I don't think that is the case. If there wasn't copyright law, everything would effectively be public domain and the GNU GPL would have no effect whatsoever.
He missed an important point: we are stuck with DNS until an open system appears. DNS with all its shortcomings is an open system, while Napster, ICQ and the like are proprietary, centralized systems.
Perhaps FreeNet will help with this. But I don't see anything better than DNS along the road providing an unified namespace - any proprietary namespaces will always be marginal, no matter how big they are compared to DNS.
Now dynamic DNS is a biggie. I don't know why it hasn't been popularized (or implemented?) yet.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Debian GNU/Linux, Tutorial D, relational model
While answering about evolution being or not good for design, you argue that there occurred a 'collapse of the "HTML should be a purely semantic language" argument in 1995'.
Now that begs the question.
You assume the point you try to prove, that merely evolution will make things better. Because you thing so, you can think that this so-called collapse of the argument proves that HTML-as-layout people were right. But I think this only proves good tools weren't available at the time.
Even now these good tools still aren't available, even if the infrastructure (XML, XSL, CSS) has been for two or three years now. What I would deem a good tool would be something like old versions of MS Word: a tool where I can at the same time design a page and the stylesheet for it, as two separate but linked files. If I could find something like that as an Emacs mode for DocBook and the likes of it - or a similarly competent tool - I wouldn't write in anything else.
> There's a science fiction story, can't remember if it's a short story, novella, or novel, that also deals with the web. Damn if I can remember
> the name of it though. I want to say its a name+number combination, but I don't know. It was from the 30's or 40's too.
> Can someone provide a title and author? I'll know it when I see it.
C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups", 1.945.
> Pulling KDE out really seems like a ploy to > rekindle the GNOME vs. KDE war, leave it in > non-free and keep non-free there, let the users > know but give them the option.</I>
Until QPL becomes GPL-compatible KDE distribution, or all KDE developers give special permission to distribute their GPL code with Qt, it will remain illegal to distribute KDE with Qt.
If Harmony gets ready, then Debian will be able to distribute KDE.
<I>> I also think the delays that have kept a > Debian release from coming out for what, over a > year now, are just an extreme form of idealism. > There simply isn't any way you can get all the > bugs out of that much software</I>
No one is trying that. Only critical software will have the critical bugs ironed out. Non critical software will be left out, and non critical bugs will be released.
The problem is that people have been slow to fix and test these critical bugs in critical software. Perhaps Debian could use some money to pay people to fix these bugs.
<I>> I also think that using BSD and Hurd kernels > is a noble goal and I'm glad Debian is trying > to do it but is it too much to be the ideology > king and then to build this kernel independence > while putting out only rock solid and beyond > releases?</I>
BSD and Hurd will never delay the Linux ports. If they are not ready, it's only a matter of not releasing them. In fact, BSD, Hurd, Solaris, Win32 will probably take a long, long time to be ready.
Also, the filing of bugs from other kernels and architectures beyong Linux i386 contributes even to the quality of the Linux i386 Debian, since bug-free software contributes to more stable, fast, efficient and portable code in all architectures, not only that which made the bug appear.
In fact Debian has left some desirable things out to get ready in time: a security audit, user friendliness, the most up-to-date software... that's called "feature-boxing", and there will allways be a choice of boxing less features or delay more. If you do not like Debian's choice but like some aspect of Debian, you can allways choose a Debian-based distro like Stormix, Libranet, Corel, etc.
All right... but who is intending to move all its attention over to the Hurd is the GNU Project (Free Software Foundation), not Debian proper. Debian is not affiliated to FSF, but to its own SPI.
The LinuxPPC and Yellow Dog guys make money the same way Red Hat and Debian do -- support. Debian do not make money, even if some developers may support something for money -- Debian itself is just a voluntary, non-profit organization.
"Firstly, all of the X window managers that try to look like a NeXT are really pathetic, if you've ever seriously used a NeXT for any period of time. This is because there is much more to a good GUI than just the visual apperance of the widgets."
Sure, the apps need to be aware of the environment. This will come in time, with Mac OS X apps being ported to GNUStep and POSIX apps being made GNOME-aware.
"you still have X-Windows underneath, which is the worst GUI in the industry"
The X Window System (X-Windows does not exist) isn't a GUI. It is a windowing protocol and API set, and also the name of its reference implementation. The GUI is the window manager, in the case of GNUStep this is WindowMaker.
A GNUAqua coupled with GNUStep and apps ported from Mac OS X, NeXTStep, OpenStep or even adapted from Unix would be real competition. If GNOME won't make it all irrelevant first.
"You still have that horrible device-dependent display model underneath. OS-X uses Display-PDF..."
The X Window System is orthogonal to Quartz (the real name of DisplayPDF in Mac OS X). X Window does have a device-dependent display model, but it can be -- and is -- replaced by any other display model, by means of a plug-in module. In fact Sun Solaris and other Unices have been using DisplayPostScript for years to draw on X windows. The only reasons this is not used in XFree yet is that Adobe won't license DisplayPostScript for free, and the XFree group won't accept GPL'd software (GNU GhostScritp) in its distribution, so up to some months ago no one cared to begin a GNU DisplayGhostScript... but the FSF's GNUStep at http://gnustep.org./ is integrating GNU GhostScript into its project as a DisplayGhostScript (DGS), so it must be just a year or less before you can port Quartz apps to GNUStep running on any other Unix, GNU systems (Linux or HURD) or BSD.
"It's nice to read from someone who doesn't complain, doesn't blame people for anything -- he just says what he'd like to happen, where folks fell short, and how we can step up to the plate."
Not really... he never sees where Steve Jobs falls short, like the lack of OEM licensing of Mac OS or the ridiculous partial freeing of already free BSD components in Mac OS X, aka Darwin.
It does strike me how Woz seems to be, after 20+ years and already in his full maturity, still sounds so infatuated to Jobs.
"Has anyone noticed that Woz and Paul Allen, the two "second-string" guys who actually did all the work, are the ones who are out there making the world a better place..."
No... what I noticed is that they refused to use their public positions to take stands on things which their companies are doing wrong, like proprietary lock-ins, absurd patents and copyrights, license agreements and screwing up partners. Education is good and nice, but they are educating a new generation in old proprietary software... this is no good.
Check http://sourceware.cygnus.com./cygwin/ and http://commit.winehq.com/~lynch/DebianGNU-win 32.html, as well as the win32 mailing list at http://debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe.
> It suffers no more than GPL'd code does, for > which the improvements aren't written in the > first place because the company didn't want > to give away the code. In both cases, there's no > free code added. So what's the difference?
The difference is that anyone is allowed to take BSD code and make any improvement without contributing back; while with GPL you only get to use the code if you agree to contribute. While with BSD we depend on the good will of proprietary vendors, with GPL contribution is enforced.
> As for Darwin, Apple has contributed all sorts > of code and fixes back in to the NetBSD tree. So > we certainly benefitted from this. What has > Linux got from Darwin? Nothing.
We can take any piece of code from BSD code base, but BSD can't take code from us, except in separate programs.
And we get things from Corel, Cobalt and all the others who are using Linux -- SGI, some router vendor I forgot the name of, Compaq, IBM...
What am I missing? The BSD code you cite is still freely available - or is the NetBSD source tree I track a figment of my imagination?
The problem is, all improvements these vendors made they can keep for themselves, and so the commom code base suffers -- why else Sun, Digital, HP and all the others one time BSD vendors migrated to SysV or OSF?
Apple is just a minor evil alternative; while still available, Darwin carries a less free than BSD license designed to benefit Apple. So while Darwin indeed contributes to free software, it suffers from not being as free as BSD nor copylefted.
Three of my first four posts to any gnu news groups drew flames from rms.
Now you are telling me something new! I've never read such flames of RMS's, but I've been personnally flamed by ESR in a manner I never thought him capable of, without any reason...
Slashdot Mirror
It is not yet gone for good... but I don't really understand why create something all new instead of just improvind on GNU findutils.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
It kind of injures me because his code isn't GPL'd, but he kind of uses it as some fighting call.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
License terms on version 1.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 1.0 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Portions ©1992 by Apple
Computer, Inc. 'Email-me' ware: drop me a short note to let me know if you find this application useful. The application
is free and is not to be sold. There are no guarantees nor warranties regarding this software."
So Ariston sold it, even if it was in a bundle.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
You are right, when you BSD your code you leave anyone do anything to it. That's why the FSF created the GNU GPL.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
> Second, the GPL does not rely on copyright.
I don't think that is the case. If there wasn't copyright law, everything would effectively be public domain and the GNU GPL would have no effect whatsoever.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
I couldn't come by this using http://microsoft.com./products/ nor by their own search, but Google did the trick:
Interix as related to Windows 2000
The FTP site.
The main Interix site.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
The only interesting thing I could find in Unisys is http://search.unisys.com/search/default.asp?sectio n=allsections&q1=linux
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Prior art requires hardcopy publication for patents purposes. It does not do to have just a sample program or some internal documents.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Actually something must have gone wrong there, because I was already an editor and they cancelled my account without a note, an email, nothing.
t ional/ and http://dmoz.org/World/Portugu%eas/Computadores/
Besides in all my attempts to reactivate my account or merely contact them I received no answer at all.
Now the categories I created are marked "This category needs an editor"... this is absurd!
Go check the categories I created at http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Databases/Rela
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
He missed an important point: we are stuck with DNS until an open system appears. DNS with all its shortcomings is an open system, while Napster, ICQ and the like are proprietary, centralized systems.
Perhaps FreeNet will help with this. But I don't see anything better than DNS along the road providing an unified namespace - any proprietary namespaces will always be marginal, no matter how big they are compared to DNS.
Now dynamic DNS is a biggie. I don't know why it hasn't been popularized (or implemented?) yet.
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Debian GNU/Linux, Tutorial D, relational model
While answering about evolution being or not good for design, you argue that there occurred a 'collapse of the "HTML should be a purely semantic language" argument in 1995'.
Now that begs the question.
You assume the point you try to prove, that merely evolution will make things better. Because you thing so, you can think that this so-called collapse of the argument proves that HTML-as-layout people were right. But I think this only proves good tools weren't available at the time.
Even now these good tools still aren't available, even if the infrastructure (XML, XSL, CSS) has been for two or three years now. What I would deem a good tool would be something like old versions of MS Word: a tool where I can at the same time design a page and the stylesheet for it, as two separate but linked files. If I could find something like that as an Emacs mode for DocBook and the likes of it - or a similarly competent tool - I wouldn't write in anything else.
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Debian GNU/Linux, Tutorial D, relational model
> There's a science fiction story, can't remember if it's a short story, novella, or novel, that also deals with the web. Damn if I can remember
> the name of it though. I want to say its a name+number combination, but I don't know. It was from the 30's or 40's too.
> Can someone provide a title and author? I'll know it when I see it.
C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups", 1.945.
> Pulling KDE out really seems like a ploy to
> rekindle the GNOME vs. KDE war, leave it in
> non-free and keep non-free there, let the users
> know but give them the option.</I>
Until QPL becomes GPL-compatible KDE distribution, or all KDE developers give special permission to distribute their GPL code with Qt, it will remain illegal to distribute KDE with Qt.
If Harmony gets ready, then Debian will be able to distribute KDE.
<I>> I also think the delays that have kept a
> Debian release from coming out for what, over a
> year now, are just an extreme form of idealism.
> There simply isn't any way you can get all the
> bugs out of that much software</I>
No one is trying that. Only critical software will have the critical bugs ironed out. Non critical software will be left out, and non critical bugs will be released.
The problem is that people have been slow to fix and test these critical bugs in critical software. Perhaps Debian could use some money to pay people to fix these bugs.
<I>> I also think that using BSD and Hurd kernels
> is a noble goal and I'm glad Debian is trying
> to do it but is it too much to be the ideology
> king and then to build this kernel independence
> while putting out only rock solid and beyond
> releases?</I>
BSD and Hurd will never delay the Linux ports. If they are not ready, it's only a matter of not releasing them. In fact, BSD, Hurd, Solaris, Win32 will probably take a long, long time to be ready.
Also, the filing of bugs from other kernels and architectures beyong Linux i386 contributes even to the quality of the Linux i386 Debian, since bug-free software contributes to more stable, fast, efficient and portable code in all architectures, not only that which made the bug appear.
In fact Debian has left some desirable things out to get ready in time: a security audit, user friendliness, the most up-to-date software... that's called "feature-boxing", and there will allways be a choice of boxing less features or delay more. If you do not like Debian's choice but like some aspect of Debian, you can allways choose a Debian-based distro like Stormix, Libranet, Corel, etc.
All right... but who is intending to move all its attention over to the Hurd is the GNU Project (Free Software Foundation), not Debian proper. Debian is not affiliated to FSF, but to its own SPI.
The LinuxPPC and Yellow Dog guys make money the same way Red Hat and Debian do -- support. Debian do not make money, even if some developers may support something for money -- Debian itself is just a voluntary, non-profit organization.
"Firstly, all of the X window managers that try to look like a NeXT are really pathetic, if you've ever seriously used a NeXT for any period of time. This is because there is much more to a good GUI than just the visual apperance of the widgets."
Sure, the apps need to be aware of the environment. This will come in time, with Mac OS X apps being ported to GNUStep and POSIX apps being made GNOME-aware.
"you still have X-Windows underneath, which is the worst GUI in the industry"
The X Window System (X-Windows does not exist) isn't a GUI. It is a windowing protocol and API set, and also the name of its reference implementation. The GUI is the window manager, in the case of GNUStep this is WindowMaker.
A GNUAqua coupled with GNUStep and apps ported from Mac OS X, NeXTStep, OpenStep or even adapted from Unix would be real competition. If GNOME won't make it all irrelevant first.
"You still have that horrible device-dependent display model underneath. OS-X uses Display-PDF..."
The X Window System is orthogonal to Quartz (the real name of DisplayPDF in Mac OS X). X Window does have a device-dependent display model, but it can be -- and is -- replaced by any other display model, by means of a plug-in module. In fact Sun Solaris and other Unices have been using DisplayPostScript for years to draw on X windows. The only reasons this is not used in XFree yet is that Adobe won't license DisplayPostScript for free, and the XFree group won't accept GPL'd software (GNU GhostScritp) in its distribution, so up to some months ago no one cared to begin a GNU DisplayGhostScript... but the FSF's GNUStep at http://gnustep.org./ is integrating GNU GhostScript into its project as a DisplayGhostScript (DGS), so it must be just a year or less before you can port Quartz apps to GNUStep running on any other Unix, GNU systems (Linux or HURD) or BSD.
"It's nice to read from someone who doesn't complain, doesn't blame people for anything -- he just says what he'd like to happen, where folks fell short, and how we can step up to the plate."
Not really... he never sees where Steve Jobs falls short, like the lack of OEM licensing of Mac OS or the ridiculous partial freeing of already free BSD components in Mac OS X, aka Darwin.
It does strike me how Woz seems to be, after 20+ years and already in his full maturity, still sounds so infatuated to Jobs.
"Has anyone noticed that Woz and Paul Allen, the two "second-string" guys who actually did all the work, are the ones who are out there making the world a better place..."
No... what I noticed is that they refused to use their public positions to take stands on things which their companies are doing wrong, like
proprietary lock-ins, absurd patents and copyrights, license agreements and screwing up partners. Education is good and nice, but they are educating a new generation in old proprietary software... this is no good.
BTW, what interesting is Allen doing?
--
Display Postscript == Postscript for video
Quartz == PDF for video
PDF == Postscript level 3 repackaged
Therefore:
Quartz == repackaged Display Postscript
Check http://sourceware.cygnus.com./cygwin/ andn 32.html,
http://commit.winehq.com/~lynch/DebianGNU-wi
as well as the win32 mailing list at
http://debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe.
If you use just Lynx, email and file transfers
it is quite enough... it is images and plugins
which slow the Net.
Not technical advantage? What about WorkPlaceShell,
SOM, OpenDOC, ExtendedAttributes? If only
GNOME could evolve to provide these features...
Isn't GNOME intended, among other things, to
define these guidelines?
> It suffers no more than GPL'd code does, for > which the improvements aren't written in the
> first place because the company didn't want
> to give away the code. In both cases, there's no
> free code added. So what's the difference?
The difference is that anyone is allowed to take BSD code and make any improvement without contributing back; while with GPL you only get to use the code if you agree to contribute. While with BSD we depend on the good will of proprietary vendors, with GPL contribution is enforced.
> As for Darwin, Apple has contributed all sorts
> of code and fixes back in to the NetBSD tree. So
> we certainly benefitted from this. What has
> Linux got from Darwin? Nothing.
We can take any piece of code from BSD code base, but BSD can't take code from us, except in separate programs.
And we get things from Corel, Cobalt and all the others who are using Linux -- SGI, some router vendor I forgot the name of, Compaq, IBM...
What am I missing? The BSD code you cite is still freely available - or is the NetBSD source tree I track a figment of my imagination?
The problem is, all improvements these vendors made they can keep for themselves, and so the commom code base suffers -- why else Sun, Digital, HP and all the others one time BSD vendors migrated to SysV or OSF?
Apple is just a minor evil alternative; while still available, Darwin carries a less free than BSD license designed to benefit Apple. So while Darwin indeed contributes to free software, it suffers from not being as free as BSD nor copylefted.
Three of my first four posts to any gnu news groups drew flames from rms.
Now you are telling me something new! I've never read such flames of RMS's, but I've been personnally flamed by ESR in a manner I never thought him capable of, without any reason...