I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.
What I find funny about this whole article is the underlying hypocrisy. I'm not pointing at you necessarily, but I am pointing at a bunch of two faced Linux advocates posting here.
If this story was about GNU not getting the docs for use with Hurd, there would be a major hue and cry. If it was about Linus and Alan having to sign a proprietary contract before getting Sparc docs, Sun hardware the world over would be burning in bonfires. But it's OpenBSD, so they don't care. Linux people are telling Theo to "suck it up" and sign an NDA. Hey wake up you nimwits! Non-Disclosure Agreements are the very antithesis of Free Software. You cannot be an honest Free Software advocate while arguing that OpenBSD needs to sign an NDA. You cannot say that freedom is for Linux users but not for anyone else. You cannot say that it's wrong to dominate and subjugate Linux users, but that it's okay to shackle OpenBSD users under onerous restrictions.
You don't need TCPA for that. PGP plus an unguessable pass phrase (and a phrase that is unguessable is pretty easy) will do it fine.
For your average mom, pop, grandmother and next door neighbor (granddad's seem to handle technology just fine), setting up PGP is a pain in the royal arse. Why should geeks be the only one's who get to put locks on their door?
To put it another way, why am I only allowed to securely communicate with other geeks? With PGP, I can send secure email to two other friends. With TCPA I get secure communication with anyone else with TCPA. (depending on how TCPA gets implemented enmasse)
Or to put it a third way, when I rent an apartment or buy a house, there's locks already on the door. I don't have to bring my old locks along with me and install them when I move in.
In exchange for that fair use right disappear.
I still haven't been convinced of that outcome to TCPA. I hear a lot of scaremongering, but I see very little evidence or rationale supporting it.
TCPA *could* be used to take away some of my rights. But you don't see people in the real world arguing that locks should be banned because they can allow landlords to lock you out of your residence. I'm a bit worried about Palladium, but not at all about TCPA.
What's so terrible about what's in your medical records?
There's nothing terrible about it. I just don't want it being made a commodity item to be passed around between ten million spammers. There's some stuff I want keep private. Medical information is some of that stuff. There's a reason why there are laws against unauthorized disclosure of medical information. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those laws, I can certainly understand their motivations.
That is it was designed to encourage the free sharing of information in a communal fashion.
Thomas Jefferson (paraphrased): "If men were angels there would be no need for government, but since they aren't, there is."
It would be really nice if people didn't steal. But they do. Therefore I fully support the right of anyone to aquire and use the strongest locks possible. The only way I know of preventing people from stealing my financial, medical and personal information from my computer is to lock it up. If TCPA make this easy to do without giving up rights to third parties, then the prudent will use it.
The BSD license provides no incentive for a commercial interest to actually participate in the developement of BSD, as both Apple and Microsoft have clearly shown.\
1) Microsoft wouldn't participate in a community if a federal judge ordered them to. The licensing has nothing to do with it, corporate culture does.
2) Apple participates in the FreeBSD community without even being asked to. They've opened up the parts of Safari that the khtml LGPL license says they don't have to. They actively work with GNUStep developers even though they don't even use GNUStep.
3) IBM, Sun, Apple, Covalent, etc., all participate actively in the Apache community, despite the fact that the Apache license is essentially the BSD license with the addition of a name-use clause.
4) None of the four most successful Open Source Projects (in terms of number of users) are under a pure GPL: Perl, Apache, XFree86, Mozilla. Only the latter is copyleft, but a very weak copyleft because of its triple-licensing.
I've already shown why commercialism isn't a problem for Linux
I don't think it's a problem, personally. The more the merrier. The more people get paid to work on Apache, KDE, Gnome, XFree86, etc., the more FreeBSD benefits. The "commercialization" that benefits only Linux is extremely small.
It was the *orginal* poster that was concerned about it, not be. I'm only arguing that his reason for switching had nothing to do with licensing.
So that's how you get modded down! You poke fun at people majoring in Anime!
And all this time I've been poking fun at GNU people and getting nowhere. Finally I might get my Excellent Karma down to Trollbait levels now that I know the trick.
p.s. I would like to apologize to all the Stallmanista's I ragged on over the years. You REALLY do have a sense of humour. It's these Anime nuts that can't take a good ribbing...
I am so glad I went to a university that did not, does not, and will not teach such stupid classes. My degree is still be worth something.
All of the rest of you, please, please, please go major in anime. That way when I'm old, I'll have no worries about young punks straight out of college taking over my job.
Gosh! I'm going to ask a Slashdot question, but instead of waiting for the answer, I'm going to make up a bunch of stuff based on my kindergarten level of economics, plus some numbers I pulled out of my butt. Hey everyone! Look how smart I am!
This IS what we want to happen. Right? Microsoft losing market share has to start somewhere.
Wrong. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft's market share. It simply doesn't enter into the equation I use to select operating systems.
He didn't change because of the license. Read his post again. He changed because Linux has gotten too commercialized. It may still be a silly reason, but it's not about the GPL, BSD or any other license.
Lint compains if you call a function that returns an int and you ignore the int.
Seeing that you used strcpy() as an example, I can certainly understand why you don't like lint. For those of us who know better than to use such dangerous functions, lint and -Wall are our annoying but useful friends.
Re:FYI: Code Import only supports C++
on
Umbrello 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It supports Java, C++ and PHP out of the box. Go to "Code -> Add/Remove Generation Languages", then add the one you want. Since it's a plugin architecture, you can add more when people write them.
I've used them both. Feature wise, they're pretty much comparable. But ArgoUML only supports Java. And since it's a GUI app written in Java, it runs dog slow.
IP/RIAA/MPAA/DCMA/Etc: He's probably at least in the right ballpark.
National Sales Tax: Who knows?
Flat Tax: Who knows?
Small Business: Who knows?
Capital Gains: Who knows?
Regulation: Who knows?
Israel/Palestine: Who knows?
Iraq/Afghanistan: Who knows?
Airport Security: Who knows?
Clean Air Act: Who knows?
In short, we know nothing about the politics of Steve Jobs. No one in their right mind could vote for this guy without knowing more. Of course, he has opinions in these areas. But we just don't know them.
Is he Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Reform or Independent? And out of those ridiculously broad parties, which one of several thousand factions, caucuses and movements does he stand with? Is he a New Deal Democrat or a Capitalist Green? A Country Club Republican or a Peronista Reformist? Civil Libertarian or Extreme Moderate Independent? Who the heck knows!
If these IPs that SCO are talking about are descended from the AT&T copyrights, than all of the BSDs are in the clear, as well as anyone else descending from 44BSD-Lite. This case has already been fought, and won by the Good Guys.
The only rational explanation for SCO's behavior is the existance of patents heretofore unknown to the public.
I don't know about Aqua, but under Windows Qt does not use the native widgets. It uses the GDI instead, in the same way that it uses Xlib under X11. Using these basic drawing tools, it creates its own look. The QButton class draws itself, and is the same identical file under all platforms. So it can't be using native widgets.
It gets them right simply by drawing them right. 'Nuff said. It's really not that hard when you look at it.
I've got a couple of applications written with Qt, and they look like native Win32/MFC apps under Windows. You can't tell the difference, except that they use slightly fewer CPU resources. Throw a Liquid, Keramik or Qinx theme at them under NIX, and they don't look like Windows anymore.
The Signal/Slot mechanism is the most elegant solution to C++ callback syntax I have seen. It makes using complicated helper classes and message objects (Qt), or complicated templates and functors (libsigc++), a breeze to use.
I'll be able about cross-platform GUI toolkits when they make one that looks as good in windows as mfc does.
Then you need to try Qt. Seriously. Download the free Windows version and try it out. The widgets under the Windows theme look perfectly native. They also look perfectly native under Mac OSX and Motif.
A lot of people are using it for their non-crossplatform native-Windows development, because the library architecture makes so much more sense than MFC.
You mean like MediaPlayer, WinAmp, Quicktime and RealPlayer? Typically, it's the "media" applications that tend to go their own way, but Microsoft Office seems to come out with something different every alternating version. Frankly, Or what about the.NET look?
And Mac OSX users seem to accept their OS just fine, despite the fact that Apple can't make up their mind if they want jelly drops or brushed aluminum on the desktop.
The myth that users will only accept one way of dong things is easy to reiterate, but it doesn't hold too much water when scrutinized.
Qt gives you the best of both worlds. Theme it to your hearts content (Liquid, Qinx, Keramik, etc), or keep the native look. In the same application.
Really, give Qt a try. You don't have to keep using it if you don't like it, but it solves your stated problem so it deserves your analysis.
Ditto. Slashdot blacklisted my entire company. Turned out one asshole in IT ran a script over a six hour period one weekend flooding Slashdot with hundreds of hits. This employee was fired the next week. IT explained that to them. I explained that to them. But Slashdot still has us banned six months later, because they cannot be rationalized with. They simply cannot conceive of the possibility that a single IP address might be used by thousands of people. I suppose we're banned for life.
At least your objections were ignored. They at least bothered to write us a juvenile arrogant screed about how to run our business.
You mean POSIX? You ought to try it sometime. "Write once, compile everywhere." It's only drawback is that no one wants to conform to standards they didn't write.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.
What I find funny about this whole article is the underlying hypocrisy. I'm not pointing at you necessarily, but I am pointing at a bunch of two faced Linux advocates posting here.
If this story was about GNU not getting the docs for use with Hurd, there would be a major hue and cry. If it was about Linus and Alan having to sign a proprietary contract before getting Sparc docs, Sun hardware the world over would be burning in bonfires. But it's OpenBSD, so they don't care. Linux people are telling Theo to "suck it up" and sign an NDA. Hey wake up you nimwits! Non-Disclosure Agreements are the very antithesis of Free Software. You cannot be an honest Free Software advocate while arguing that OpenBSD needs to sign an NDA. You cannot say that freedom is for Linux users but not for anyone else. You cannot say that it's wrong to dominate and subjugate Linux users, but that it's okay to shackle OpenBSD users under onerous restrictions.
You don't need TCPA for that. PGP plus an unguessable pass phrase (and a phrase that is unguessable is pretty easy) will do it fine.
For your average mom, pop, grandmother and next door neighbor (granddad's seem to handle technology just fine), setting up PGP is a pain in the royal arse. Why should geeks be the only one's who get to put locks on their door?
To put it another way, why am I only allowed to securely communicate with other geeks? With PGP, I can send secure email to two other friends. With TCPA I get secure communication with anyone else with TCPA. (depending on how TCPA gets implemented enmasse)
Or to put it a third way, when I rent an apartment or buy a house, there's locks already on the door. I don't have to bring my old locks along with me and install them when I move in.
In exchange for that fair use right disappear.
I still haven't been convinced of that outcome to TCPA. I hear a lot of scaremongering, but I see very little evidence or rationale supporting it.
TCPA *could* be used to take away some of my rights. But you don't see people in the real world arguing that locks should be banned because they can allow landlords to lock you out of your residence. I'm a bit worried about Palladium, but not at all about TCPA.
What's so terrible about what's in your medical records?
There's nothing terrible about it. I just don't want it being made a commodity item to be passed around between ten million spammers. There's some stuff I want keep private. Medical information is some of that stuff. There's a reason why there are laws against unauthorized disclosure of medical information. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those laws, I can certainly understand their motivations.
That is it was designed to encourage the free sharing of information in a communal fashion.
Thomas Jefferson (paraphrased): "If men were angels there would be no need for government, but since they aren't, there is."
It would be really nice if people didn't steal. But they do. Therefore I fully support the right of anyone to aquire and use the strongest locks possible. The only way I know of preventing people from stealing my financial, medical and personal information from my computer is to lock it up. If TCPA make this easy to do without giving up rights to third parties, then the prudent will use it.
a chip that enables DRM even sub-optimally is not the friend of the people.
A knife that enables murder even sub-optimally is not the friend of the people.
The BSD license provides no incentive for a commercial interest to actually participate in the developement of BSD, as both Apple and Microsoft have clearly shown.\
1) Microsoft wouldn't participate in a community if a federal judge ordered them to. The licensing has nothing to do with it, corporate culture does.
2) Apple participates in the FreeBSD community without even being asked to. They've opened up the parts of Safari that the khtml LGPL license says they don't have to. They actively work with GNUStep developers even though they don't even use GNUStep.
3) IBM, Sun, Apple, Covalent, etc., all participate actively in the Apache community, despite the fact that the Apache license is essentially the BSD license with the addition of a name-use clause.
4) None of the four most successful Open Source Projects (in terms of number of users) are under a pure GPL: Perl, Apache, XFree86, Mozilla. Only the latter is copyleft, but a very weak copyleft because of its triple-licensing.
I've already shown why commercialism isn't a problem for Linux
I don't think it's a problem, personally. The more the merrier. The more people get paid to work on Apache, KDE, Gnome, XFree86, etc., the more FreeBSD benefits. The "commercialization" that benefits only Linux is extremely small.
It was the *orginal* poster that was concerned about it, not be. I'm only arguing that his reason for switching had nothing to do with licensing.
So that's how you get modded down! You poke fun at people majoring in Anime!
And all this time I've been poking fun at GNU people and getting nowhere. Finally I might get my Excellent Karma down to Trollbait levels now that I know the trick.
p.s. I would like to apologize to all the Stallmanista's I ragged on over the years. You REALLY do have a sense of humour. It's these Anime nuts that can't take a good ribbing...
Then how is it that Linux is much more commercialized than FreeBSD?
I am so glad I went to a university that did not, does not, and will not teach such stupid classes. My degree is still be worth something.
All of the rest of you, please, please, please go major in anime. That way when I'm old, I'll have no worries about young punks straight out of college taking over my job.
Gosh! I'm going to ask a Slashdot question, but instead of waiting for the answer, I'm going to make up a bunch of stuff based on my kindergarten level of economics, plus some numbers I pulled out of my butt. Hey everyone! Look how smart I am!
This IS what we want to happen. Right? Microsoft losing market share has to start somewhere.
Wrong. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft's market share. It simply doesn't enter into the equation I use to select operating systems.
He didn't change because of the license. Read his post again. He changed because Linux has gotten too commercialized. It may still be a silly reason, but it's not about the GPL, BSD or any other license.
First, it is best to treat all warnings as bugs.
They ARE bugs. Trying to find one error in an output of twenty thousand warnings on a distributed build qualifies as an problem in itself.
It happens every week or so, typically on Wednesdays at 11:00 PST. I think it's caused by redundant slashcode.
Lint compains if you call a function that returns an int and you ignore the int.
Seeing that you used strcpy() as an example, I can certainly understand why you don't like lint. For those of us who know better than to use such dangerous functions, lint and -Wall are our annoying but useful friends.
It supports Java, C++ and PHP out of the box. Go to "Code -> Add/Remove Generation Languages", then add the one you want. Since it's a plugin architecture, you can add more when people write them.
I've used them both. Feature wise, they're pretty much comparable. But ArgoUML only supports Java. And since it's a GUI app written in Java, it runs dog slow.
All the more reason to at least check out Umbrello. It isn't "fucking huge". It's 1.4Meg on my system, compared to the 3.5Meg of XEmacs.
Okay, let's narrow it down a bit...
In short, we know nothing about the politics of Steve Jobs. No one in their right mind could vote for this guy without knowing more. Of course, he has opinions in these areas. But we just don't know them.
Is he Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Reform or Independent? And out of those ridiculously broad parties, which one of several thousand factions, caucuses and movements does he stand with? Is he a New Deal Democrat or a Capitalist Green? A Country Club Republican or a Peronista Reformist? Civil Libertarian or Extreme Moderate Independent? Who the heck knows!
If these IPs that SCO are talking about are descended from the AT&T copyrights, than all of the BSDs are in the clear, as well as anyone else descending from 44BSD-Lite. This case has already been fought, and won by the Good Guys.
The only rational explanation for SCO's behavior is the existance of patents heretofore unknown to the public.
If you can afford it, and don't mind the fake painted widgets, then Qt is the way to go.
They're not "fake painted widgets." They're real widgets drawn in exactly the same way MFC draws them: using the GDI.
I don't know about Aqua, but under Windows Qt does not use the native widgets. It uses the GDI instead, in the same way that it uses Xlib under X11. Using these basic drawing tools, it creates its own look. The QButton class draws itself, and is the same identical file under all platforms. So it can't be using native widgets.
It gets them right simply by drawing them right. 'Nuff said. It's really not that hard when you look at it.
I've got a couple of applications written with Qt, and they look like native Win32/MFC apps under Windows. You can't tell the difference, except that they use slightly fewer CPU resources. Throw a Liquid, Keramik or Qinx theme at them under NIX, and they don't look like Windows anymore.
Wonderful analysis.
The Signal/Slot mechanism is the most elegant solution to C++ callback syntax I have seen. It makes using complicated helper classes and message objects (Qt), or complicated templates and functors (libsigc++), a breeze to use.
I'll be able about cross-platform GUI toolkits when they make one that looks as good in windows as mfc does.
.NET look?
Then you need to try Qt. Seriously. Download the free Windows version and try it out. The widgets under the Windows theme look perfectly native. They also look perfectly native under Mac OSX and Motif.
A lot of people are using it for their non-crossplatform native-Windows development, because the library architecture makes so much more sense than MFC.
You mean like MediaPlayer, WinAmp, Quicktime and RealPlayer? Typically, it's the "media" applications that tend to go their own way, but Microsoft Office seems to come out with something different every alternating version. Frankly, Or what about the
And Mac OSX users seem to accept their OS just fine, despite the fact that Apple can't make up their mind if they want jelly drops or brushed aluminum on the desktop.
The myth that users will only accept one way of dong things is easy to reiterate, but it doesn't hold too much water when scrutinized.
Qt gives you the best of both worlds. Theme it to your hearts content (Liquid, Qinx, Keramik, etc), or keep the native look. In the same application.
Really, give Qt a try. You don't have to keep using it if you don't like it, but it solves your stated problem so it deserves your analysis.
Ditto. Slashdot blacklisted my entire company. Turned out one asshole in IT ran a script over a six hour period one weekend flooding Slashdot with hundreds of hits. This employee was fired the next week. IT explained that to them. I explained that to them. But Slashdot still has us banned six months later, because they cannot be rationalized with. They simply cannot conceive of the possibility that a single IP address might be used by thousands of people. I suppose we're banned for life.
At least your objections were ignored. They at least bothered to write us a juvenile arrogant screed about how to run our business.
You mean POSIX? You ought to try it sometime. "Write once, compile everywhere." It's only drawback is that no one wants to conform to standards they didn't write.