This is simply nonsense. Java does not enforce it. It is even not allowed in Java because Java has a safe type system unlike C++.
Object is functionally equivalent to void *, with a little runtime type checking added. Your program still crashes if you misuse it, just slightly more pleasantly. (is there such a thing as a pleasant crash?) Heck, if all the classes you're using are your own, you can add your own primitive base class in C++ and use dynamic_cast.
Anyway, the point is, Java has no containers that preserve compile-time type-checking, the last I heard (although someone is supposedly working on templates), since any generic container forces you to cast to Object and back.
This is not necessarily a bad thing -- some languages have no compile-time type-checking at all. However, when the language supports static type-checking most of the time, it seems a real shame to lose it just so you can use a generic container. That's why I don't like casting to Object or void * even when I have to.
Daniel
As an aside, and to get back to the root of the thread, I think it would be *nice* if C++ had a primitive base class; I just disagree with the claim that C++ *forces* you to use templates for generic programming by not providing alternatives.
NOTE: THIS IS MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS AND NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEBIAN!
For people who didn't read or failed to comprehend Anthony's message, here are the relevant parts:
On the upside, woody itself is ready to be released. The only outstanding changes that need to be made are the standard security fixes that need to be made throughout the lifetime of stable anyway.
Unfortunately, that's exactly where we've dropped the ball: the security team presently don't have the resources to handle security advisories for woody.
...
the final automatic run of the testing scripts was today, and will be reflected in the next mirror pulse. From this point, we'll have manually approved security updates to some packages, and very little else, until release.
This translates to the following: woody is now being treated as if it were a stable release. The only thing that it doesn't have at the moment is support from the security team.
The reason it is not being released as stable is that it is significantly harder for the security team to support than potato (due to almost-doubling the number of architectures), and "over the next week or so", technical solutions to this problem will be implemented. If you can live without this for a while (I don't know how long this will take to resolve, but it sounds like a few weeks is an upper bound), you can install woody now. Otherwise, you might want to wait a bit.
If you read Anthony's message, woody is now decoupled from unstable -- essentially as if it were a stable release. Since the only thing the release is waiting on is rbuilder (as I read the message), I think people can start uploading new stuff to unstable again if they want.
Sure, you can do this. But do you really want to leave the type system even for a list of bananas or apples?
Uh, that was my point. If I wanted to cast to void *, I'd be casting to void *; I am not prevented from doing this in C++. Java just enforces it, albiet via a lack of templates.
With two cases, both fundamentally the same, with one ruling for the plaintiff and another against, how can any fair decisions be made in the future?
In what way is this fundamentally the same?
* bnetd does not itself pirate software, it merely happens to make it easier to use pirated software for network play;
* bnetd was not, so far as I am aware, promoted or represented as being a way to use illegitimate copies of Blizzard games, and this was not its primary purpose;
* The bnetd team never distributed a version of the software that supported Warcraft III (the software that started this);
* The bnetd team did not (so far as I know) operate a server on which people traded (or, heck, even played) pirated copies of Warcraft III or any other Blizzard game.
As a not-currently-corporate computer programmer, this lawsuit and the line of thinking that "they had it coming anyway" terrify me; they have the potential to illegalize perfectly legitimate activity simply because it doesn't fit into a corporation's business plan.
After that I looked at the list of packages, pine4-src (or whatever the name is) isn't there.
That's because it's a source package, not a binary package. Type "apt-get source pine" and you can download it (assuming you have deb-src lines in sources.list)
Unless I'm misreading, they appear to have patented the notion of client-server communication over a persistent channel? (at least, as it relates to SMB) Amusingly, they call the client a "consumer".
I think the twist may be that it's zero-copy and headers aren't used. Nothing particularly exciting.
Patent number 5,437,013
This looks like pretty much the same deal. Both are obfuscated to make them look more complex, I think.
Anyway, I don't know what a lawyer would make of these, but they look silly to me, which probably means they're completely valid.
This is not about revenge.I will be very happy to use a,"..less mature, and less feature rich proejct..",which is free,(as in speech),than a feature filled os which is not 100% free.
I like the Hurd in principle, but this is just silly. Removing anything in the non-free section from my Debian system will get me the same thing, but with more features left over.:)
Although your comments are almost making me physically ill, I'm going to try to say something rational.
In no way does anyone have the "right", except in their own minds, to create a product for any reason that enables people to pirate the games and still get the full benefits of them.
You realize this makes practically every interesting computer program illegal, and essentially forbids competition?
I can use a debugger to "pirate the games". I can use a Windows emulator to "pirate the games". I can use an alternative server to "pirate the games". Heck, I can probably use a decent filesystem abstraction to "pirate the games". I can probably even use a modifiable kernel to "pirate the games".
When I first read The Right to Read, I dismissed it as a poorly-written, alarmist story from someone trying to promote an extreme view of the world. Sort of like, eg, NRA propaganda.
I still think it's poorly-written, but after following computer-related news for the last few years, I'm starting to think that perhaps Richard was being optimistic when he wrote it.
Had the BnetD servers been created AFTER the release of the full game, I think it would had a better chance.
Have you any idea what bnetd is? It existed before Warcraft III was more than a twinkle in the eye of a marketing hypester, and the information I've seen is that the official source (you know, the one the developers were being threatened for?) never had WCIII support.
What scares me is less the fact that these DMCA lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) are slowly becoming bolder and bolder, and more the fact that so many people are eager to rationalize them. "If it's the law, it must be right!"
I get about 80-120 legitimate emails a day from mailing lists, and this is common among people who work on free software. Charging for email would kill many prominent projects.
And if you think that email isn't a good way to "disseminate information" and that reading Web pages is a good substitute, well, all I can say is: please go away and come back when you've bought yourself a clue or twenty.
The wonderful thing about razor, of course, is that absolutely anyone can report spam. Meaning that, well, within a few days of my trial run of razor, it had marked several legitimate messages as spam (while, I might add, missing about 90% of the real spam that I get)
I've been trying spamassassin now, and it seems to work very well -- aside from its tendency to forkbomb the system if I download more than about 40 emails at once. ("fork: resource temporarily unavailable"...fun)
Slashdot Mirror
This is simply nonsense. Java does not enforce it. It is even not allowed in Java because Java has a safe type system unlike C++.
Object is functionally equivalent to void *, with a little runtime type checking added. Your program still crashes if you misuse it, just slightly more pleasantly. (is there such a thing as a pleasant crash?) Heck, if all the classes you're using are your own, you can add your own primitive base class in C++ and use dynamic_cast.
Anyway, the point is, Java has no containers that preserve compile-time type-checking, the last I heard (although someone is supposedly working on templates), since any generic container forces you to cast to Object and back.
This is not necessarily a bad thing -- some languages have no compile-time type-checking at all. However, when the language supports static type-checking most of the time, it seems a real shame to lose it just so you can use a generic container. That's why I don't like casting to Object or void * even when I have to.
Daniel
As an aside, and to get back to the root of the thread, I think it would be *nice* if C++ had a primitive base class; I just disagree with the claim that C++ *forces* you to use templates for generic programming by not providing alternatives.
NOTE: THIS IS MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS AND NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEBIAN!
For people who didn't read or failed to comprehend Anthony's message, here are the relevant parts:
On the upside, woody itself is ready to be released. The only outstanding
changes that need to be made are the standard security fixes that need
to be made throughout the lifetime of stable anyway.
Unfortunately, that's exactly where we've dropped the ball: the security
team presently don't have the resources to handle security advisories
for woody.
...
the final automatic run of the testing scripts was today, and will
be reflected in the next mirror pulse. From this point, we'll have
manually approved security updates to some packages, and very little
else, until release.
This translates to the following: woody is now being treated as if it were a stable release. The only thing that it doesn't have at the moment is support from the security team.
The reason it is not being released as stable is that it is significantly harder for the security team to support than potato (due to almost-doubling the number of architectures), and "over the next week or so", technical solutions to this problem will be implemented. If you can live without this for a while (I don't know how long this will take to resolve, but it sounds like a few weeks is an upper bound), you can install woody now. Otherwise, you might want to wait a bit.
Daniel
If you read Anthony's message, woody is now decoupled from unstable -- essentially as if it were a stable release. Since the only thing the release is waiting on is rbuilder (as I read the message), I think people can start uploading new stuff to unstable again if they want.
Daniel
Sure, you can do this. But do you really want to leave the type system even for a list of bananas or apples?
Uh, that was my point. If I wanted to cast to void *, I'd be casting to void *; I am not prevented from doing this in C++. Java just enforces it, albiet via a lack of templates.
Daniel
forget for a little moment about being enforced to templates in C++ because of a missing general base class (like Object in Java).
Er, I can cast to (void *) in C++ just as well as I can in Java. That doesn't mean that I want to.
(heck, you could even "typedef std::list kool_list" in a header and be done with it)
Daniel
..because I could correct the idiot who moderated this Interesting. Is there a "Misinformative" rating?
Anyway, not to interrupt a fun GPL thread, but Ogg Vorbis is BSD-licensed precisely to encourage adoption.
Daniel
With two cases, both fundamentally the same, with one ruling for the plaintiff and another against, how can any fair decisions be made in the future?
In what way is this fundamentally the same?
* bnetd does not itself pirate software, it merely happens to make it easier to use pirated software for network play;
* bnetd was not, so far as I am aware, promoted or represented as being a way to use illegitimate copies of Blizzard games, and this was not its primary purpose;
* The bnetd team never distributed a version of the software that supported Warcraft III (the software that started this);
* The bnetd team did not (so far as I know) operate a server on which people traded (or, heck, even played) pirated copies of Warcraft III or any other Blizzard game.
As a not-currently-corporate computer programmer, this lawsuit and the line of thinking that "they had it coming anyway" terrify me; they have the potential to illegalize perfectly legitimate activity simply because it doesn't fit into a corporation's business plan.
Daniel
as anyone can tell you, their lawyers are neither. They're Undead.
Ah, but do they have Slate on the team?
Daniel
After that I looked at the list of packages, pine4-src (or whatever the name is) isn't there.
That's because it's a source package, not a binary package. Type "apt-get source pine" and you can download it (assuming you have deb-src lines in sources.list)
Daniel
I see it in unstable and testing. (albiet in non-free, of course)
dburrows@auric:~$ madison pine
pine | 4.44-3 | testing | source
pine | 4.44-3 | unstable | source
You do realize that this is different from the "pine-src" package, right?
Daniel
Just some comments:
Patent number 5,265,261
Unless I'm misreading, they appear to have patented the notion of client-server communication over a persistent channel? (at least, as it relates to SMB) Amusingly, they call the client a "consumer".
I think the twist may be that it's zero-copy and headers aren't used. Nothing particularly exciting.
Patent number 5,437,013
This looks like pretty much the same deal. Both are obfuscated to make them look more complex, I think.
Anyway, I don't know what a lawyer would make of these, but they look silly to me, which probably means they're completely valid.
Daniel
The floor salespeople at most retail outlets are so unbeleivably incompetent..
It sounds to me like they're making sales they wouldn't have had they been truthful and accurate. Is that really incompetence for a salesperson?
(there's a reason I avoid salespeople at all costs..)
Daniel
What I really wonder is how all those 10-year-olds learned to use set! on their thumbs..
Daniel
In computer science, it's (int) 3 / (int) 22.
I thought it was $\pi$.
Daniel
A law profesor said it is OK to do.
Eben Moglen, to be specific.
Daniel, who heard the same report and was startled to recognize the lawyer's name.
HURD is a unique product, although I don't agree
with the cathedral like way they produce it
Huh?
Daniel
This is not about revenge.I will be very happy to use a ,"..less mature, and less feature rich proejct ..",which is free,(as in speech),than a feature filled os which is not 100% free.
:)
I like the Hurd in principle, but this is just silly. Removing anything in the non-free section from my Debian system will get me the same thing, but with more features left over.
Daniel
Although your comments are almost making me physically ill, I'm going to try to say something rational.
In no way does anyone have the "right", except in their own minds, to create a product for any reason that enables people to pirate the games and still get the full benefits of them.
You realize this makes practically every interesting computer program illegal, and essentially forbids competition?
I can use a debugger to "pirate the games". I can use a Windows emulator to "pirate the games". I can use an alternative server to "pirate the games". Heck, I can probably use a decent filesystem abstraction to "pirate the games". I can probably even use a modifiable kernel to "pirate the games".
When I first read The Right to Read, I dismissed it as a poorly-written, alarmist story from someone trying to promote an extreme view of the world. Sort of like, eg, NRA propaganda.
I still think it's poorly-written, but after following computer-related news for the last few years, I'm starting to think that perhaps Richard was being optimistic when he wrote it.
Daniel
Had the BnetD servers been created AFTER the release of the full game, I think it would had a better chance.
Have you any idea what bnetd is? It existed before Warcraft III was more than a twinkle in the eye of a marketing hypester, and the information I've seen is that the official source (you know, the one the developers were being threatened for?) never had WCIII support.
What scares me is less the fact that these DMCA lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) are slowly becoming bolder and bolder, and more the fact that so many people are eager to rationalize them. "If it's the law, it must be right!"
Daniel
I get about 80-120 legitimate emails a day from mailing lists, and this is common among people who work on free software. Charging for email would kill many prominent projects.
And if you think that email isn't a good way to "disseminate information" and that reading Web pages is a good substitute, well, all I can say is: please go away and come back when you've bought yourself a clue or twenty.
Daniel
The wonderful thing about razor, of course, is that absolutely anyone can report spam. Meaning that, well, within a few days of my trial run of razor, it had marked several legitimate messages as spam (while, I might add, missing about 90% of the real spam that I get)
I've been trying spamassassin now, and it seems to work very well -- aside from its tendency to forkbomb the system if I download more than about 40 emails at once. ("fork: resource temporarily unavailable"...fun)
Daniel
Yes -- and if I hold a gun to your head, you only agree to deal with me because it is in your self-interest.
Daniel
Debian is not Free Software. Ever since they announced their intention to go completely closed source, developers have been flocking away in droves.
:)
Wow, April Fool's Day came early this year
Daniel
See the Woody 2.4 boot floppies.
There was previously a reiserfs flavor based on the 2.2 kernel, but it doesn't seem to be availble any more.
Daniel
I was referring primarily to the problems of running a stable/unstable/testing mix, which may work, but is not tested at all.
Daniel