. Distributions are just collections of software that work on what we call a Linux system. Although there are many, they are for the most part compatable. Take the Metrowerks Code Warriror example, it says for "Red Hat Linux", well shit on them, as long as I provide the same libraries that thing is linked against I can run it on Slackware, Debian, or whatever. Anyway, you all get my point.
#include /* I also am a fan of xBSD, I run both Linux and BSD, will wonders never cease... */
There are many IDEs available. I knew when I moved over from DOS/Windows land, I liked xwpe. Pretty similar to Borland's interface which almost everyone knows how to use. Its not something I'd use for huge programming projects, but I usually use it as an editor, have a compile terminal open, and sick ddd on it when I need to debug stuff. Larger scale traditional IDEs include code crusader,gIDE(still alpha), and others. Then again there's always emacs.;) As far as using Visual Studio, that is about the worst IDE I've ever had the displeasure of using, and mikey$oft's C++ compiler is has got some bad ju-ju in it. I'd take a GNU compiler any day of the week.
A) Easy to install if you follow the instructions provided on gnome.org, I follwed the instructions to the letter for RH5.2 and have a stable system, and I did not have to do any --force or --nodeps
B) Pretty stable for x.0.0 release. Most of my headaches came from Enlightenment, I simple switched to WindowMaker and poof, problems gone.
Its not like OpenGL is that big of a trade secret. I can't see why Be wouldn't want to have more applications, oh well, seems like Be is begging to suffer from pointy hair syndrome.
Slashdot Mirror
Man nothing brings 'em out like GNOME or RedHat. Maybe slashdot should put the topic of AC posting to a vote.
Moving on to the topic:
I can't see how anyone could view this in a negative light. More documentation makes for better programs, and some is better than none. Atleast there now is a central point for GNOME developers to look for information, in an organized matter. Keep up the good work GNOME developers.
Possible Spoliers??
OOOOH NO! You ruined it! How could I go see it now that you've ruined the suspense that is an integral part of South Park.
Just to mix things up a bit: What about the LGPL vs. a BSD style license?
I believe that if you want to keep control of your code and still allow its use proprietary products the LGPL is the only way to go. For me the BSD license seems too close to just releasing as to the public domain(which is the *most* free technically).
Exactly, however I might tend to release under the LGPL for that reason, its the best of both worlds. It allows propritary linking, but keeps the source free. Under a BSD Style license company large company X takes great new piece of code under a BSD license, changes it to suit them and releases it closed form. If that company has enough market share, clout, whatever, that new closed standard takes precedence. However if it was LGPLd, the changes must be made available, and therefore cuts down on that kind of shady standards tweaking.
As for forking, the Linux camp holds up the GPL as the anti-fork for Linux. The 32 different flavors (FORKS) of Linux help the anti-fork argument how?
Thats a pretty little argument you got there but let me tell you why you're wrong. I totally agree that there might be too many Linux distributions, but they are not forks. "Linux" is the kernel. There have been no major kernel forks to my knowledge. There are unofficial patches here and there, but were talking about small diff files here, not a true fork. Distributions are just collections of software that work on what we call a Linux system. Although there are many, they are for the most part compatable. Take the Metrowerks Code Warriror example, it says for "Red Hat Linux", well shit on them, as long as I provide the same libraries that thing is linked against I can run it on Slackware, Debian, or whatever. Anyway, you all get my point.
#include
/* I also am a fan of xBSD, I run both Linux and BSD, will wonders never cease... */
Hell, its more like "ten". Once you're on the topic of networking, I rarely hear the kilo/mega/gigabit part.
just install QVWM and tell the guy you'll handle configuration yourself.
There are many IDEs available. I knew when I moved over from DOS/Windows land, I liked xwpe. Pretty similar to Borland's interface which almost everyone knows how to use. Its not something I'd use for huge programming projects, but I usually use it as an editor, have a compile terminal open, and sick ddd on it when I need to debug stuff. Larger scale traditional IDEs include code crusader,gIDE(still alpha), and others. Then again there's always emacs. ;)
As far as using Visual Studio, that is about the worst IDE I've ever had the displeasure of using, and mikey$oft's C++ compiler is has got some bad ju-ju in it. I'd take a GNU compiler any day of the week.
Come on. Gnome 1.0.0 is:
A) Easy to install if you follow the instructions provided on gnome.org, I follwed the instructions to the letter for RH5.2 and have a stable system, and I did not have to do any --force or --nodeps
B) Pretty stable for x.0.0 release. Most of my headaches came from Enlightenment, I simple switched to WindowMaker and poof, problems gone.
So kids, whats the moral of the story?
RTFM
Its not like OpenGL is that big of a trade secret. I can't see why Be wouldn't want to have more applications, oh well, seems like Be is begging to suffer from pointy hair syndrome.