>Because, unlike KDE, it's not actually illegal to distribute Netscape or those others.
What sort of header files did Netscape use when compiling the static version of Communicator? Do they have NPLed versions of libc, etc?
IMHO, Netscape is just as illegal as KDE--in other words, not. I don't find KDE to be any less legal than writing an app based on say, XForms or Motif. And, quite frankly, one could argue that *any* GPLed X11 client is illegal, since XFree isn't GPL.
quite frankly, Debian has Netscape Communicator as part of the main distro, and one could use the same arguments used against KDE against Netscape. Compiling software for Linux is damn near impossible without somewhere using some includes from GPL software. One could argue Communicator is an illegal derivation of GPLed software.
Copyright 1997 Bernd Johannes Wuebben, <wuebben@math.cornell.edu>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.</B>
Hrm, KFloppy is released under the GPL. So...what's the problem?
In the original post on Freshmeat, the problem seems to stem from derived works. Hello? Qt is a library. KDE apps *dynamically* link to Qt. Qt is the QPL software involved. If KFloppy uses GPLed software, it's OK, because KFloppy is GPL itself.
Duh.
Quite frankly, using this argument, you can argue that Netscape Communicator for Linux is illegal, since at some point they'd have to use kernel includes. Hey, the Linux kernel is GPL. Communicator is not. Gee, guys, guess you'll have to drop Communicator too, since it's illegal. I mean, it did illegally derive GPL software without permission.
I work for a small newspaper, and much of the national advertising we get comes in PDF format. While the monitors we have are quite large, they're not quite large enough for our readership to get much out of them, especially since some of our readership lives a few miles away.:^)
Re:Is it legal to convert PostScript to PDF?
on
From Paper To PDF?
·
· Score: 1
Try using the PDF format in the printing industry. Ugh. Well, QuarkXPress 4.x can use PDFs as images, but only the first page of a doc. You still need to have Acrobat or Acrobat Reader around. A lot of folks also don't realize that when they create Acrobat documents (using the kosher software;^) that they MUST make sure they're doing everything right. If they're using funky (read: non-Adobe:^) fonts, they MUST include these fonts. If the doc is to ever go to press (not just a consumer printer) they MUST create their photos correctly. No RGB JPEGs here; just nice, bloated CMYK EPSs or TIFFs. And before you say it, yes, it really DOES make a difference. I deal with these sort of problems 40+ hours a week.
It would be much better if documents were stored in a format similar to..oh, I can't think of it, but AT&T has a format that is essentially a two-layered format that's well-suited to storing scanned docs. Then, include text and images in a componentized format.
What I'm actually thinking about is something similar to what one can do manually in a product such as Illustrator: convert text to outlines, rather than trying to embed fonts. This is the typesetter's worst nightmare, receiving a file that has, say, embedded TrueType fonts:^) and tries to use the PDF on a Mac-based imagesetter. Ugh. I say, use PostScript and simply convert all text to outlines, rather than doing font embedding, then build this PostScript file in a way that can be pulled apart by a capable program.
Sadly, every time I see this comment made, it's generally been written by someone who:
1.) Isn't writing any applications 2.) Is unwilling to pay for commercial applications 3.) Both
Really, what *are* the missing applications? You need office apps? How about Corel Office? StarOffice? For that matter, how 'bout Applix? How about AbiWord and/or Gnumeric?
If you're going to list a whole host of apps that we need compatibility with, I'll say "bull". I remember a few years back a review of Microsoft Word for Windows (don't remember the magazine, but it was Ziff-Davis, which tells you how glowing the Microsoft review was;^) and just about the only thing that the reviewer faulted Word on was poor WordPerfect compatibility. WordPerfect compatibility, he reasoned, would make Word a WP-killer. The same has been reasoned in the past about Excel. Today? How many people care about Lotus 1-2-3 compatibility? Show of hands?
So what was the main selling point of Word, Excel, and the motley crew of Microsoft apps? Bundling. Home users used Word "'cause that's what came with the computer." The workplace grudgingly moved over to Word & Excel mainly (IMHO) because they could be ordered cheaply enough AT THE SAME TIME & WITH the machines from the factory. Does it make much sense to order a machine with Windows & Microsoft Office bundled and then turn around and purchase another suite? Not from the purchasing agent's perspective, it doesn't.
Let's face it: what's needed is a.) tight app integration and b.) bundling apps with computers. Most folks are too scared to install their own software. There are, I'm sure, a lot of users who only use what came on their machine. I've seen folks that still have (in Windows) a green background because they don't want to screw anything up by changing the color. It's true. They also use Microsoft Outlook to check their mail, Microsoft Internet Explorer to do web browsing, Microsoft Word to do document prep, Microsoft Excel to do bookkeeping...shall I go on?...all for one simple reason:
It came with the computer.
For Linux to "make it" on the desktop, machines need to ship from manufacturers like Dell and Gateway, HP & others, especially from retail outlets. These machines should have a system like Linux Mandrake (IMHO) and a small host of apps like StarOffice <i>pre-installed</i> and already installed on the desktop. The linux distro should have some way of logging in as a default user. Why? Because most people hate logging in, as much good sense as it makes to secure your home machine.
Do this, my friend, and no one will give a shit about the lack of apps.
[snip] >...and can never become a successful paradigm in the real world of computer gaming.
I'm just concerned that someone used "real world" and "computer gaming" in the same sentence.:^)
But yeah, I bet this would go over about as good as the Mattel Power Glove(TM). Seems like it was more popular with hobbyists hooking it up to various computer ports than it was for actual game play.:^)
You might try XDPC also--it acts as a proxy for the X protocol, and not only compresses the stream, but also strips out redundant X resources (one could call my last statement redundant, since stripping out redundant data is a function of compression.;^)
Those you just flamed did. They are (or at least were; I dunno anymore) raving Linux advocates. The site was originally *more* Linux-oriented.
Get over it. If you're looking at Slashdot, you're going to find Linux bias. If you don't like that, do what these guys did and start your own news site.
Oh, can't do that? Before you flame me, just think to yourself, "Gee, flaming back saying 'My broke ass can't do it' or 'My dumb ass can't do it' will just make me look like an asshole, so I'll shut up." There. I took care of it for you.
Please specify who the "they" is/are (?) that you're referring to.
Is the group "they" iMac buyers? What are the numbers, compared to Linux converts? Where's your statistical data? Is the "they" the large number of folks that are disgusted with Windows' apparent instability (really a combination of bad coding on Microsoft's end and bad setup on the users' end...it's unbelievable how many resources are ate up by all those stupid taskbar apps...anyway)? Sorry, pal, but I run Linux. I'm not one of the "they".
I would strongly suggest taking a course in logic. It helps with critical thinking skills. (That's not meant purely as an insult; it's also meant as a genuine urge to get help.)
Actually, he made the point that something new (for Linux) was that Corel Linux had USB support (although this is not unique to Corel Linux.) She used a warping of (il)logic to turn this into "gee, Linux had USB first!"
That's not what he said.
If I were he, I'd be duking it out with the editor for allowing that bit of moronic drivel to ever be published. She should be fired. From a cannon.
I would assume that the editor was referring to X11 also. Antialiased fonts on the GTK caanvas object are fine, yes, but the caanvas object does little to improve font appearance in Qt.:^) There has been a recent proposal to add antialiasing to X11, among other things. This to me is The Right Thing To Do(TM). As a consequence of the antialiasing you refer to being GTK-specific, this does little for Mozilla (or at least pure Mozilla). Mozilla moved from GTK to a platform-independent-ish toolkit a while back.:^(
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so Cygwin (mostly GPLed software ported to Win32) is illegal. Red Hat is a den of hypocrites.
>Because, unlike KDE, it's not actually illegal to distribute Netscape or those
others.
What sort of header files did Netscape use when compiling the static version of Communicator? Do they have NPLed versions of libc, etc?
IMHO, Netscape is just as illegal as KDE--in other words, not. I don't find KDE to be any less legal than writing an app based on say, XForms or Motif. And, quite frankly, one could argue that *any* GPLed X11 client is illegal, since XFree isn't GPL.
quite frankly, Debian has Netscape Communicator as part of the main distro, and one could use the same arguments used against KDE against Netscape. Compiling software for Linux is damn near impossible without somewhere using some includes from GPL software. One could argue Communicator is an illegal derivation of GPLed software.
KFloppy Formatter
Copyright 1997
Bernd Johannes Wuebben, <wuebben@math.cornell.edu>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.</B>
Hrm, KFloppy is released under the GPL. So...what's the problem?
In the original post on Freshmeat, the problem seems to stem from derived works. Hello? Qt is a library. KDE apps *dynamically* link to Qt. Qt is the QPL software involved. If KFloppy uses GPLed software, it's OK, because KFloppy is GPL itself.
Duh.
Quite frankly, using this argument, you can argue that Netscape Communicator for Linux is illegal, since at some point they'd have to use kernel includes. Hey, the Linux kernel is GPL. Communicator is not. Gee, guys, guess you'll have to drop Communicator too, since it's illegal. I mean, it did illegally derive GPL software without permission.
Surely id Software using DJGPP made Doom/Quake automatically GPL. ;^)
I work for a small newspaper, and much of the national advertising we get comes in PDF format. While the monitors we have are quite large, they're not quite large enough for our readership to get much out of them, especially since some of our readership lives a few miles away. :^)
Try using the PDF format in the printing industry. Ugh. Well, QuarkXPress 4.x can use PDFs as images, but only the first page of a doc. You still need to have Acrobat or Acrobat Reader around. A lot of folks also don't realize that when they create Acrobat documents (using the kosher software ;^) that they MUST make sure they're doing everything right. If they're using funky (read: non-Adobe :^) fonts, they MUST include these fonts. If the doc is to ever go to press (not just a consumer printer) they MUST create their photos correctly. No RGB JPEGs here; just nice, bloated CMYK EPSs or TIFFs. And before you say it, yes, it really DOES make a difference. I deal with these sort of problems 40+ hours a week.
:^) and tries to use the PDF on a Mac-based imagesetter. Ugh. I say, use PostScript and simply convert all text to outlines, rather than doing font embedding, then build this PostScript file in a way that can be pulled apart by a capable program.
It would be much better if documents were stored in a format similar to..oh, I can't think of it, but AT&T has a format that is essentially a two-layered format that's well-suited to storing scanned docs. Then, include text and images in a componentized format.
What I'm actually thinking about is something similar to what one can do manually in a product such as Illustrator: convert text to outlines, rather than trying to embed fonts. This is the typesetter's worst nightmare, receiving a file that has, say, embedded TrueType fonts
>X is not at version 3.x. You are talking about
a particular *implementation* of X, presumably
XFree86.
>This is Linux-centric thinking.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I see someone running XFree on a *BSD machine. Or Windows, for that matter, since it's been ported to Windows.
BTW, if you don't want Linux-centric thinking, why do you read Slashdot? Slashdot is notorious for Linux-centric thinking...
Sadly, every time I see this comment made, it's generally been written by someone who:
;^) and just about the only thing that the reviewer faulted Word on was poor WordPerfect compatibility. WordPerfect compatibility, he reasoned, would make Word a WP-killer. The same has been reasoned in the past about Excel. Today? How many people care about Lotus 1-2-3 compatibility? Show of hands?
1.) Isn't writing any applications
2.) Is unwilling to pay for commercial applications
3.) Both
Really, what *are* the missing applications? You need office apps? How about Corel Office? StarOffice? For that matter, how 'bout Applix? How about AbiWord and/or Gnumeric?
If you're going to list a whole host of apps that we need compatibility with, I'll say "bull". I remember a few years back a review of Microsoft Word for Windows (don't remember the magazine, but it was Ziff-Davis, which tells you how glowing the Microsoft review was
So what was the main selling point of Word, Excel, and the motley crew of Microsoft apps? Bundling. Home users used Word "'cause that's what came with the computer." The workplace grudgingly moved over to Word & Excel mainly (IMHO) because they could be ordered cheaply enough AT THE SAME TIME & WITH the machines from the factory. Does it make much sense to order a machine with Windows & Microsoft Office bundled and then turn around and purchase another suite? Not from the purchasing agent's perspective, it doesn't.
Let's face it: what's needed is a.) tight app integration and b.) bundling apps with computers. Most folks are too scared to install their own software. There are, I'm sure, a lot of users who only use what came on their machine. I've seen folks that still have (in Windows) a green background because they don't want to screw anything up by changing the color. It's true. They also use Microsoft Outlook to check their mail, Microsoft Internet Explorer to do web browsing, Microsoft Word to do document prep, Microsoft Excel to do bookkeeping...shall I go on?...all for one simple reason:
It came with the computer.
For Linux to "make it" on the desktop, machines need to ship from manufacturers like Dell and Gateway, HP & others, especially from retail outlets. These machines should have a system like Linux Mandrake (IMHO) and a small host of apps like StarOffice <i>pre-installed</i> and already installed on the desktop. The linux distro should have some way of logging in as a default user. Why? Because most people hate logging in, as much good sense as it makes to secure your home machine.
Do this, my friend, and no one will give a shit about the lack of apps.
Sounds like a good, easy hack session using Tcl/Tk scripts and named pipes. Snap to it, solja!
Erm. Could you be more specific? "FreeBSD is superior to Linux in every way" just sounds like plain ol' FUD to me.
And stop pretending our camps are at odds; both camps share. FreeBSD & Linux are both kernels; both kick ass.
BTW, does FreeBSD allow for symlinks? I remember my days of using SunOS (pre-Solaris days) and symlinking was verboten then.
[snip]
:^)
:^)
>...and can never become a successful
paradigm in the real world of computer gaming.
I'm just concerned that someone used "real world" and "computer gaming" in the same sentence.
But yeah, I bet this would go over about as good as the Mattel Power Glove(TM). Seems like it was more popular with hobbyists hooking it up to various computer ports than it was for actual game play.
You might try XDPC also--it acts as a proxy for the X protocol, and not only compresses the stream, but also strips out redundant X resources (one could call my last statement redundant, since stripping out redundant data is a function of compression. ;^)
Too bad GNOME/KDE are implemented on X11, which doesn't do this natively.
Seriously, folks, GNOME and KDE run on top of X11R6. X11R6 is the windowing system. KDE is not a windowing system. GNOME is not a windowing system.
Uhhh...and you founded Slashdot, right?
Those you just flamed did. They are (or at least were; I dunno anymore) raving Linux advocates. The site was originally *more* Linux-oriented.
Get over it. If you're looking at Slashdot, you're going to find Linux bias. If you don't like that, do what these guys did and start your own news site.
Oh, can't do that? Before you flame me, just think to yourself, "Gee, flaming back saying 'My broke ass can't do it' or 'My dumb ass can't do it' will just make me look like an asshole, so I'll shut up." There. I took care of it for you.
Please specify who the "they" is/are (?) that you're referring to.
Is the group "they" iMac buyers? What are the numbers, compared to Linux converts? Where's your statistical data? Is the "they" the large number of folks that are disgusted with Windows' apparent instability (really a combination of bad coding on Microsoft's end and bad setup on the users' end...it's unbelievable how many resources are ate up by all those stupid taskbar apps...anyway)? Sorry, pal, but I run Linux. I'm not one of the "they".
I would strongly suggest taking a course in logic. It helps with critical thinking skills. (That's not meant purely as an insult; it's also meant as a genuine urge to get help.)
Actually, he made the point that something new (for Linux) was that Corel Linux had USB support (although this is not unique to Corel Linux.) She used a warping of (il)logic to turn this into "gee, Linux had USB first!"
That's not what he said.
If I were he, I'd be duking it out with the editor for allowing that bit of moronic drivel to ever be published. She should be fired. From a cannon.
The only folks that are "forced" to "boot into" X11R6 are idiots who don't know how to edit inittab. Uh, oops... :^}
Anyway, this is even configurable at install time, if it makes you pee your pants thinking about editing inittab.
the x86 kernel tree has x87 emulation (for those too green, that's the old FPU; it used to be separate); why not software emulation for the m68k tree?
Just a thought. You know, engage brain, start thinking. Ugh.
>Division, blah! who needs division when you've got subtraction!
Bah! If you use binary all you need is add and shift!
I would assume that the editor was referring to X11 also. Antialiased fonts on the GTK caanvas object are fine, yes, but the caanvas object does little to improve font appearance in Qt. :^) There has been a recent proposal to add antialiasing to X11, among other things. This to me is The Right Thing To Do(TM). As a consequence of the antialiasing you refer to being GTK-specific, this does little for Mozilla (or at least pure Mozilla). Mozilla moved from GTK to a platform-independent-ish toolkit a while back. :^(