No; I think you're the one who missed the point. Really.
The point is this. Yes, Mozilla has great HTML-processing ability. Yes, it's cool that now we have an open-sourceish browser with Java. Yes, it's cool that this open-sourceish system is based on Netscape code.:^)
The point is that, minus the fancy eye-candy, Gecko is actually not that bloated. So why add the bloat? It doesn't really make sense to me. Do I need an integrated email client? Not really. Instant messaging? No. Kick-ass themes? No. A Web browser? Now you're catching on.:^)
So porting *BSD doesn't count as OSS innovation? What does, then? Writing apps *primarily* for Linux?
Come on. Part of the OSS spirit is doing something "because we can." That's why you see systems like Linux and *BSD being ported to hardware that, generally, makes no sense from a practical point of view. Can there be a point to this? I dunno; I'd have to get a look at a Dreamcast and at what you can do with this *BSD before I say "sure." But it sounds like a fun project, that's for sure.
We apologise for the last comment; the person who made it has been sacked.:^)
The great thing about we Americans is that we see 40.000 and think, "Hey, Billy-Bob, I did better; I done wrote 41!" and laugh.
TO THE CLUELESS: Much of the world uses the comma to indicate fractional (decimal) parts, and the period is used in place of the comma. Why is the US different, anyway? I dunno.
Ugh. My first language was Pascal. When I got to C, I said, "My God; I can interchange types without causing fatal errors. C treats data types as pointers (which they are.)" I was also appaled at the fact that I could somehow speak parens.:^)
I hated Pascal for that very reason. Sometimes it actually *helps* to be able to convert one type of data for another. Sometimes portability isn't the most important issue. Sometimes, well, the teaching aspect of Pascal just plain gets in the way.
Yeah, but if this hardware virtualization isn't in the kernel, that implies that, by default, this would be a userlevel process. (Don'cha like my grammar?) That also implies that said service(s) would be running as root. Everything running as root at the user level is a potential security hole.
It's a kick-ass idea; let's see if anyone has any good ideas on how to implement this. This could be a good basis of a new OS.:^) I noticed that BeOS is a lot more crash-prone than Linux. Gee, could it be because so many services seem to be built in? Hmmm...I wonder. (Okay, the same is true of MacOS and Win9x. I confess.)
No joke. The sample is *way* too small. And where's the sample from?
Ugh--where can I get the *real* study? Most studies are pure crap anyway. It amazes me that there are even *published* studies that use bad statistics and 90% rhetoric to get a point across. *Published* studies! My God! Rhetoric doesn't prove anything! Quotes don't prove anything. The quote at the beginning of the article? I can find you *at least* 70 men that would say the same thing.
There are *several* fields that are becoming more and more technically-oriented. I'm in graphic design, (actually, stuck at a small newspaper right now) and have found that, as a male, I'm in a shrinking minority.
Why? I dunno. One thing's for sure: while it doesn't require you to edit Sendmail configs or write Perl scripts, it does require one to be able to deal with technical issues and "wing it", an important quality in many technical fields.
A majority of the work I deal with (from outside houses) is actually sent by women. And, quite frankly, women seem to "get it" better than men. Example: spot color ads. I have had to deal with both women and men on this. In one case, I had a woman that had to be told only *once* to fix everything correctly. I've got some yahoo with a fairly sizeable Midwestern cell phone service company that finally said to me, "well, upper management is picky about how this is done." In other words, he didn't know how to play politics well enough.
Okay, that rambled.:^) The point I'm eventually going to work up to is this: if you'd like to keep the glass ceiling, keep calling attention to the "differences" between the sexes. If you want that ceiling to disappear, become the most valuable employee (not woman or man) you can be.
I could take one amendment of the United States Constitution, quote it, and tell you that alcoholic consumtion and/or production is illegal. Is it? No.
What's my point? Granted, the analogy isn't all that close. The point is this: you're quoting one specific part of the GPL and excluding other parts. You're also *completely* excluding the terms of the QPL. The QPL has terms that allows for QPLed software to be linked to by "open source" programs. The original licensing agreement called for software to either be GPLed or some other (freer) license.
IMHO (although IANAL) this is just FUD in an attempt to kill KDE. You'll notice the arguments are mostly against KDE. I really haven't heard too many arguments against, say, WMFinder (IMHO the best X11 file manager.) But, hell, it isn't "competing" against GNOME directly. KDE is.
Actually it's a (mis)interpretation on the Debian developers' part; it's why, if they were taken to court over this, they would be run through the wringers for libel.
The GPL only deals with the code in question (the software that is licensed under the GPL) being used in other works, hence the derivative works argument. It *does not* deal with linking to the libraries.
Heck, one could argue that GNOME apps are illegal. X11 libraries aren't just not released under the GPL, and IMHO (and against RMS's NSHO) not really GPL compatible (at least in this particular misinterpretation) the X11 libraries are also not essential system libraries. Nope, don't try to say they are: you can run your system just fine without X at all.
So what does it all boil down to? FUD. I read through the licenses, and the only *potential* problem I found was perhaps the fact the QPL *demands* that any works linking to a QPLed piece of code be released free as in speech *and* beer. The GPL only requires that software be free as in speech. However, if you release your code for a fee, you'll just have to pay the (hefty) licensing fee for QT.
So, what does it all boil down to? FUD, aimed at those gullible enough to believe this without reading the licenses for themselves. Don't believe me? Go to http://www.gnu.org and http://www.troll.no and read the licenses. Print them out if you have to. But read them.
Well, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.:^P
Just because *distributions* are becoming more consumer-oriented doesn't mean that the *operating system kernel* has changed significantly. It continues to develop in ways advantageous to the hobbyist/researcher/whatever. It's possible to, say, get a kernel and install totally from scratch, just like the first days of Linux.
The bad thing about Windows/MacOS is that these systems still carry the excess baggage from the early personal PC days. Multiple users? Laughable. You may be saying, "But only one person uses my machine at a time." Yeah, but my wife and I have different preferences (me: GNOME/WindowMaker; her: KDE) and different needs. Also, since my darling dearest isn't the most technnically gifted person in the world, it's nearly impossible for her to, say, delete vital system files.
I personally would like to have more commercial software, mainly because I'm a graphic artist by trade, and the lack of tools is appalling. Why commercial, instead of Open Source? Hey, I prefer Open Source too. Remember one example: GIMP doesn't have a CMYK mode for two reasons. One is that it's tough to implement correctly. The second is that it's damn near impossible for them to do so without getting sued for a patent violation. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I'll have to start building all my PDFs with Acrobat(TM) instead of Ghostscript. Bastards.
Essentially, the wine executable that ships with Mandrake is a shell script that calls the wine-strip executable. This could be fouling up somehow. They apparently do this so you don't have to issue command-like arguments such as "-debug" or "-winver win98". Ugh.
This would seem to imply that the QPL is invalid anyway. One of the stipulations of using Qt for free is that your software must either be totally public domain, or GPLed.
Ah, but if you check out the Troll Tech web site, and cruise on over to the Free QT Foundation, you'll note that in *that* licensine agreement that Troll Tech has given permission for Qt to be used in GPL projects. The permission has clearly been given by Troll Tech. They don't seem to care. That much has been admitted so far.
So how is this more legally dodgy than, say, Cygwin32 or BeOS's GPL ports?
Have you even *read* any of the licensing agreements on the Troll Tech site? Troll Tech has already granted permission to base GPL & LGPL software on Qt--take a look at this link:
My argument was with the original post: the implication was that, because KFloppy linked with Qt, that KFloppy was now QPL (which is not legal.)
Have you bothered to read the licensing agreement for Qt? Not just the QPL, but the legal documents for the QT Free Foundation? The stipulations are that your software, to be free, must meet one of the following: 1.) be totally free in source and binary form 2.) be released under the GNU Public License 3.) be released under the GNU Lesser Public License
In other words, Troll Tech has already granted permission for this type of usage. Go back and read that again. Okay, here it is again: Troll Tech has already written the clause for you. It's done. Now get back to work.
>Yes, emacs and gcc are used on non-free systems, but not that the GPL specificly allows you to link GPL code agains non-GPL libraries *if they are system libraries* (and are distributed with the OS).
Your argument invalidates the argument against KDE. Go back and re-read everything if you don't believe me.
Hell, the point is, the only way distribution of KDE is illegal is if the OS in question doesn't ship QT as well. If Debian were to ship.debs of KDE, but not QT, then the Debian team would be breaking the law. However, if they shipped.debs of QT *and* KDE, it would be OK.
I use Linux-Mandrake 7.0. It ships with both. Quite frankly, it also ships with several config tools, some of which are based on Qt. One could argue that these can be considered system files. Hell, you could get into legal hot water with this definition just by shipping a 100% statically-linked Linux distro, and ship *one* commercial app with pre-compiled GPLed libs with no source code.
Yeah, you may disagree with me, but this is the sort of argument that could be made by a defense team on a jury to invalidate any arguments made to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
No; I think you're the one who missed the point. Really.
:^)
:^)
The point is this. Yes, Mozilla has great HTML-processing ability. Yes, it's cool that now we have an open-sourceish browser with Java. Yes, it's cool that this open-sourceish system is based on Netscape code.
The point is that, minus the fancy eye-candy, Gecko is actually not that bloated. So why add the bloat? It doesn't really make sense to me. Do I need an integrated email client? Not really. Instant messaging? No. Kick-ass themes? No. A Web browser? Now you're catching on.
So porting *BSD doesn't count as OSS innovation? What does, then? Writing apps *primarily* for Linux?
Come on. Part of the OSS spirit is doing something "because we can." That's why you see systems like Linux and *BSD being ported to hardware that, generally, makes no sense from a practical point of view. Can there be a point to this? I dunno; I'd have to get a look at a Dreamcast and at what you can do with this *BSD before I say "sure." But it sounds like a fun project, that's for sure.
Yeah, and I really believe you never do anything without a good reason.
For example: was there any good reason for your post? Hell no.
Get a really old Mazda 626(?). They have Wankel rotary engines. They sound like a fart, kinda.
The big problem with Wankels in general is oil leakage.
Seem to recall reading once that diesels will run on corn oil...except that they smell like a kitchen grease fire going down the road.
Argument: "X Windows must die!"
Counterargument: "It's not called X Windows!"
Sheesh...why don't you put it on your resume that, gee, logical thinking just isn't your forte?
On the contrary; let them live. If they're not sleeping and instead coding, let 'em at it. (Geddit? 'Doze? hehe!)
>what did you do 15 years ago that couldn't use some updating now?
Please list *your* accomplishments in chronological order.
We apologise for the last comment; the person who made it has been sacked. :^)
The great thing about we Americans is that we see 40.000 and think, "Hey, Billy-Bob, I did better; I done wrote 41!" and laugh.
TO THE CLUELESS: Much of the world uses the comma to indicate fractional (decimal) parts, and the period is used in place of the comma. Why is the US different, anyway? I dunno.
Ugh. My first language was Pascal. When I got to C, I said, "My God; I can interchange types without causing fatal errors. C treats data types as pointers (which they are.)" I was also appaled at the fact that I could somehow speak parens. :^)
I hated Pascal for that very reason. Sometimes it actually *helps* to be able to convert one type of data for another. Sometimes portability isn't the most important issue. Sometimes, well, the teaching aspect of Pascal just plain gets in the way.
Yeah, but if this hardware virtualization isn't in the kernel, that implies that, by default, this would be a userlevel process. (Don'cha like my grammar?) That also implies that said service(s) would be running as root. Everything running as root at the user level is a potential security hole.
:^) I noticed that BeOS is a lot more crash-prone than Linux. Gee, could it be because so many services seem to be built in? Hmmm...I wonder. (Okay, the same is true of MacOS and Win9x. I confess.)
It's a kick-ass idea; let's see if anyone has any good ideas on how to implement this. This could be a good basis of a new OS.
In your opinion. Which, of course, doesn't count.
No joke. The sample is *way* too small. And where's the sample from?
Ugh--where can I get the *real* study? Most studies are pure crap anyway. It amazes me that there are even *published* studies that use bad statistics and 90% rhetoric to get a point across. *Published* studies! My God! Rhetoric doesn't prove anything! Quotes don't prove anything. The quote at the beginning of the article? I can find you *at least* 70 men that would say the same thing.
And it depends on the field too.
:^) The point I'm eventually going to work up to is this: if you'd like to keep the glass ceiling, keep calling attention to the "differences" between the sexes. If you want that ceiling to disappear, become the most valuable employee (not woman or man) you can be.
There are *several* fields that are becoming more and more technically-oriented. I'm in graphic design, (actually, stuck at a small newspaper right now) and have found that, as a male, I'm in a shrinking minority.
Why? I dunno. One thing's for sure: while it doesn't require you to edit Sendmail configs or write Perl scripts, it does require one to be able to deal with technical issues and "wing it", an important quality in many technical fields.
A majority of the work I deal with (from outside houses) is actually sent by women. And, quite frankly, women seem to "get it" better than men. Example: spot color ads. I have had to deal with both women and men on this. In one case, I had a woman that had to be told only *once* to fix everything correctly. I've got some yahoo with a fairly sizeable Midwestern cell phone service company that finally said to me, "well, upper management is picky about how this is done." In other words, he didn't know how to play politics well enough.
Okay, that rambled.
AAAAAAAAAARGH!
LiteStep is illegal! You have to have VC to compile it!!!!!
Okay...where's the zealots with torches?
Anyone?
Sigh...guess it's just KDE we want to nail to the cross, then.
PS GNOME is illegal too.
Careful.
I could take one amendment of the United States Constitution, quote it, and tell you that alcoholic consumtion and/or production is illegal. Is it? No.
What's my point? Granted, the analogy isn't all that close. The point is this: you're quoting one specific part of the GPL and excluding other parts. You're also *completely* excluding the terms of the QPL. The QPL has terms that allows for QPLed software to be linked to by "open source" programs. The original licensing agreement called for software to either be GPLed or some other (freer) license.
IMHO (although IANAL) this is just FUD in an attempt to kill KDE. You'll notice the arguments are mostly against KDE. I really haven't heard too many arguments against, say, WMFinder (IMHO the best X11 file manager.) But, hell, it isn't "competing" against GNOME directly. KDE is.
Actually it's a (mis)interpretation on the Debian developers' part; it's why, if they were taken to court over this, they would be run through the wringers for libel.
The GPL only deals with the code in question (the software that is licensed under the GPL) being used in other works, hence the derivative works argument. It *does not* deal with linking to the libraries.
Heck, one could argue that GNOME apps are illegal. X11 libraries aren't just not released under the GPL, and IMHO (and against RMS's NSHO) not really GPL compatible (at least in this particular misinterpretation) the X11 libraries are also not essential system libraries. Nope, don't try to say they are: you can run your system just fine without X at all.
So what does it all boil down to? FUD. I read through the licenses, and the only *potential* problem I found was perhaps the fact the QPL *demands* that any works linking to a QPLed piece of code be released free as in speech *and* beer. The GPL only requires that software be free as in speech. However, if you release your code for a fee, you'll just have to pay the (hefty) licensing fee for QT.
So, what does it all boil down to? FUD, aimed at those gullible enough to believe this without reading the licenses for themselves. Don't believe me? Go to http://www.gnu.org and http://www.troll.no and read the licenses. Print them out if you have to. But read them.
Blockbusters???
All I had to show was a form of identification--so I showed my driver's license.
Well, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance. :^P
Just because *distributions* are becoming more consumer-oriented doesn't mean that the *operating system kernel* has changed significantly. It continues to develop in ways advantageous to the hobbyist/researcher/whatever. It's possible to, say, get a kernel and install totally from scratch, just like the first days of Linux.
The bad thing about Windows/MacOS is that these systems still carry the excess baggage from the early personal PC days. Multiple users? Laughable. You may be saying, "But only one person uses my machine at a time." Yeah, but my wife and I have different preferences (me: GNOME/WindowMaker; her: KDE) and different needs. Also, since my darling dearest isn't the most technnically gifted person in the world, it's nearly impossible for her to, say, delete vital system files.
I personally would like to have more commercial software, mainly because I'm a graphic artist by trade, and the lack of tools is appalling. Why commercial, instead of Open Source? Hey, I prefer Open Source too. Remember one example: GIMP doesn't have a CMYK mode for two reasons. One is that it's tough to implement correctly. The second is that it's damn near impossible for them to do so without getting sued for a patent violation. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I'll have to start building all my PDFs with Acrobat(TM) instead of Ghostscript. Bastards.
try doing the following:
/usr/bin/X11/wine /usr/bin/X11/wine.bogus /usr/bin/X11/wine-strip /usr/bin/X11/wine
mv
ln -s
Essentially, the wine executable that ships with Mandrake is a shell script that calls the wine-strip executable. This could be fouling up somehow. They apparently do this so you don't have to issue command-like arguments such as "-debug" or "-winver win98". Ugh.
This would seem to imply that the QPL is invalid anyway. One of the stipulations of using Qt for free is that your software must either be totally public domain, or GPLed.
Ah, but if you check out the Troll Tech web site, and cruise on over to the Free QT Foundation, you'll note that in *that* licensine agreement that Troll Tech has given permission for Qt to be used in GPL projects. The permission has clearly been given by Troll Tech. They don't seem to care. That much has been admitted so far.
So how is this more legally dodgy than, say, Cygwin32 or BeOS's GPL ports?
http://www.trolltech.com /company/announce/kde-freeqt/index.html
My argument was with the original post: the implication was that, because KFloppy linked with Qt, that KFloppy was now QPL (which is not legal.)
Have you bothered to read the licensing agreement for Qt? Not just the QPL, but the legal documents for the QT Free Foundation? The stipulations are that your software, to be free, must meet one of the following:
1.) be totally free in source and binary form
2.) be released under the GNU Public License
3.) be released under the GNU Lesser Public License
In other words, Troll Tech has already granted permission for this type of usage. Go back and read that again. Okay, here it is again: Troll Tech has already written the clause for you. It's done. Now get back to work.
>Yes, emacs and gcc are used on non-free systems, but not that the GPL specificly allows you to link GPL code
.debs of KDE, but not QT, then the Debian team would be breaking the law. However, if they shipped .debs of QT *and* KDE, it would be OK.
agains non-GPL libraries *if they are system libraries* (and are distributed with the OS).
Your argument invalidates the argument against KDE. Go back and re-read everything if you don't believe me.
Hell, the point is, the only way distribution of KDE is illegal is if the OS in question doesn't ship QT as well. If Debian were to ship
I use Linux-Mandrake 7.0. It ships with both. Quite frankly, it also ships with several config tools, some of which are based on Qt. One could argue that these can be considered system files. Hell, you could get into legal hot water with this definition just by shipping a 100% statically-linked Linux distro, and ship *one* commercial app with pre-compiled GPLed libs with no source code.
Yeah, you may disagree with me, but this is the sort of argument that could be made by a defense team on a jury to invalidate any arguments made to the contrary.