>
I'd rather just upgrade my memory than my entire system.
This is not about cheapos gaming systems. 48 bits addressing is only available in expensive Xeon and the like wicked, noisy, energy- and heat-inefficient systems.
>
I don't need the speed of a 64 bit architecture, but for many apps, lots of memory is nice.
There are other things 64 bits buy you, like a well-engineered, balanced, efficient and robust system, a cleaner architecture.
Another thing is freedom from both sides of the evil Wintel duopoly. That not even AMD or Transmeta really give you, since they in a way validate x86 as a de facto standard.
>
If this document doesn't precisely define open source, what is it lacking?
Perhaps I should have been clearer, more precise.
I know about the OSD and agree it defines open source precisely. But what is meant by OSS model, which was the expression I complained about? When people speak like that, they can have any number of thing in their mind, from better software to price to being able to read source, but seldom freedom.
To me it is just like speaking about OO data model. It does not exist as such, yet makes people who failed to learn the real thing (in this example, the relational model) comfortable with their own, blissful ignorance.
>
Maybe you're not up to snuff on the philosiphy of code-reuse and what Free Software means.
Yes I am. I guess I know more than you, in fact. Can you tell me why do you think otherwise?
Now seriously, back to objective, non-personal stuff...
>
If the company was proprietary their entire corporate life, but releases the soruce as GPL (or BSD) when they fold, this is a Good Act and should be Lauded and Welcomed and Thanked.
What they did was neither GNU GPL, nor BSD, nor compatible with GNU GPL. Perhaps not even with unmodified BSD, practically speaking, due to BSD having that obnoxious advertising clause...
Who complains about not having whose participation in what?
>
when companies refuse to release their products under the OSS model
I could not care less about anything called the OSS model, because that is not well defined and the few fuzzy definitions around do not struck a cord with me. I care about free software, preferrably copyleft.
>
then you complain when someone releases software that, in your view, is useless.
If I see it as badly done and useless, should not I complain?
I consider this a misfeature. I want interoperability, not lock-in integration: a compiler is one thing, an IDE is another thing, and I want to choose each as I see fit, not be forced to use a suboptimal combination.
BTW there are lots of great IDEs, from GNU Emacs on, that integrate just great with gcc.
As to the other points, they are either debatable or important only for proprietary software compatibility in some cases, or (and) relevant to one obsolete, if still dominant, platform only. I would rather see these features integrated into gcc, but being licensed incompatibly with the GNU GPL robs this code base from any value it could have for me.
>
I am also told that the sources for gcc are a complete mess.
I wonder who told you that... any real references? gcc is inherently more complex, supporting more languages and platforms. But to achieve this it must be very well structured indeed.
>
The Sybase Open source license protects Sybase. While that's not important to you
Yes, it is important to me. I like authors being rewarded, and that is what the GNU GPL does with a proper implementation of copyleft. I have not ever seen a better one, and I doubt Sybase has made it. So I guess again a company has been taken over by lawyers who, perhaps with a all too common case of Not Invented Here syndrome, have failed to grab the only license yet that really protects the authors.
A read at the FSF explanation on weak copyleft by MPL and others might be instructive here.
>
The open source people have endorsed it as a valid open source license, so that is that.
I consider the whole open source thing a mistake, from moniker to organisation. I am for free software in general and copyleft in particular.
>
The Watcom compiler is the only compiler that supports writing 32 bit code using 48 bit pointers.
Thanks for the info. How valuable is that?
>
GCC only supports code where all the segment registers contain the same value.
Given that Watcom has a GNU GPL incompatible license, it will probably be easier to add this capability to gcc if enough talented, available people think it important than bringing Watcom to parity with gcc as to other, more important features as portability.
Yet another company trying to use free software as a dumping ground for useless software. What does Watcom have to offer today? Which vision of the future they have that could offer something that gcc or something the like cannot?
I do not see anything they can offer. Even if they had, would it not be better to just release the source code under the GNU GPL and integrate any valuable part into gcc? Thus they could create a new Cygnus based on their gained gcc expertise. But we do not need yet another also-ran, GPL-incompatible, redundant confused-ideas licensed open-source piece software.
Perhaps some years ago this would have been great. Not it is too little, too late.
>
No, that's my opinion, based on what I've seen over the last 30 years.
Which is quite irrelevant, given that the GNU GPL is not yet reaching into all markets, that is mindset is still abhorrent to this greedy age, and that it is yet relatively young.
>
Many businesses need software that is not serviced by the GPL, open-source market.
First, open source is one thing, the GNU GPL is quite another. They have a huge overlap, but the GNU GPL is a free software license, which is accepted as well by the open source ideology but is itself much more stringent ideologically and legally.
Second, you should say is not yet serviced. There is nothing preventing some company from using free software to service any given market. There are many examples past and present of free software companies, selling services and deliverables on and of various parts of the GNU toolchain. Cygnus, Ada, Aladdin, and so on. Do your homework.
>
It's equally shortsighted to think that we can get along without selling commercial software.
Commercial is opposite to freeware, not to free. The opposite to free is proprietary.
I am all for commercial, free software.
>
For example, the industry I write software for couldn't afford to have each company "roll it's own"... and I can guarantee you that it's not sexy enough to have "lots of eyeballs to make all bugs shallow".
That is why it would make sense for all of them to share copylefted code, perhaps supported by the authors in a vendor.
>
Without commercial, non-GPL software, these businesses would not have software.
>
The only thing I can't do is release binaries of the modified code.
Not true. You cannot release modified code under any other license than GNU GPL, binary or not.
But this wouldn't be hoarding, it would be just private modifications. You wouldn't fleece anyone. In fact, when Apple and Netscape created licenses that required even in-house modifications to be sent back to the maintainer, RMS found it to be a violation of users' privacy, and thus against freedom. Not to mention it is a restriction not found in the GNU GPL, and this was one of the things that made MPL and APSL incompatible with it.
Incredible after so many years how FSF, GNU, the GNU GPL and RMS are still so widely misunderstood.
>
To some people it is mostly about better software.
This is open source people, not free software. Because the troll was dissing the GNU GPL, then your comment is irrelevant. But Plan 9 is not even open source.
>
As soon as RMS writes a license that allows for true "freedom" (ie, I can do whatever the hell I want with the licensed software, including releasing it under a non-GPL license), I will take his views on "freedom" seriously.
I would rather not have you hoarding my own software and modifications of it, so I prefer GPL that helps keeping you honest.
>
Why should he be?
Sorry, not enough context and I am feeling lazy today.
>
If RMS deems a license non-compatible with the GPL, then it is by definition not "Free"
Not at all. GPL compatibility is certainly nice, but it isn't a requirement for freedom. And he never said anything the like, so you are putting words into his mouth. I would apologise if I were you.
>
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure the Plan 9 license is officially recognized as an Open Source license.
>
will usually not be an SGML editor or LyX, it will be something the entire team can use: Office, SmartSuite, or Wordperfect Office.
Or OpenOffice, or AbiWord, or KWord, or LyX again which is nothing awful or the like. OTOH, MS Office is not good: try doing anything more complex, like styles and templates with outlines in MS Word, and it fails miserably, crashing, screwing documents, or simply not attaining the desired effecs. MS Word for DOS was much better, it actually worked.
>
Excel and Word, however, which (I have to admit) are the best programs currently for those tasks.
Which tasks? If the task is editing MS Office documents, obviously it is better to use the native tasks. But if the task is doing spreadsheets and document processing, I'd argue Gnumeric on one hand and Emacs Info, LyX, SGML on the other are better.
>
I use MySQL (LAMP...Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) for rapid prototyping...
How can you prototype a proper database without a feature-complete DBMS? You will inevitably loose control of data integrity as you procedurally hand-code application logic to do what a proper DBMS could do declaratively.
That is just bad programming practice. I would avoid an application prototyped like that. There is no point in even testing what has not been well thought of in the first place.
What you define as working for you? With MySQL you have to do all kinds of thing by hand that SQL DBMSs can do automatically and declaratively, like taking care of data integrity thru transactions and constraints.
>
The idiocy that is the Interational Space Station
Would you explain why? URLs, anything
>
those goverments or business who still have that sense of longing
Governments and business have no longings, people do. Governments are to minister justice to people, business for them to earn their lives. Exploration is for rich, leisured individuals and their organisations. But I dare say if I was rich, or in the position to influence a daring organisation, then preaching the Gospel, educating children, clearing up intellectual confusion or fighting political correctness would be much higher in my priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. I am for copyleft, and that means I should not be allowed to hoard code.
As I said, not being neither copyleft nor GNU GPL compatible.
Also. Notice is is limited only to one proprietary platform, that it has not been kept up-to-date, and that it was not viable not even to its vendor.
Actually not exactly for Linux, but for the X Window System on POSIX OSs.
Yes, many are just duplication of effort, me-too or Not Invented Here misguided, ephemerous if idealistic efforts.
Yes, if it is according to my description above. Even more if it was not copyleft, nor GNU GPL compatible.
Perhaps you should know better before pointing out...
This is not about cheapos gaming systems. 48 bits addressing is only available in expensive Xeon and the like wicked, noisy, energy- and heat-inefficient systems.
There are other things 64 bits buy you, like a well-engineered, balanced, efficient and robust system, a cleaner architecture.
Another thing is freedom from both sides of the evil Wintel duopoly. That not even AMD or Transmeta really give you, since they in a way validate x86 as a de facto standard.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, more precise.
I know about the OSD and agree it defines open source precisely. But what is meant by OSS model, which was the expression I complained about? When people speak like that, they can have any number of thing in their mind, from better software to price to being able to read source, but seldom freedom.
To me it is just like speaking about OO data model. It does not exist as such, yet makes people who failed to learn the real thing (in this example, the relational model) comfortable with their own, blissful ignorance.
Not another, but the same that has been advocating copyleft here and elsewhere for years.
What could he learn there that he could not, probably better, in gcc or a Lisp compiler?
There are many other, much better, examples. So your point is true but underwhelming.
A very uninteresting piece as I see it.
Yet not every act should be as shoddy and half-hearted, yet it seems that is so.
Given that free software tends to be able to run on more efficient 64 bits architectures, I consider that unnecessary complication. YMMV.
Yes I am. I guess I know more than you, in fact. Can you tell me why do you think otherwise?
Now seriously, back to objective, non-personal stuff...
What they did was neither GNU GPL, nor BSD, nor compatible with GNU GPL. Perhaps not even with unmodified BSD, practically speaking, due to BSD having that obnoxious advertising clause...
Who complains about not having whose participation in what?
I could not care less about anything called the OSS model, because that is not well defined and the few fuzzy definitions around do not struck a cord with me. I care about free software, preferrably copyleft.
If I see it as badly done and useless, should not I complain?
I consider this a misfeature. I want interoperability, not lock-in integration: a compiler is one thing, an IDE is another thing, and I want to choose each as I see fit, not be forced to use a suboptimal combination.
BTW there are lots of great IDEs, from GNU Emacs on, that integrate just great with gcc.
As to the other points, they are either debatable or important only for proprietary software compatibility in some cases, or (and) relevant to one obsolete, if still dominant, platform only. I would rather see these features integrated into gcc, but being licensed incompatibly with the GNU GPL robs this code base from any value it could have for me.
I wonder who told you that... any real references? gcc is inherently more complex, supporting more languages and platforms. But to achieve this it must be very well structured indeed.
Yes, it is important to me. I like authors being rewarded, and that is what the GNU GPL does with a proper implementation of copyleft. I have not ever seen a better one, and I doubt Sybase has made it. So I guess again a company has been taken over by lawyers who, perhaps with a all too common case of Not Invented Here syndrome, have failed to grab the only license yet that really protects the authors.
A read at the FSF explanation on weak copyleft by MPL and others might be instructive here.
I consider the whole open source thing a mistake, from moniker to organisation. I am for free software in general and copyleft in particular.
Thanks for the info. How valuable is that?
Given that Watcom has a GNU GPL incompatible license, it will probably be easier to add this capability to gcc if enough talented, available people think it important than bringing Watcom to parity with gcc as to other, more important features as portability.
Yet another company trying to use free software as a dumping ground for useless software. What does Watcom have to offer today? Which vision of the future they have that could offer something that gcc or something the like cannot?
I do not see anything they can offer. Even if they had, would it not be better to just release the source code under the GNU GPL and integrate any valuable part into gcc? Thus they could create a new Cygnus based on their gained gcc expertise. But we do not need yet another also-ran, GPL-incompatible, redundant confused-ideas licensed open-source piece software.
Perhaps some years ago this would have been great. Not it is too little, too late.
Which is quite irrelevant, given that the GNU GPL is not yet reaching into all markets, that is mindset is still abhorrent to this greedy age, and that it is yet relatively young.
First, open source is one thing, the GNU GPL is quite another. They have a huge overlap, but the GNU GPL is a free software license, which is accepted as well by the open source ideology but is itself much more stringent ideologically and legally.
Second, you should say is not yet serviced. There is nothing preventing some company from using free software to service any given market. There are many examples past and present of free software companies, selling services and deliverables on and of various parts of the GNU toolchain. Cygnus, Ada, Aladdin, and so on. Do your homework.
Commercial is opposite to freeware, not to free. The opposite to free is proprietary.
I am all for commercial, free software.
That is why it would make sense for all of them to share copylefted code, perhaps supported by the authors in a vendor.
That is a non sequitur.
Not true. You cannot release modified code under any other license than GNU GPL, binary or not.
But this wouldn't be hoarding, it would be just private modifications. You wouldn't fleece anyone. In fact, when Apple and Netscape created licenses that required even in-house modifications to be sent back to the maintainer, RMS found it to be a violation of users' privacy, and thus against freedom. Not to mention it is a restriction not found in the GNU GPL, and this was one of the things that made MPL and APSL incompatible with it.
Incredible after so many years how FSF, GNU, the GNU GPL and RMS are still so widely misunderstood.
This is open source people, not free software. Because the troll was dissing the GNU GPL, then your comment is irrelevant. But Plan 9 is not even open source.
I would rather not have you hoarding my own software and modifications of it, so I prefer GPL that helps keeping you honest.
Sorry, not enough context and I am feeling lazy today.
Not at all. GPL compatibility is certainly nice, but it isn't a requirement for freedom. And he never said anything the like, so you are putting words into his mouth. I would apologise if I were you.
Check again, it is not OSD, DFSG or anything the like -compliant. It is not even free by your own definition.
You are so misinformed you become libelous.
Or OpenOffice, or AbiWord, or KWord, or LyX again which is nothing awful or the like. OTOH, MS Office is not good: try doing anything more complex, like styles and templates with outlines in MS Word, and it fails miserably, crashing, screwing documents, or simply not attaining the desired effecs. MS Word for DOS was much better, it actually worked.
Conceptual integrity.
Google, man, google.
It is clean.
This isn't about being best in the world, but about helping to keep freedom.
Why not?
And what does this have to do with the argument? Apache license is indeed open to hoarding, but Plan 9 isn't even free.
Which tasks? If the task is editing MS Office documents, obviously it is better to use the native tasks. But if the task is doing spreadsheets and document processing, I'd argue Gnumeric on one hand and Emacs Info, LyX, SGML on the other are better.
No data integrity, no adequate criteria. Sorry.
This shows you do not understand. Why make a prototype more complicated, and in a different platform? It does not add up.
How can you prototype a proper database without a feature-complete DBMS? You will inevitably loose control of data integrity as you procedurally hand-code application logic to do what a proper DBMS could do declaratively.
That is just bad programming practice. I would avoid an application prototyped like that. There is no point in even testing what has not been well thought of in the first place.
It ain't necessarily so.
If the author allows the download for people who haven't bought copies otherwise, or if the copy rights expired, then it is legal.
There are probably other legal cases, but those were the ones I got out of the top of my head.
What you define as working for you? With MySQL you have to do all kinds of thing by hand that SQL DBMSs can do automatically and declaratively, like taking care of data integrity thru transactions and constraints.
Would you explain why? URLs, anything
Governments and business have no longings, people do. Governments are to minister justice to people, business for them to earn their lives. Exploration is for rich, leisured individuals and their organisations. But I dare say if I was rich, or in the position to influence a daring organisation, then preaching the Gospel, educating children, clearing up intellectual confusion or fighting political correctness would be much higher in my priorities.