In my view, government funded software should be free for as many people (taxpayers) to use as possible - including Microsoft.
So I think it's entirely appropriate that the BSD software (probably the most widespread government funded software) is released under the unrestrictive BSD licence.
If Microsoft use the code, so be it. The point is, ANYONE can use it - there should be no exceptions just because we happen not to like certain people/companies.
(As an analogy, there are people in the world who I don't much like, and would rather they didn't profit off my software - but if I CHOOSE to release my software under the BSD licence (as indeed I do) then there's nothing I can do about this, and that is as it should be.)
The GPL on the other hand is less appropriate for government funded software, as it is more restrictive and places additional requirements on those who use it. These requirements may been seen by the free software movement as GOOD (and indeed I think that they probably are!), but that is not the point: EVERYONE should be able to use the government funded software as they wish, which they cannot do with the GPL.
Indeed, RMS very sensibly resigned from the MIT AI lab before commencing work on GNU, so the GPL licence is entirely justifiable here. But if the Berkely CSRG had decided to release their software under the GPL, I feel that would have been inappropriate.
Yes - but StrongARMs were designed by Intel (well, they were actually designed by Digital, but Intel have bought the rights and airbrushed out the history:-) ).
The thing I used to love about these games was the depth and quality of the story that you pieced together as you played the game. It really felt like it was worth playing on, something that can't be said for today's crop of blast-em-ups.
For more on the story in the Marathon games, look here.
On a vaguely-related matter, have a look at this... some lunatic is porting Bungie's Marathon to the HalfLife engine! Now if only I had that sort of free time... I might get that Linux MIDI sequencer finished...:-)
A lot of people seem to be concerned about the problems with 'open hardware' development - fab. costs, logistics, and so on. These certainly are major stumbling blocks.
However, how about a more modern business model? Here in the UK, ARM have been designing first-class processors for years, and yet they don't make any chips themselves. They *licence* their designs to other manufacturers (eg. VLSI, Intel, etc.).
So - all we need is an OpenHardware licence, some outstanding technology, and some effective advocacy. Think about it - the openh team could design an absolute corker of a processor, then some manufacturer could manufacture it, and would be obliged to put their 'real-world' improvements/refinements/fixes back into the open. After a few iterations of this, momentum would gather, and we'd have a well-tested, well-designed, real-world piece of hardware.
Wishful thinking perhaps, but if you'd have told me twelve years ago that somecompanies would be making money from selling products based on an entirely freely available, hobbyist-designed OS, I might not have believed you. Things change, sometimes for the better.
The only trouble is, all those chip manufacturers would get rich quick off the labours of the open hardware designers. But that's a philosophical argument for another day...:-)
Agree with BSD, agree with TeX, disagree with Linux kernel.
Something I've learnt a lot from myself is Scintilla. It's a free editing control (with my favourite editor, SciTE, thrown in too) written in (a subset of) C++, but in a very nice way... It's hard to put your finger on why it's so readable, but it just makes sense. I think it's at the perfect size to study - not too big to be incomprehensible, but not too small to be unrealistic.
I'd quite like to get my hands on one of these - the SID was the king of the 1980s computer music chips.
On a related matter, I'm always surprised we don't hear more electronica records that use (or sample) the old Ample Music 500 system, that was released in the mid-1980s as an add-on for the BBC micro. Vince Clark of Erasure (a famous 1980s UK electro band) used to use one; they had some fairly powerful sound generating hardware, and all that 'early digital' stuff is coming right back into fashion.
So if anyone has one, keep it safe for a few years, and I predict you will command a high price!:-)
Why is it that whenever anything interesting is posted on Slashdot, people CANNOT RESIST throwing in the obligatory inane "Just wait until it runs Linux" / "Hope someone's porting Quake" / "Imagine that as your firewall" / "blah blah blah Descent" / "blah blah blah Descent" comments?
Here, we have such a comment in the story itself (admittedly from the submitter, but the editors are certainly not innocent of this), and now the above comment opening with some crass remark about Unreal.
THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN LINUX AND COMPUTER GAMES.
If quantum computing comes off, it will change the world. There will be far more important applications of it than running Linux, or playing some game or other. So why do people feel the need to trivialise these matters?
As for the (very interesting) matter of quantum algorithms, they are beginning to receive a lot of attention from the computer science research community, even outside "obscure journals". I was leafing through a book on algorithmics the other day which had an interesting "in the future..."-style chapter - forget the name now, but I'll have another look next time I go to the library.
I wonder if the DoD go as far as auditing / rewriting all userland apps. For example, if I took some DoD job, would I find myself working with emacs, or would I have to learn 'dodmacs' or some other in-house editor?
Don't forget, it's more often a rogue userland app. that causes security holes than a critical part of the kernel/stack/filesystem/whatever.
Agreed, these kits are superb - I got started on one here in the UK (where they are available under the Tandy brand) and there's been no holding me back ever since.
Of course, the real boon for my generation of England was the availability of Acorn machines in schools, which are possibility the best machines to learn hacking on, due to
(i) their excellent built-in BASIC
(ii) their excellent built-in Assembler
(iii) their beautiful instruction set (ARM)
(iv) the simplicity and power of the RISC OS API
(v) the availability of quality documentation
What a shame future generations will be denied the pleasures I enjoyed.
As a recording artist myself, whose work is probably more likely to get played on internet radio than on real-life radio, my question is this: do the artists see any of this extra 'air' charge?
If so, it's potentially justifiable, for the vast increase in availability of the artist's work.
If not, it's another unjustifiable move from "the man".
Do you, like many other bands, feel that the digital revolution and MP3s are destroying your chance to live off your creativity, or will you embrace the new technologies and adapt to their new economy?
Slashdot Mirror
Has CmdrTaco actually ever bought a medium?!
:-)
I know I haven't, and I can't think of that many people who have. You could argue that Rupert Murdoch has bought a few in his time, but still...
In my view, government funded software should be free for as many people (taxpayers) to use as possible - including Microsoft.
So I think it's entirely appropriate that the BSD software (probably the most widespread government funded software) is released under the unrestrictive BSD licence.
If Microsoft use the code, so be it. The point is, ANYONE can use it - there should be no exceptions just because we happen not to like certain people/companies.
(As an analogy, there are people in the world who I don't much like, and would rather they didn't profit off my software - but if I CHOOSE to release my software under the BSD licence (as indeed I do) then there's nothing I can do about this, and that is as it should be.)
The GPL on the other hand is less appropriate for government funded software, as it is more restrictive and places additional requirements on those who use it. These requirements may been seen by the free software movement as GOOD (and indeed I think that they probably are!), but that is not the point: EVERYONE should be able to use the government funded software as they wish, which they cannot do with the GPL.
Indeed, RMS very sensibly resigned from the MIT AI lab before commencing work on GNU, so the GPL licence is entirely justifiable here. But if the Berkely CSRG had decided to release their software under the GPL, I feel that would have been inappropriate.
Of course, the "lameness filter" is there for a reason - to prevent "lame" comments... like that one?
Yes - but StrongARMs were designed by Intel (well, they were actually designed by Digital, but Intel have bought the rights and airbrushed out the history :-) ).
From the South? The south of England, yes...
Of course, your comment is slightly invalid because StrongARMs are made by Intel!
You're right though - why anyone would use an x86 in one of these devices is beyond me. Surely ARM has that market sown up by now?
The thing I used to love about these games was the depth and quality of the story that you pieced together as you played the game. It really felt like it was worth playing on, something that can't be said for today's crop of blast-em-ups.
:-)
For more on the story in the Marathon games, look here.
On a vaguely-related matter, have a look at this... some lunatic is porting Bungie's Marathon to the HalfLife engine! Now if only I had that sort of free time... I might get that Linux MIDI sequencer finished...
A lot of people seem to be concerned about the problems with 'open hardware' development - fab. costs, logistics, and so on. These certainly are major stumbling blocks.
:-)
However, how about a more modern business model? Here in the UK, ARM have been designing first-class processors for years, and yet they don't make any chips themselves. They *licence* their designs to other manufacturers (eg. VLSI, Intel, etc.).
So - all we need is an OpenHardware licence, some outstanding technology, and some effective advocacy. Think about it - the openh team could design an absolute corker of a processor, then some manufacturer could manufacture it, and would be obliged to put their 'real-world' improvements/refinements/fixes back into the open. After a few iterations of this, momentum would gather, and we'd have a well-tested, well-designed, real-world piece of hardware.
Wishful thinking perhaps, but if you'd have told me twelve years ago that some companies would be making money from selling products based on an entirely freely available, hobbyist-designed OS, I might not have believed you. Things change, sometimes for the better.
The only trouble is, all those chip manufacturers would get rich quick off the labours of the open hardware designers. But that's a philosophical argument for another day...
Aphex Twin... very nice. Any favourite tracks?
Agree with BSD, agree with TeX, disagree with Linux kernel.
Something I've learnt a lot from myself is Scintilla. It's a free editing control (with my favourite editor, SciTE, thrown in too) written in (a subset of) C++, but in a very nice way... It's hard to put your finger on why it's so readable, but it just makes sense. I think it's at the perfect size to study - not too big to be incomprehensible, but not too small to be unrealistic.
Have a look.
...but the Linux kernel, useful and reliable though it may be, is NOT a good example of beautiful code.
It's largely a hack, and a fairly poorly laid out hack at that.
For a beautiful open source unix-a-like, look at the NetBSD kernel. In fact, all of NetBSD is nice.
Better still, take a look at NetBSD - much cleaner. :-)
Indeed - after all, who's selling podules now?!
(a rhetorical question, of course!)
Eh?
If I was going to reply to one of my own posts, which I don't, I certainly wouldn't use an abbreviation like "LOL", whatever the hell it means...
(and by the way, is "munchface" the best you could think of, or do you just like me?)
They never blessed it, in my memory. I remember older books that got pulled from publication because Nintendo raised a stink.
.v. Galoob?
Basically, if they're controlling it, it's OK - otherwise it's a little dodgy. Remember Nintendo
Three small letters:
BSP.
"Is that a penguin in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?"
You're right...
:-)
Not cutting it, and indeed (where X is concerned), not pasting it either!
Can anyone post a copy of THIS_IS_NOT_A_BETA_EITHER.TXT? It seems to have disappeared from the server.
cheers.
The funny thing is, you could just be right...!
I'd quite like to get my hands on one of these - the SID was the king of the 1980s computer music chips.
:-)
;-)
On a related matter, I'm always surprised we don't hear more electronica records that use (or sample) the old Ample Music 500 system, that was released in the mid-1980s as an add-on for the BBC micro. Vince Clark of Erasure (a famous 1980s UK electro band) used to use one; they had some fairly powerful sound generating hardware, and all that 'early digital' stuff is coming right back into fashion.
So if anyone has one, keep it safe for a few years, and I predict you will command a high price!
Remember, early digital is the new analogue.
It's been mentioned before, but...
Why is it that whenever anything interesting is posted on Slashdot, people CANNOT RESIST throwing in the obligatory inane "Just wait until it runs Linux" / "Hope someone's porting Quake" / "Imagine that as your firewall" / "blah blah blah Descent" / "blah blah blah Descent" comments?
Here, we have such a comment in the story itself (admittedly from the submitter, but the editors are certainly not innocent of this), and now the above comment opening with some crass remark about Unreal.
THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN LINUX AND COMPUTER GAMES.
If quantum computing comes off, it will change the world. There will be far more important applications of it than running Linux, or playing some game or other. So why do people feel the need to trivialise these matters?
As for the (very interesting) matter of quantum algorithms, they are beginning to receive a lot of attention from the computer science research community, even outside "obscure journals". I was leafing through a book on algorithmics the other day which had an interesting "in the future..."-style chapter - forget the name now, but I'll have another look next time I go to the library.
cheers,
arnald.
I wonder if the DoD go as far as auditing / rewriting all userland apps. For example, if I took some DoD job, would I find myself working with emacs, or would I have to learn 'dodmacs' or some other in-house editor?
Don't forget, it's more often a rogue userland app. that causes security holes than a critical part of the kernel/stack/filesystem/whatever.
Anyone from the DoD read Slashdot?
Agreed, these kits are superb - I got started on one here in the UK (where they are available under the Tandy brand) and there's been no holding me back ever since.
Of course, the real boon for my generation of England was the availability of Acorn machines in schools, which are possibility the best machines to learn hacking on, due to
(i) their excellent built-in BASIC
(ii) their excellent built-in Assembler
(iii) their beautiful instruction set (ARM)
(iv) the simplicity and power of the RISC OS API
(v) the availability of quality documentation
What a shame future generations will be denied the pleasures I enjoyed.
As a recording artist myself, whose work is probably more likely to get played on internet radio than on real-life radio, my question is this: do the artists see any of this extra 'air' charge?
If so, it's potentially justifiable, for the vast increase in availability of the artist's work.
If not, it's another unjustifiable move from "the man".
Anyone got any ideas?
Do you, like many other bands, feel that the digital revolution and MP3s are destroying your chance to live off your creativity, or will you embrace the new technologies and adapt to their new economy?