Heh, no joke. This sounds like more of a potential landmine than KDE1 or writing your own MP3 codec without paying the licensing fee. Thanks, but I'll wait for Tarkin.:-)
Yeah--the thing to do is to make sure that tdfx is loaded, then start checking the install.
I have a Linux-Mandrake system (no wise cracks, please--I am not a newbie and I happen to actually LIKE Mandrake) and was able to use 3dfx's RPMs. The only issue I had was that X was expecting the config file to be/etc/X11/XF86Config-4, which caused me to scratch my head for a while. I guess the Mandrake people decided that people might want to run X3.x and X4.x on the same box or something.:-/
"No. BeOS had GeForce2 support before XFree86's drivers. X, as a windowing system, has had support for the GeForce2 under XFree86 from nVidia's drivers for noticably longer."
Huh?
OK, let me get this straight: XFree86 didn't have support for the GeForce 2, but the X11 GeForce 2 support available was via XFree86?
I'd explain it, but it'd be offtopic, and is surely covered on some website somewhere else that some lone nut/. reader with moderator status will consider redundant.
"Remember, we want linux as a desktop for the masses, right? "
I suppose it depends on who "we" are. Personally, I see no reason for developers to feel obligated to support clueless users. It's not the developers, I'm sure, who want clueless users. Why put up with constant whining, bitching, and moaning when in all likelihood you're not making any money on the venture? I've talked to people who seem to feel that, once you get down to it, "this Linux thing" they've read so much about should be better than what they currently have--an OS and other tools put together mainly by Microsoft, largest company in the world and holder of a significant concentration of the world's wealth.
Why should free-software developers live up to the up-on-the-pedestal image that mainstream press expects it to live up to? If mainstream press wants Linux to be better than the Windows and MacOS world from a clueless-newbie POV, perhaps mainstream media should fund/develop on their own.
Yes, but the added restriction applies to the QPLed code only. Because of the GPL's definition of derivative works, this isn't the case. The GPL seeks to break the convention that linking to dynamic libraries and using header files is merely referencing another work. It sounds like the GPL3 seeks to further break this convention. Thanks, but "we" don't want it.
'Actually, quotations in a literary work are treated under copyright law, they are in the "fair use" provisions. So, this is a bad example.'
To tell the truth, that's part of the reason I picked literary works.:-) IMHO the whole point of libraries is to allow one to use a chunk of code without having to include the source within your own code. Other than headers, you shouldn't need to know what's going on. As far as the programmer is concerned, magic happens.:-) OK, so that's a bad example too, but the point I'm attempting to make is that merely linking shouldn't be covered under the GPL IMHO. Or, at least, should be less restrictive.
As far as the LGPL is concerned, I could be going on a false assumption. I'm human, and an extremely fallible one at that.:-) As I read it, it seems to me that the LGPL requires derived works to be libraries. Again, I could be wrong.
"The criterion has to be somewhat more general than just allowing libc. But we definitely do not want to permit linking with third-party non-free libraries."
I'm sorry to ask it, but who are "we"? Certainly not I. The GPL is a bit too restrictive for my tastes. Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.
Sure, mod me down as a troll. I really don't care. I have a differing opinion and should be silenced.
Imagine, if you will, working on a paper for a class. You decide to release this paper under the mythical Free Paper License, so that content providers can use it and so that other students can benefit from your work. So you go to the library and start collecting sources. You start referencing sources. You start quoting sources in your article.
But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL.;-) So you start reading the copyright information in the books and find references that work. While you find references that work, you find that they aren't all exactly what you need.
What to do then? You start writing a supplementary paper that will be available under the Lesser Free Paper License. Unfortunately, at this point your professor balks, stating that your paper should be dependent only on outside sources, and that he/she won't accept a paper that has extra dependencies. So you try to bribe someone else into writing the LFPL paper for you. No luck. So much for making your paper "Free."
The point of all this? The GPL is too restrictive IMHO. While RMS may see real danger to allowing linking to "non-Free" libraries, I fail to see it. It's no more restrictive than quoting a source in an academic paper that falls under a restrictive licensing/copyright notice.
No joke. And now that public Linux companies' stock prices are going to more reasonable levels, trolls like that one are going on and on about how Open Source isn't commercially viable. Sheesh, give me a break.
I suppose that you believe in the theory that if you scream a lie long enough and frequently enough, people will believe it. All tech stocks are taking a nosedive, you moron, open source or no. Tech stocks were way overinflated, especially anything remotely Linux-related, and now we're seeing things come back down to a more sensible level.
"if Linux and Open Source is ever going to win over MS (which is what/. posters at large often cite they want to do) than our focus must be on creating "value" rather than "cool" projects if we are going to win."
You seem to be applying the feelings of a few/. readers to the general public. The general public, I daresay, just thinks, "make my email work" or such similar statements. They don't care about Free Software/Open Source ideology. They don't care what OS is under the hood. They want a system that runs somewhat smoothly and that they don't have to mess with.
IMHO it's The Press(TM) who's tried to set community policy--we've helped identify Microsoft as the Evil Choice and Linux as the L33t Hax0rs and now we want you to take over! Now mainstream press expects unpaid, volunteer programmers, instead of producing software they WANT to produce, to produce the replacement for Microsoft Word. Sorry, guys; thanks for playing. If you really want to see it happen, support efforts like the Gnome Foundation, KDE League, and other efforts to produce end-user software. Let the for-fun developers do their for-fun projects.:-) If all you do is bitch and moan about someone doing a for-fun project, hell, I see no reason to develop *anything* for you. You're not paying me, I'm not making any money off of your usage of my software, and you don't seem to appreciate my work. Go away, please, and I'll just develop my for-fun software for myself and not release it. (Come to think of it, that's what I do and why I do it.:-( )
When you only have to change 100 lines to get it to work under Windows (though, admittedly, on top of an abstraction layer) it says, or should say, "Look, our code really IS portable...and hey, it's portable from Linux to Windows!"
One has to wonder what's so damned difficult about an IE5 recompile for Linux/BSD/UN*X machines.;-)
"You didn't know that? I knew this every time I went into Babbages in the mall, and noticed the Linux section of software consisting of about 3 titles. "
My local Babbage's doesn't even have a Linux section. I have noticed, though, at a local software shop (I'm wracking my brains trying to remember the name of it) I noticed a few titles. Actually, only 5, and two of those were Mandrake and Red Hat.:-) I almost bought Q3A there. I grabbed it off the shelf and a clerk ran up quickly and said, "You know that's for Linux, right?" I of course said "Yes." To be blunt, she talked me out of buying it. It worked on me, too; I wasn't all that sure I wanted Q3A. It seems like Q2 with more eyecandy. Sorry, id; sorry, Loki.:-(
And I have to wonder, since Q3A was for x86 Linux, why the Linux binaries couldn't be put on the same media, or just an unsupported binary like Q2.
You make it sound as if Home Depot is the only company that does drug tests. It's more common than you think. I don't have any statistics, sorry, and right now I'm too lazy to look some up.:-D
Heh, have you ever worked in a retail environment? I have. I've worked with "the 16-year-old running the cash register...stoned." It's Not Good. Yeah, you might think that, gee, you're just there making money from The Man(TM) and you'll do the marginal work it takes to get your money from The Man(TM). Maybe it's because I worked in a retail environment in a small town, but the funny thing is, people start to associate you with that business. If you just do the bare minimum for The Man(TM), people start to talk. If you go out of your way to help, yet again people start to talk.:-) I used to work with a kid who'd show up stoned all the time. Amazingly enough, the kid could *sell* when he was stoned. Unfortunately, he was willing to cut just about any deal to get a sale when he was stoned. It was bad only because I had to work with him. People seemed to think I was guilty by association.:-)
My point is this. In my experience, after the initial drug testing, most businesses only test for a reason. I guess Home Depot goes further. Is that a problem for you? Then don't shop there and don't work there! If everyone felt that people should be able to smoke pot, Home Depot wouldn't have any business.
I hope that FreeType 2 will support OpenType fonts as well. That, and hopefully the patent issues will be 100% resolved before this hits XFree "for real"...
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, no joke. This sounds like more of a potential landmine than KDE1 or writing your own MP3 codec without paying the licensing fee. Thanks, but I'll wait for Tarkin. :-)
Yeah--the thing to do is to make sure that tdfx is loaded, then start checking the install.
/etc/X11/XF86Config-4, which caused me to scratch my head for a while. I guess the Mandrake people decided that people might want to run X3.x and X4.x on the same box or something. :-/
I have a Linux-Mandrake system (no wise cracks, please--I am not a newbie and I happen to actually LIKE Mandrake) and was able to use 3dfx's RPMs. The only issue I had was that X was expecting the config file to be
"No. BeOS had GeForce2 support before XFree86's drivers. X, as a windowing system, has had support for the GeForce2 under XFree86 from nVidia's drivers for noticably longer."
Huh?
OK, let me get this straight: XFree86 didn't have support for the GeForce 2, but the X11 GeForce 2 support available was via XFree86?
Have you been hitting the cough syrup?
Hm.
/. reader with moderator status will consider redundant.
Sounds like you did something wrong.
I'd explain it, but it'd be offtopic, and is surely covered on some website somewhere else that some lone nut
Not good enough.
"Remember, we want linux as a desktop for the masses, right? "
I suppose it depends on who "we" are. Personally, I see no reason for developers to feel obligated to support clueless users. It's not the developers, I'm sure, who want clueless users. Why put up with constant whining, bitching, and moaning when in all likelihood you're not making any money on the venture? I've talked to people who seem to feel that, once you get down to it, "this Linux thing" they've read so much about should be better than what they currently have--an OS and other tools put together mainly by Microsoft, largest company in the world and holder of a significant concentration of the world's wealth.
Why should free-software developers live up to the up-on-the-pedestal image that mainstream press expects it to live up to? If mainstream press wants Linux to be better than the Windows and MacOS world from a clueless-newbie POV, perhaps mainstream media should fund/develop on their own.
It was actually an attempt to prevent people from doing a knee-jerk -1 -- so yeah, you're right to a certain extent.
Most people would simply read the first sentence and mod it down. Assholes.
Yes, but the added restriction applies to the QPLed code only. Because of the GPL's definition of derivative works, this isn't the case. The GPL seeks to break the convention that linking to dynamic libraries and using header files is merely referencing another work. It sounds like the GPL3 seeks to further break this convention. Thanks, but "we" don't want it.
'Actually, quotations in a literary work are treated under copyright law, they are in the "fair use" provisions. So, this is a bad example.'
:-) IMHO the whole point of libraries is to allow one to use a chunk of code without having to include the source within your own code. Other than headers, you shouldn't need to know what's going on. As far as the programmer is concerned, magic happens. :-) OK, so that's a bad example too, but the point I'm attempting to make is that merely linking shouldn't be covered under the GPL IMHO. Or, at least, should be less restrictive.
:-) As I read it, it seems to me that the LGPL requires derived works to be libraries. Again, I could be wrong.
To tell the truth, that's part of the reason I picked literary works.
As far as the LGPL is concerned, I could be going on a false assumption. I'm human, and an extremely fallible one at that.
"The criterion has to be somewhat more general than just allowing libc. But we definitely do not want to permit linking with third-party non-free libraries."
;-) So you start reading the copyright information in the books and find references that work. While you find references that work, you find that they aren't all exactly what you need.
I'm sorry to ask it, but who are "we"? Certainly not I. The GPL is a bit too restrictive for my tastes. Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.
Sure, mod me down as a troll. I really don't care. I have a differing opinion and should be silenced.
Imagine, if you will, working on a paper for a class. You decide to release this paper under the mythical Free Paper License, so that content providers can use it and so that other students can benefit from your work. So you go to the library and start collecting sources. You start referencing sources. You start quoting sources in your article.
But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL.
What to do then? You start writing a supplementary paper that will be available under the Lesser Free Paper License. Unfortunately, at this point your professor balks, stating that your paper should be dependent only on outside sources, and that he/she won't accept a paper that has extra dependencies. So you try to bribe someone else into writing the LFPL paper for you. No luck. So much for making your paper "Free."
The point of all this? The GPL is too restrictive IMHO. While RMS may see real danger to allowing linking to "non-Free" libraries, I fail to see it. It's no more restrictive than quoting a source in an academic paper that falls under a restrictive licensing/copyright notice.
No joke. And now that public Linux companies' stock prices are going to more reasonable levels, trolls like that one are going on and on about how Open Source isn't commercially viable. Sheesh, give me a break.
Play it on Windows, you silly sod.
You moron.
I suppose that you believe in the theory that if you scream a lie long enough and frequently enough, people will believe it. All tech stocks are taking a nosedive, you moron, open source or no. Tech stocks were way overinflated, especially anything remotely Linux-related, and now we're seeing things come back down to a more sensible level.
Should I become a Luddite now?
Well, JPEG uses DCT and MPEG uses MDCT, yeah.
I burned my copy of S&W. ;-)
Not only that, but AFAIK none of that software was originally released by Microsoft--merely bought & refurbished.
"if Linux and Open Source is ever going to win over MS (which is what /. posters at large often cite they want to do) than our focus must be on creating "value" rather than "cool" projects if we are going to win."
/. readers to the general public. The general public, I daresay, just thinks, "make my email work" or such similar statements. They don't care about Free Software/Open Source ideology. They don't care what OS is under the hood. They want a system that runs somewhat smoothly and that they don't have to mess with.
:-) If all you do is bitch and moan about someone doing a for-fun project, hell, I see no reason to develop *anything* for you. You're not paying me, I'm not making any money off of your usage of my software, and you don't seem to appreciate my work. Go away, please, and I'll just develop my for-fun software for myself and not release it. (Come to think of it, that's what I do and why I do it. :-( )
You seem to be applying the feelings of a few
IMHO it's The Press(TM) who's tried to set community policy--we've helped identify Microsoft as the Evil Choice and Linux as the L33t Hax0rs and now we want you to take over! Now mainstream press expects unpaid, volunteer programmers, instead of producing software they WANT to produce, to produce the replacement for Microsoft Word. Sorry, guys; thanks for playing. If you really want to see it happen, support efforts like the Gnome Foundation, KDE League, and other efforts to produce end-user software. Let the for-fun developers do their for-fun projects.
When you only have to change 100 lines to get it to work under Windows (though, admittedly, on top of an abstraction layer) it says, or should say, "Look, our code really IS portable...and hey, it's portable from Linux to Windows!"
;-)
One has to wonder what's so damned difficult about an IE5 recompile for Linux/BSD/UN*X machines.
Erm, if programmers did this, you'd be connecting to a PDP-11 right now through a serial terminal.
Check Cygnus for XFree for Win32. Apparently it only works on NT, ME, and 2K at the moment.
"You didn't know that? I knew this every time I went into Babbages in the mall, and noticed the Linux section of software consisting of about 3 titles. "
:-) I almost bought Q3A there. I grabbed it off the shelf and a clerk ran up quickly and said, "You know that's for Linux, right?" I of course said "Yes." To be blunt, she talked me out of buying it. It worked on me, too; I wasn't all that sure I wanted Q3A. It seems like Q2 with more eyecandy. Sorry, id; sorry, Loki. :-(
My local Babbage's doesn't even have a Linux section. I have noticed, though, at a local software shop (I'm wracking my brains trying to remember the name of it) I noticed a few titles. Actually, only 5, and two of those were Mandrake and Red Hat.
And I have to wonder, since Q3A was for x86 Linux, why the Linux binaries couldn't be put on the same media, or just an unsupported binary like Q2.
"I posted this anon because I know that moderaters do not have open minds."
That's funny; I always thought that it was the anti-WINE zealots who had a closed-mind problem.
You make it sound as if Home Depot is the only company that does drug tests. It's more common than you think. I don't have any statistics, sorry, and right now I'm too lazy to look some up. :-D
:-) I used to work with a kid who'd show up stoned all the time. Amazingly enough, the kid could *sell* when he was stoned. Unfortunately, he was willing to cut just about any deal to get a sale when he was stoned. It was bad only because I had to work with him. People seemed to think I was guilty by association. :-)
:-)
Heh, have you ever worked in a retail environment? I have. I've worked with "the 16-year-old running the cash register...stoned." It's Not Good. Yeah, you might think that, gee, you're just there making money from The Man(TM) and you'll do the marginal work it takes to get your money from The Man(TM). Maybe it's because I worked in a retail environment in a small town, but the funny thing is, people start to associate you with that business. If you just do the bare minimum for The Man(TM), people start to talk. If you go out of your way to help, yet again people start to talk.
My point is this. In my experience, after the initial drug testing, most businesses only test for a reason. I guess Home Depot goes further. Is that a problem for you? Then don't shop there and don't work there! If everyone felt that people should be able to smoke pot, Home Depot wouldn't have any business.
BTW, nice troll.
"The only remanants of Taco is a 'bot reading stories posted and choosing the worst ones to post them under he's name."
:-P
Under *his* name, you moron. If you're going to complain about Taco's lameness, the least you could do is be less lame than him.
I hope that FreeType 2 will support OpenType fonts as well. That, and hopefully the patent issues will be 100% resolved before this hits XFree "for real"...