My dad majored in geology. His goal was to go into the petroleum industry and do what he loved by traipsing all over remote deserts and tundras looking for interesting rocks that might hold clues to oil reserves. Unfortunately every one else had the same idea and when he graduated there was no demand for geologists.
So he took a job as a teacher to make ends meet, and stayed at the same school for thirty five years. He never lost his love of geology. He was pissed that he missed the Mt. St. Helens eruption by one week. He was pissed that Kilauea erupted three days after he left.
There is one area where it does regulate usage. Linkage. If I distribute a 100% orginal application that dynamically links to a GPL library, then I must GPL that application, even if I do NOT distribute or modify the library.
The FSF considers this derivation but it is not. All you are "using" in the library is the API, and since you cannot copyright an API, it is not derivation to create a work that uses that API. It is even possible to create an application that uses a GPL library without even possessing that library.
I am not talking about static linkage, which would be a case of distribution, but of dynamic linkage. The GPL v3 might even have clauses to regulate runtime linkage as well. With dynamic linkage I do not copy, modify, distribute, fold, staple or mangle the library. I merely include some references to the library which are not resolved until runtime.
Umm, yes it does. Both licenses purport to tell you what rights you don't have. The only difference is that the MS EULA has a much longer list of rights they claim you don't have.
They can steal it and it won't make them play nice and give anything back, the way the GPL does.
I hear this all the time, but there's a big problem with it. Why do "they" need the GPL out of the way before they can steal BSD code? Why don't they just steal it NOW? Why even bother trying to kill GPL software?
After all Sun's fortunes came from "stealing" BSD, but they never once bothered trying to stick a knife in GPL. Apple made the biggest comeback in history by "stealing" BSD, but they didn't try to murder GPL. In fact, in all of history, only Microsoft and SCO/Caldera have ever devoted any appreciable amount of energy trying to discredit the GPL.
How much time to you take to test any changes to the codebase? Even with just a minor bugfix release, we spend a minimum of three months in testing at my work. The average life cycle for a release here (not new product, but new release) is two years from start to finish.
That's one reason why web developers have a low reputation compared with other software developers. It may not necessarily be justified, or even the direct fault of the developers, but it's there nonetheless.
It's almost like all sense of professionalism evaporates when you're working on a website. Database developers do some awesome work, and their specialty is accorded a high level of regard. Yet when they work on a website's backend they stumble and fall. I've seen Java programs that are the pinnacle of development methodology, yet put a Java programmer working on a website and they produce junk. Even interface designers go into kindergarten mode when they're designing websites.
And QA verification? Hah! I think they only testing most websites do is to test that you're using Internet Explorer.
When you are anonymous to your listener you are noise. The trick is understanding who your listener is.
If the listener is an individual you are trying to recruit for a rally next Saturday, then let that individual know who you are. You don't have to tell the whole world who you are, but that individual won't take you seriously if he doesn't know who you are. He won't know if you're a mole from the "opposition".
If you're blowing the whistle at your company, your company doesn't need to know who you are. But the FBI/SEC/ETC will want to know. They will not take you seriously if you're anonymous. Are you telling the truth or are you just a disgruntled ex-employee seeking revenge?
Yeah I know. But if your political opinion is important enough, then it should be worth some inconveniences, in my opinion. My main point though, was that anonymous political opinion is mere noise. It doesn't mean anything. Write a letter to your congressman on an issue and sign it "JohnFluxx", and it will be completely ignored. I've actually been quoted in articles for a political opinion I posted online under my real name, but never once have I been quoted as "Arandir".
Know of any country where the government does not take a keener interest in your affairs if you speak out against them?
Realistically, you don't have a problem in the US with speaking your piece, unless your piece is the abolition of the IRS. However even then you won't get arrested.
I wonder. Anonymous political speech is pointless. Think about it. No, I don't necessarily want my address and telephone number listed next to my letter to the editor, but at the same time I'm not going to pay any creedence to a letter that's signed 'anonymous'.
Of course, I live in a country where unpopular political opinions (which do not advocate violence) may get you spit upon, get you fired, and get you audited by the taxman, but which will not get you thrown into prison for the next decade. Where there serious potential for loss of life, limb and liberty for political speech, I might want to be anonymous as well.
The point could also be made the other way. If you want to keep your proprietary code secret then keep it secret. It has nothing to do with GPL viralness, but everything to do with not enforcing the copyright back in the seventies and eighties when everyone and their brother had the sources to UNIX.
You're perpetuating another myth. The JIT will make the code go a heck of a lot faster. The example is a CPU point loop, and native code will of course be faster than byte code in this situation. Real-world Java applications are rarely able to benefit much from this however.
As for it being faster than C++, that's a load of bull. Knowing how JIT/Java works and knowing how C++ works, I would expect identical performance. And fair demonstrations will show this. You need to use the SAME algorithm for both. No fair using an accumulating loop for Java and recursion for C++. No fair using the minimal language features you need for Java and using operator overloading and polymorphic classes for C++.
I've always here this "urban legend" with regards to Java and C++. I've NEVER heard Java compared to C in this regard. Why? Anyone who knows C++ can tell you that a C++ program to calculate Fibonacci is going to be *identical* to the equivalent C program.
So show me those two example programs using the exact same algorithms and using minimal language features.
With KDE & QT, your application will only be GPL...
Minor correction: your application must be Open Source, but it need not be limited to the GPL. You see, Free Qt isn't under the GPL, it's under a dual GPL/QPL. No, it's still not going to let you release pay-for software without using a pay-for Qt, but you still have a lot of latitude regarding licensing.
Lessig is predicting that the days of the Commons of the Internet are over, and that as a result of FCC deregulation, the concentration of digital rights in the hands of just a few large media companies will kill the internet for good.
Liberty is not convenient. What happens when we have freedom of choice? We incure the responsibility to make informed decisions.
Government regulation of speech and press is NOT liberty. It's pretty damned convenient though. Instead of having to make the difficult choice not to read a newspaper owned by a television station, we can just have the government forbid television stations from owning newspapers! No muss, no fuss, and we can stay home in droves on election day.
Seriously, why do we need FCC regulation of the internet? And how would US regulation of the US portion of the internet solve anything? And why is it seemingly okay to regulate commercial content on the web, but seriously bent to regulate porographic content on the web? Why this need to pick and choose who gets freedom and who does not? Like it or not, the internet has been wildly successful WITHOUT government regulation. Sure it has some problems, but I can't think of anything worthwhile that doesn't.
The word "commons" was feudalistic concept. The lord owned the land and graciously allowed the serf to graze sheep on it. If you want a Commons of the Internet again, first stop to think who gets to be the lord and who has to play the role of serf. A few decades ago you had to be among the technical "aristrocracy" to use that commons. But the internet "escaped" the manor of academia. Instead of the feudalism that was, we now have the anarchism of the internet today. Yeah it's pretty crazy, all anarchism is. But damn it's exciting.
Then switch to a window manager / desktop that doesn't do much. Like BlackBox, Windowmaker, IceWM, etc. The Win9x desktop is nothing more than a generic window manager with a taskbar. If that's all you want, then you don't need GNOME or KDE.
Actually, my XFree86-4.3 under FreeBSD and saddled with a "bloated" KDE is faster than Win2k... On the same machine. Mozilla/FreeBSD starts up and renders faster than Mozilla/Win2k. But Konqueror beats them both AND IExplorer.
I'm sure that FreeBSD isn't that much faster than Linux, so start blaming your distro before you start blaming XFree86.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
But glibc is not a core system component of any system other than Linux (and the semi-mythical Hurd/GNU).
GCC-3.3 will compile the kernel and libc on my Free Software operating system, so it's no problem for me.
Slashdot Mirror
My dad majored in geology. His goal was to go into the petroleum industry and do what he loved by traipsing all over remote deserts and tundras looking for interesting rocks that might hold clues to oil reserves. Unfortunately every one else had the same idea and when he graduated there was no demand for geologists.
So he took a job as a teacher to make ends meet, and stayed at the same school for thirty five years. He never lost his love of geology. He was pissed that he missed the Mt. St. Helens eruption by one week. He was pissed that Kilauea erupted three days after he left.
There is one area where it does regulate usage. Linkage. If I distribute a 100% orginal application that dynamically links to a GPL library, then I must GPL that application, even if I do NOT distribute or modify the library.
The FSF considers this derivation but it is not. All you are "using" in the library is the API, and since you cannot copyright an API, it is not derivation to create a work that uses that API. It is even possible to create an application that uses a GPL library without even possessing that library.
I am not talking about static linkage, which would be a case of distribution, but of dynamic linkage. The GPL v3 might even have clauses to regulate runtime linkage as well. With dynamic linkage I do not copy, modify, distribute, fold, staple or mangle the library. I merely include some references to the library which are not resolved until runtime.
Umm, yes it does. Both licenses purport to tell you what rights you don't have. The only difference is that the MS EULA has a much longer list of rights they claim you don't have.
In less than 10 years all the formentioned companies will be converted to either a .NET or Java platform to control all their operations.
And this event will herald the end of civilization as we know it.
Unlike, say, they had been filmed with different desktops. GNOME for Fellowship, KDE for Two Towers and XFCE for Return...
I always go around humming humming Gollum's song at work. Maybe that's why they look at me strange.
They can steal it and it won't make them play nice and give anything back, the way the GPL does.
I hear this all the time, but there's a big problem with it. Why do "they" need the GPL out of the way before they can steal BSD code? Why don't they just steal it NOW? Why even bother trying to kill GPL software?
After all Sun's fortunes came from "stealing" BSD, but they never once bothered trying to stick a knife in GPL. Apple made the biggest comeback in history by "stealing" BSD, but they didn't try to murder GPL. In fact, in all of history, only Microsoft and SCO/Caldera have ever devoted any appreciable amount of energy trying to discredit the GPL.
You're on drugs, aren't you. Why don't you share your stash?
Let's see now... you want to dump eyecandy, but replace the panel with Karamba... use GTK+ for all your widgets but Qt for all your theming...
I just can't see this in my mind without some of that stuff you're smoking.
Hmmm, I was using the internet earlier than that. How can he have "took the initiative in creating the Internet" when it already existed?
Funny, I was USING the internet before he sponsored it.
How much time to you take to test any changes to the codebase? Even with just a minor bugfix release, we spend a minimum of three months in testing at my work. The average life cycle for a release here (not new product, but new release) is two years from start to finish.
That's one reason why web developers have a low reputation compared with other software developers. It may not necessarily be justified, or even the direct fault of the developers, but it's there nonetheless.
It's almost like all sense of professionalism evaporates when you're working on a website. Database developers do some awesome work, and their specialty is accorded a high level of regard. Yet when they work on a website's backend they stumble and fall. I've seen Java programs that are the pinnacle of development methodology, yet put a Java programmer working on a website and they produce junk. Even interface designers go into kindergarten mode when they're designing websites.
And QA verification? Hah! I think they only testing most websites do is to test that you're using Internet Explorer.
That's irrelevent when 99% of your target developers do not know Objective C.
When you are anonymous to your listener you are noise. The trick is understanding who your listener is.
If the listener is an individual you are trying to recruit for a rally next Saturday, then let that individual know who you are. You don't have to tell the whole world who you are, but that individual won't take you seriously if he doesn't know who you are. He won't know if you're a mole from the "opposition".
If you're blowing the whistle at your company, your company doesn't need to know who you are. But the FBI/SEC/ETC will want to know. They will not take you seriously if you're anonymous. Are you telling the truth or are you just a disgruntled ex-employee seeking revenge?
uh, again you are proving the point even more.
Yeah I know. But if your political opinion is important enough, then it should be worth some inconveniences, in my opinion. My main point though, was that anonymous political opinion is mere noise. It doesn't mean anything. Write a letter to your congressman on an issue and sign it "JohnFluxx", and it will be completely ignored. I've actually been quoted in articles for a political opinion I posted online under my real name, but never once have I been quoted as "Arandir".
Know of any country where the government does not take a keener interest in your affairs if you speak out against them?
Realistically, you don't have a problem in the US with speaking your piece, unless your piece is the abolition of the IRS. However even then you won't get arrested.
I wonder. Anonymous political speech is pointless. Think about it. No, I don't necessarily want my address and telephone number listed next to my letter to the editor, but at the same time I'm not going to pay any creedence to a letter that's signed 'anonymous'.
Of course, I live in a country where unpopular political opinions (which do not advocate violence) may get you spit upon, get you fired, and get you audited by the taxman, but which will not get you thrown into prison for the next decade. Where there serious potential for loss of life, limb and liberty for political speech, I might want to be anonymous as well.
The point could also be made the other way. If you want to keep your proprietary code secret then keep it secret. It has nothing to do with GPL viralness, but everything to do with not enforcing the copyright back in the seventies and eighties when everyone and their brother had the sources to UNIX.
You're perpetuating another myth. The JIT will make the code go a heck of a lot faster. The example is a CPU point loop, and native code will of course be faster than byte code in this situation. Real-world Java applications are rarely able to benefit much from this however.
As for it being faster than C++, that's a load of bull. Knowing how JIT/Java works and knowing how C++ works, I would expect identical performance. And fair demonstrations will show this. You need to use the SAME algorithm for both. No fair using an accumulating loop for Java and recursion for C++. No fair using the minimal language features you need for Java and using operator overloading and polymorphic classes for C++.
I've always here this "urban legend" with regards to Java and C++. I've NEVER heard Java compared to C in this regard. Why? Anyone who knows C++ can tell you that a C++ program to calculate Fibonacci is going to be *identical* to the equivalent C program.
So show me those two example programs using the exact same algorithms and using minimal language features.
The OpenOffice-1.1 port is still "beta" under FreeBSD. Try -1.0.2 instead. I've never had a problem with it.
With KDE & QT, your application will only be GPL...
Minor correction: your application must be Open Source, but it need not be limited to the GPL. You see, Free Qt isn't under the GPL, it's under a dual GPL/QPL. No, it's still not going to let you release pay-for software without using a pay-for Qt, but you still have a lot of latitude regarding licensing.
Lessig is predicting that the days of the Commons of the Internet are over, and that as a result of FCC deregulation, the concentration of digital rights in the hands of just a few large media companies will kill the internet for good.
Liberty is not convenient. What happens when we have freedom of choice? We incure the responsibility to make informed decisions.
Government regulation of speech and press is NOT liberty. It's pretty damned convenient though. Instead of having to make the difficult choice not to read a newspaper owned by a television station, we can just have the government forbid television stations from owning newspapers! No muss, no fuss, and we can stay home in droves on election day.
Seriously, why do we need FCC regulation of the internet? And how would US regulation of the US portion of the internet solve anything? And why is it seemingly okay to regulate commercial content on the web, but seriously bent to regulate porographic content on the web? Why this need to pick and choose who gets freedom and who does not? Like it or not, the internet has been wildly successful WITHOUT government regulation. Sure it has some problems, but I can't think of anything worthwhile that doesn't.
The word "commons" was feudalistic concept. The lord owned the land and graciously allowed the serf to graze sheep on it. If you want a Commons of the Internet again, first stop to think who gets to be the lord and who has to play the role of serf. A few decades ago you had to be among the technical "aristrocracy" to use that commons. But the internet "escaped" the manor of academia. Instead of the feudalism that was, we now have the anarchism of the internet today. Yeah it's pretty crazy, all anarchism is. But damn it's exciting.
Then switch to a window manager / desktop that doesn't do much. Like BlackBox, Windowmaker, IceWM, etc. The Win9x desktop is nothing more than a generic window manager with a taskbar. If that's all you want, then you don't need GNOME or KDE.
Actually, my XFree86-4.3 under FreeBSD and saddled with a "bloated" KDE is faster than Win2k... On the same machine. Mozilla/FreeBSD starts up and renders faster than Mozilla/Win2k. But Konqueror beats them both AND IExplorer.
I'm sure that FreeBSD isn't that much faster than Linux, so start blaming your distro before you start blaming XFree86.
But glibc is not a core system component of any system other than Linux (and the semi-mythical Hurd/GNU).
GCC-3.3 will compile the kernel and libc on my Free Software operating system, so it's no problem for me.