"Yes, this really is the classic program that prints "Hello, world!" when you run it. Unlike the elementary version often presented in books like K&R, GNU hello processes its argument list to modify its behavior, supports internationalization,
and includes a mail reader."
(emphasis added).
Who was it that said something about every program tending to add features until it includes a mail reader?
Re:Before all the flamers get in.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
If, if, your GUI toolkit supports both non-X and X transparently, that's fine. Otherwise you end up with apps that can't be run on a remote display, limiting their usefulness.
And if the toolkit is transparent to both X/non-X, you're not going to have "more powerful" apps with the native GUI, because the X version (or mode) will do everything the native will.
Although it's not clear what it is you want to do in a native GUI that can't be done in X.
Re:Before all the flamers get in.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm saying, to build desktop GUIs, we don't necessairily need to use X as a base.
While technically true, places that deploy masses of Linux desktops (Largo City, Florida for example) using cheap PCs as, essentially, X terminals weigh heavily against this.
Sure, average Joe Homeuser doesn't care if his GUI networks or not, any more that he uses Citrix on his home Windows box. But in the workplace where centralized configuration and personal desktop mobility are drivers of lower TCO, a network capable GUI is essential. WHy the fsck do you think companies spend all that money on the likes of Citrix anyway?
Doesn't this (please?) violate some obscure FCC regulation or other? At the very least, these devices, even with the same "consumer name", should have different FCC ID numbers. Although there's apparently no requirement to put the FCC ID on the box (or even the device, from some I've seen).
(Assorted paperwork for any RF or electronic device has to be filed with FCC. Looking at the FCC's online database of such can be helpful for reverse engineering -- although it seems to lag quite a bit behind what's out in the market place.)
Not just in the field. One of my duties when I was in Signal Corps, posted to the Diefenbunker, was to take the bags of already shredded classified waste out to the incinerator and burn them. And stir the ashes.
Pre-breakup, Bell and AT&T were the same thing. The breakup divested AT&T of the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and changed some of the restrictions AT&T operated under. Bell Labs (which, Unix fame aside, was also responsible for developing many of the standards and systems by which the phone systems operate) was still owned by AT&T (the Lucent thing came later).
IIRC, post-breakup it was AT&T that (still) controlled interstate long distance, the RBOCs handled intrastate, and it wasn't until the Microwave Communication Inc (MCI) lawsuit that the (interstate) long distance market was opened to competition.
What part of "permanent" did you miss? Yes, they grow seasonally as the temperature drops enough for CO2 to freeze out. But in summertime water ice is the only candidate (barring something really exotic).
Come, this has been pretty much known since the first spectroscope was pointed at Mars, and known with confidence since the Mariner and Viking missions.
Not that it hurts to cross check to rule out oddball theories, but why act like this was a surprise? Perhaps the concept is new to Arizonans, but you'd think the Russians would be familiar with permafrost.
Considering that Mars has permanent polar ice caps (the permanent part is water ice, there's a CO2 ice part that expands in the winter), this is hardly a surprise.
That is, if the court finds that their IP was stolen and all Linux users must pay $1000 to SCO, SCO can simply credit their own customers as having "paid up" as it were.
And if this happens, SCO isn't living up to the terms of the GPL and is immediately in copyright violation on every copy of Linux it has distributed, since it distributed the other contributers' code without a valid (ie, GPL) license.
Each and every copyright holder of Linux code distributed by SCO then launches an infringement suit against them -- ideally in as many different jurisdictions as possible (to keep their lawyers very busy).
Spaff responded "that does no good if those thousand eyeballs are looking at things like networking your toaster instead of quality and security".
On the contrary, it's likely to be somebody trying to do something with the code that the programmer never expected (like networking the toaster) that finds the problems. The programmer (assuming he's even halfway competent) will have coded against the problems he expects people to hit.
I remember one tester I had on a small project, she'd find ways to crash code that I would have sworn was uncrashable, and my response when seeing how she did it was almost invariably "why in the world did you want to do that?". (And then I went away and fixed it. Hey, it was Motif and C++ on a Pyramid, an ugly mix at best.)
True, snail mail will take a couple of days, but it will get there -- a phone call might not.
If the issue is important enough to you to spend a few bucks on, send it Priority Mail or FedEx or equivalent. Not only will it get there faster (especially FedEx etc), it will be perceived as More Important and less likely to get hung up with a secretary.
Ever noticed how much a shoulder mounted professional video camera with eyepiece viewfinder and a nice wide telephoto lens looks like a shoulder mounted RPG launcher with eyepiece viewfinder and a nice wide barrel? Especially to somebody a few hundred yards away that the thing is being pointed at?
I don't see that there's any difference between the two alternatives.
You're not looking hard enough.
In both cases, the new code can only be distributed under the terms of the license (emphasis added)
WRONG.
That is what SCO is saying, but the GPL freely permits you to distribute your new code under whatever license you like -- it's your code, previous GPL copyright holders make no claim on it. The only exception is when you want to mix your new code with their GPL code and distribute the resulting derivative of their (and your) code. Since in that case you're also distributing their code, you have to follow their license. You are still free to license that which is exclusively yours in any other way that you wish.
Contrarily, SCO appears to be saying that as soon as you mix any of your original code with anything Sys V derived, it becomes theirs, and you are no longer free to do anything else with it. (Which is of course preposterous, and no company in its right mind, let alone IBM, would sign such an agreement.)
Distributing a kernel with such code linked inside would undoubtedly get someone a nastygram from the copyright holder
Sure, but that's because the license to the original (GPL'd) code only permits distribution under the GPL. The author of the linked code is free to distribute his code as binary only, but needs permission of the original copyright holder(s) to distribute the rest of the kernel.
SCO seems to be arguing that the new code can only be distributed under SCO's terms, unlike GPL copyright holders who in general don't care what else you do with your code so long as you obey the GPL when distributing it with theirs.
You fail to emphasize the other, key, part of that clause:
derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT
A module or component added is not a derivative work. The term "derivative work" has pretty well established meanings in copyright law, none of which apply to some external component that has been added in. In some cases it might to the resulting combination, but the original separate component retains its original separate copyright.
Although MensaBabe's response to her first commenter was not innaccurate, it's been my experience that those that flaunt Mensa membership tend toward the lower end of the requirements for that organization.
Ranking in the top two percentile, or roughly two sigmas above the mean on IQ (about 130+) certainly places one, by some rather abitrary metric, beyond the bulk of the population. But the population that tends to hang out in fora like this one aren't the bulk of the population. This is particularly true of some other, more selective fora that don't allow anonymous posting. The average there tends to be above Mensa minimums, many of the participants being ex-mensans because they found the company kept there too boring -- or boorish. (Consider MensaBabe's behaviour as an example.)
Some of us here rank a couple of sigmas above Mensa minimums, i.e in the top two percent of that top two percent. So what? We don't rub people's noses in it. If they've got something valid to say (or if they say something really stupid) it doesn't really matter what they scored on some test.
And SCO has yet to clearly specify (as opposed to vague generalities) what was disclosed(*), let alone prove that IBM made such disclosures.
Even if they do manage to prove IBM did that (unlikely, given IBM's usual extreme care in managing IP rights), IBM can argue the point that the clause was rendered moot because the "software products" had previously been disclosed by AT&T and others (see the USL vs BSDI suit, for example), including AT&T's successors Novell and SCO.
Sure, if, if SCO can prove that things actually happened the way they said, and that the license means what they think, and that the point was not rendered moot by previous actions, then IBM is in trouble. I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.
(*) The vague generalities mentioned have included JFS (Journaling File System), the Linux version of which was ported from OS/2; SMP, which in large part was developed (in Linux) by Alan Cox on hardware donated by Caldera for the purpose, and NUMA, orginally an SGI development. None of these things were in the SysV code that IBM licensed. For SCO to claim that these are non-disclosable "software products" for the purpose of the license, they'd also have to prove that their interpretation of the "derivative work" ownership reversion applies to such technologies that were added to UNIX/AIX by IBM rather than derived from it. Good fscking luck.
That hinges on AT&T's successors -- we presume SCO although that's been called into question too -- complied with their part of the license, namely "by not less than two (2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying such breach". Yeah, SCO gave IBM "100 days" notice of something, but of what, exactly?
Even if IBM flagrantly violated the SCO-IBM contract to develop Monteray (and I'm not saying they did), that is not the contract by which SysV was licensed to IBM. Unless SCO can point to something in the original IBM-AT&T contract that IBM violated (and which IBM hasn't since fixed), SCO may as well go piss up a rope.
Slashdot Mirror
and a pointer to an int named bar.
/me exits hastily.)
Well, for one thing, that's not a pointer to an int named bar, that's a pointer named bar to an (as yet unspecified) int.
(And on that pedantic note,
Yeah, but check the description page to see why:
(emphasis added).Who was it that said something about every program tending to add features until it includes a mail reader?
'Code' can be a plural.
Sure it can. Just ask Darl (All Your Code Are Belong To Us) McBride of SCO...
It'll save you all kinds of time...
If, if, your GUI toolkit supports both non-X and X transparently, that's fine. Otherwise you end up with apps that can't be run on a remote display, limiting their usefulness.
And if the toolkit is transparent to both X/non-X, you're not going to have "more powerful" apps with the native GUI, because the X version (or mode) will do everything the native will.
Although it's not clear what it is you want to do in a native GUI that can't be done in X.
I'm saying, to build desktop GUIs, we don't necessairily need to use X as a base.
While technically true, places that deploy masses of Linux desktops (Largo City, Florida for example) using cheap PCs as, essentially, X terminals weigh heavily against this.
Sure, average Joe Homeuser doesn't care if his GUI networks or not, any more that he uses Citrix on his home Windows box. But in the workplace where centralized configuration and personal desktop mobility are drivers of lower TCO, a network capable GUI is essential. WHy the fsck do you think companies spend all that money on the likes of Citrix anyway?
Doesn't this (please?) violate some obscure FCC regulation or other? At the very least, these devices, even with the same "consumer name", should have different FCC ID numbers. Although there's apparently no requirement to put the FCC ID on the box (or even the device, from some I've seen).
(Assorted paperwork for any RF or electronic device has to be filed with FCC. Looking at the FCC's online database of such can be helpful for reverse engineering -- although it seems to lag quite a bit behind what's out in the market place.)
Not just in the field. One of my duties when I was in Signal Corps, posted to the Diefenbunker, was to take the bags of already shredded classified waste out to the incinerator and burn them. And stir the ashes.
The "green tag" idea sounds like genius.
It does. Perhaps to be countered by a revival of the film "Soylent Green"?
We're talking about Bell here, not AT&T.
Pre-breakup, Bell and AT&T were the same thing. The breakup divested AT&T of the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and changed some of the restrictions AT&T operated under. Bell Labs (which, Unix fame aside, was also responsible for developing many of the standards and systems by which the phone systems operate) was still owned by AT&T (the Lucent thing came later).
IIRC, post-breakup it was AT&T that (still) controlled interstate long distance, the RBOCs handled intrastate, and it wasn't until the Microwave Communication Inc (MCI) lawsuit that the (interstate) long distance market was opened to competition.
Assume space is at 0 degrees.
More like 3 degrees, actually, (Big Bang leftovers) but I concur on the main points.
What part of "permanent" did you miss? Yes, they grow seasonally as the temperature drops enough for CO2 to freeze out. But in summertime water ice is the only candidate (barring something really exotic).
Come, this has been pretty much known since the first spectroscope was pointed at Mars, and known with confidence since the Mariner and Viking missions.
Not that it hurts to cross check to rule out oddball theories, but why act like this was a surprise? Perhaps the concept is new to Arizonans, but you'd think the Russians would be familiar with permafrost.
Considering that Mars has permanent polar ice caps (the permanent part is water ice, there's a CO2 ice part that expands in the winter), this is hardly a surprise.
The scenario could just as easily have been:
SCO Project Manager: "Sorry programmer geek-boy, if you don't get this finished in a week we're going to have to let you go."
Programmer Geek-boy: CUT LINUX > PASTE UNIX. "No sweat, it's finished."
That is, if the court finds that their IP was stolen and all Linux users must pay $1000 to SCO, SCO can simply credit their own customers as having "paid up" as it were.
And if this happens, SCO isn't living up to the terms of the GPL and is immediately in copyright violation on every copy of Linux it has distributed, since it distributed the other contributers' code without a valid (ie, GPL) license.
Each and every copyright holder of Linux code distributed by SCO then launches an infringement suit against them -- ideally in as many different jurisdictions as possible (to keep their lawyers very busy).
Spaff responded "that does no good if those thousand eyeballs are looking at things like networking your toaster instead of quality and security".
On the contrary, it's likely to be somebody trying to do something with the code that the programmer never expected (like networking the toaster) that finds the problems. The programmer (assuming he's even halfway competent) will have coded against the problems he expects people to hit.
I remember one tester I had on a small project, she'd find ways to crash code that I would have sworn was uncrashable, and my response when seeing how she did it was almost invariably "why in the world did you want to do that?". (And then I went away and fixed it. Hey, it was Motif and C++ on a Pyramid, an ugly mix at best.)
True, snail mail will take a couple of days, but it will get there -- a phone call might not.
If the issue is important enough to you to spend a few bucks on, send it Priority Mail or FedEx or equivalent. Not only will it get there faster (especially FedEx etc), it will be perceived as More Important and less likely to get hung up with a secretary.
Precisely.
Ever noticed how much a shoulder mounted professional video camera with eyepiece viewfinder and a nice wide telephoto lens looks like a shoulder mounted RPG launcher with eyepiece viewfinder and a nice wide barrel? Especially to somebody a few hundred yards away that the thing is being pointed at?
Here's a thought: What about if Microsoft decided to support Linus in any legal dealings against SCO:
Here's another thought: what if pigs had wings? Would they then be considered birds and okay for jews and muslims to eat?
Get a grip on reality, old chap.
I don't see that there's any difference between the two alternatives.
You're not looking hard enough.
In both cases, the new code can only be distributed under the terms of the license (emphasis added)
WRONG.
That is what SCO is saying, but the GPL freely permits you to distribute your new code under whatever license you like -- it's your code, previous GPL copyright holders make no claim on it. The only exception is when you want to mix your new code with their GPL code and distribute the resulting derivative of their (and your) code. Since in that case you're also distributing their code, you have to follow their license. You are still free to license that which is exclusively yours in any other way that you wish.
Contrarily, SCO appears to be saying that as soon as you mix any of your original code with anything Sys V derived, it becomes theirs, and you are no longer free to do anything else with it. (Which is of course preposterous, and no company in its right mind, let alone IBM, would sign such an agreement.)
Distributing a kernel with such code linked inside would undoubtedly get someone a nastygram from the copyright holder
Sure, but that's because the license to the original (GPL'd) code only permits distribution under the GPL. The author of the linked code is free to distribute his code as binary only, but needs permission of the original copyright holder(s) to distribute the rest of the kernel.
SCO seems to be arguing that the new code can only be distributed under SCO's terms, unlike GPL copyright holders who in general don't care what else you do with your code so long as you obey the GPL when distributing it with theirs.
You fail to emphasize the other, key, part of that clause:
derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT
A module or component added is not a derivative work. The term "derivative work" has pretty well established meanings in copyright law, none of which apply to some external component that has been added in. In some cases it might to the resulting combination, but the original separate component retains its original separate copyright.
Although MensaBabe's response to her first commenter was not innaccurate, it's been my experience that those that flaunt Mensa membership tend toward the lower end of the requirements for that organization.
Ranking in the top two percentile, or roughly two sigmas above the mean on IQ (about 130+) certainly places one, by some rather abitrary metric, beyond the bulk of the population. But the population that tends to hang out in fora like this one aren't the bulk of the population. This is particularly true of some other, more selective fora that don't allow anonymous posting. The average there tends to be above Mensa minimums, many of the participants being ex-mensans because they found the company kept there too boring -- or boorish. (Consider MensaBabe's behaviour as an example.)
Some of us here rank a couple of sigmas above Mensa minimums, i.e in the top two percent of that top two percent. So what? We don't rub people's noses in it. If they've got something valid to say (or if they say something really stupid) it doesn't really matter what they scored on some test.
And SCO has yet to clearly specify (as opposed to vague generalities) what was disclosed(*), let alone prove that IBM made such disclosures.
Even if they do manage to prove IBM did that (unlikely, given IBM's usual extreme care in managing IP rights), IBM can argue the point that the clause was rendered moot because the "software products" had previously been disclosed by AT&T and others (see the USL vs BSDI suit, for example), including AT&T's successors Novell and SCO.
Sure, if, if SCO can prove that things actually happened the way they said, and that the license means what they think, and that the point was not rendered moot by previous actions, then IBM is in trouble. I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.
(*) The vague generalities mentioned have included JFS (Journaling File System), the Linux version of which was ported from OS/2; SMP, which in large part was developed (in Linux) by Alan Cox on hardware donated by Caldera for the purpose, and NUMA, orginally an SGI development. None of these things were in the SysV code that IBM licensed. For SCO to claim that these are non-disclosable "software products" for the purpose of the license, they'd also have to prove that their interpretation of the "derivative work" ownership reversion applies to such technologies that were added to UNIX/AIX by IBM rather than derived from it. Good fscking luck.
That hinges on AT&T's successors -- we presume SCO although that's been called into question too -- complied with their part of the license, namely "by not less than two (2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying such breach". Yeah, SCO gave IBM "100 days" notice of something, but of what, exactly?
Even if IBM flagrantly violated the SCO-IBM contract to develop Monteray (and I'm not saying they did), that is not the contract by which SysV was licensed to IBM. Unless SCO can point to something in the original IBM-AT&T contract that IBM violated (and which IBM hasn't since fixed), SCO may as well go piss up a rope.