Why should corporations have the right to base their code off work created for all the public without giving back exactly the same priviledges to the govt and populace?
They have the right to decide what they do with their own work. Why do you assign to them the right to do what they want with public work? If their work is only of use with other work that they do not have the resources to develop themselves, why should they be granted the right to use that work without giving anything back?
The fact that there is a hypothetical economic benefit to some parties does not make something right. There are also economic benefits to some people from slavery, tax evasion, copyright infringement, privatised police forces, universal automatic gun ownership, and cross media domination. Does that make them good? They all might create jobs in some twisted mindsets.
In case you don't realise, creating jobs is not the same as giving back to the commons. Its a strange point, as generally a richer commons will create more jobs than a balkanised one - and spur on greater competition.
The initial code created with the BSD licence is free for good. However, it opens up the door for proprietary extensions and purposefully introduced incompatibility, which can never be fixed without going back to the original and recreatign all the work done by the proprietary authors. And nowadays patents might even prevent you from doing that.
I'm amazed at how little effort some people make to understand other peoples arguments.
I really want to sort it out, port it to twisted. This has quite a few horrible hacks - I would be kind of annoyed at releasing it and theres nothing more annoying than a languishing, half broken, but interesting project.
There are a few things out there doing something-similar-if-you-squint in various states of brokenness - google for redfoot and semplesh.
Also look up random semantic web stuff.
I also need to clear it with my uni, they make you sign some horrible IP transfer crap when you go there. ic.ac.uk... The konq stuff is lgpled, but its for 3.0 kde. The patches would not apply now, and I'd really have to convince the KHTML guys for a split of 1-1 DOM Nodes to RenderObjects, as thats what I did ( proxying RenderText, basic Decorator really). I'd want to fix up DOM / RenderObject mapping too, to allow plugins to add render objects ( SVG/MathML/XForms, here we come... with some extension to the render framework too;-) )
without *BSD system (and the licensing it has) computing world would be much poorer indeed. Windows might have a way worse network code, there would not be MacOS X etc...
IMO, without this code, Windows would probably be used by fewer people, as its networking code would be worse or would have cost MS more making something else worse, and MacOSX would have been based on Linux. Blatantly. Look at the compiler on MacOSX, it is GPLed - oooh, its gcc. Apple aren't scared of the gpl, its just far nicer for them to be able to rip off BSD, and not give back to the commons, if they ever feel the desire to dispense with Darwin.
So how is BSD better again?
My only argument for using BSD is when you have a reference implementation of an open standard that you want to get ripped off and incorporated into everything, eg X11, Kerberos, D-BUS, Apache etc.
Just in case it wasn't clear, the trust model was local to the client. Ie all trust computation was on the client - the trust network is not susceptible to the trusted server crap we put up with here.
So you only get annotations from people you trust, or people who you trust trust, ad nauseam, with a trust weakening scheme , lots of graph flow stuff, not light reading. In the end it was computationally feasible to do 7 levels of trust with each person trusting ~100 others, but this was all fake random data made up by me, so take it with a grain of salt.
Of course, trust aggregators can be implemented, eg teams can form and promote each others trust by repeating them, and asking people to trust the top of their ad-hoc tree of users.
This technology is really just the tip of the iceberg.
This is a limited form of annotation and augmentation. For my final year project at uni, I created a web annotation project using a modified KHTML, KIO, and Konqueror.
The idea was that any entity could publish annotations of any uri addressable resource, and any portion of that resource via content specific identifiers - eg XPath for xml, substring matches for text, svg shapes for images, etc etc.
These annotations, which could also carry an rdf payload, were signed, and a web of trust created. The annotations were shared via a p2p network modeled on fast track, implemented in python.
Then whenever a location was visited, your client would perform a search for that uri, evaluate the trustworthyness of the annotations, and then display the ones it thought were useful. Moderation, in the slashdot sense was just a special form of annotation.
These annotations would be passed to the active component, and then, if it knew how, rendered appropriately. It also allowed eg. collaborative porn/ad/change-your-useragent-to-msie-for-these-id iots filtering. Oh, and backlinks, using a partial XLink implementation.
It was a fairly neat project, and I got good marks for it, but I've never got round to polishing it up and releasing it - not sure if the KHTML would like all my changes anyway!
I had created a limited form of the Semantic Web, and when I do release it, I want to model the whole system just using rdf.
The other area I wanted to expand it to was collaborative tv ad filtering. Labeling TV show broadcasts with a unique urn, eg urn:/BBC/Black Adder/03x04/Broadcast/UKGold/2003-04-14T2200 , and then use the same trust model to cut out ads, and add subtitles, commentarys, even hyperlinks and backlinks. Also geographic urns annotation presents some very exciting possibilty such as collaborative mapping and reviews, eg restaurants.
Well , now thats off my chest I just need to win the lottery, pay off my student loans, quit this mind numbing banking job and implement it...;-)
So why can't corporations adapt, and use govt code in the way that brings the most benefit to all of society?
They are not losing anything but the ability to fuck over the citizenry with proprietary lock in schemes and dodgy data formats. How the hell is that in the public interest?
There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it. The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax. Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?
Most of the LOGICALS stuff can handily be done using the filesystem. IE writing stuff to/tmp ~/.tmp ~/.tmp/pid/
Of course, it is also completely dodgy in terms of security, we all know about the ultra fun of/tmp symlink races. I can't see how VMS could do better here, is it not a vulnerabilty of any shared namespace?
This will hopefully become slightly more elegant with true per process namespaces ala plan 9, I'm hoping environment variables themselves can be implemented in terms of a stack of ramfs instances, ie all the parents environments. Need some copy on write logic to maintain old env vars when the parent overwrites them though...
Anyway, the main random namespaces that annoy me in Linux atm are: network devices, tcp/udp/etc ports, hostnames, device numbers, SQL servers / XPath based xml things / other sub-file addressing schemes / dodgy all consuming namespace things - kio/ gnomevfs.
Hopefully this can all be integrated in to one posixesque-but-sure-as-fuck-not-posix like namespace with reiserfs and a few other tricks.
I think the main reason for the speed of GTK# development is that they really, really need it. Windows.Forms on unix will never be pretty.
Java has both Swing and SWT. Swing is great if your performance and fitting-in-with-the-locals requirements aren't too stringent. And the performance is really picking up...
And there are just a whole bunch of GTK+ people working on Mono.... so its not a good comparison.
TBH, the main thing I'm amazed about with.NET is how little they improved from Java. I mean, how did they leave out generics? Continuations? Macros (for the lispers amongst us...)? Adding these things at a later point will probably not lead to the best results....;-(
And Mono really needs to stop putting those damn.exe files on my path. I get annoyed enough with.py and.pl, they should stick their stuff somewhere else (/share ?) and use wrapper scripts or links with binfmt-misc.
By debugging I do not mean "playing with a debugger". VB needs a good debugger, because its very unlikely that you will ever work out what is going on with out it. It is a language that encourages horrible hacks, and it seems like the average vb coder really thinks that arrays are the be all and end all of data structures.
I mean finding out what causes a bug. I have found that the average piece of VB code is very hard to work out what is going on, because everyone has their own crazy error handling mechanisms and workarounds for other brokenness.
The point with COM is this: If there had been a C++ ABI, then every other language would have supported it properly, ie parsing and generating C++ header files when necessary. Instead we got a horribly limited C++ Abi based on passing random numbers and pretending that we are typesafe. It is a worse hack than Corba.
The rest of your post is the normal stuff I would expect from someone who has never programmed anything outside of windows, and doesn't know just how much worse it is than a sane system.
I never said.NET was bad, but after all, it is still a Java clone. The point is, if you were starting fresh, why on earth would you use a tool beholden to MS? The only advantage is if you are already stuck on windows and would like to dig a deeper hole.
And Mono is nice, but until MS indemnify them against patent infringement claims its really hard to use without getting scared.
I agree that.NET is useful, but I for one am hoping that its main use will be to get Sun to get its act together, and admit to a difference between the VM and the language, sort out JNI, get rid of checked exceptions, etc etc.
As a long term unix developer who tried a job where windows was mandated:
It is an absolute nightmare to do anything on Windows that isn't explicitly allowed by Microsoft.
Have you ever tried to debug some random piece of crap VB dll or vbscript ( two of the four current VB dialects... vb.net, vb6, vbs, vba )? Its a fuckload harder than a horrible shell or perl script. Python scripts are pretty hard to make truly horrible, so those are usually even easier to debug.
COM is really just a horrible hack to make people think there is a C++ abi on Windows. It is an absolute disgrace to actually use. This is the reason so much is done in VB on Windows. Microsoft have made C and C++ into a completely useless platform for doing anything quick. There are over 30 different types of string used in the MS apis... what does that tell you?
Every api seems to have from 9 to 35 arguments. Nobody knows what they are for... its a cut and paste job from MSDN, yet again... and then we get on to business processes.
People start off with a spreadsheet or a word document. They add macros to it. They expand it. They go fucking insane. The next thing you know you are expected to work out what a fucking idiot has created in the worst language known to man, VBA. There are so many random limitations in this crud that even the bog standard excel user hits them on his first macro, and starts making up crazy work arounds, each different than the other. Fuck you, Joel Spoelsky..... . I can't believe that guy is proud of his "Excel macro strategy".
And before you say.NET, yes, cloning Java is a good idea if you can't bring yourself to actually use something not invented here. But people still have to deal with the utterly brain dead attitude of windows, and Windows.Forms is still the absolute worst GUI toolkit in use... You still end up having to use COM, and anyway, why the hell wouldn't you just use Java unless you are a complete MS donkey?
On unix, the first thing is that I have choice... I don't have to go with Apache, or Tux, or publicfile, or roxen, or zope, or roll my own with twisted , my current favorite trick. On windows, if you don't use IIS, you are likely to get screwed over at any point.
Now, be honest. You tried to use unix but you got scared. "Mummy, theres no drive letters! I'm lost!!!!! Waaaaaah!!!!". You didn't want to know what was going on. Windows protects you from knowing what the hell you are doing by restricting you to do only what their focus groups tell them. Have you ever actually worked out what was happening when something broke on Windows? Or did you just give up and abandon that functionality, and blame it on Microsoft? Microsoft, in their incompetence, provide a great scapegoat for Windows developers. If they had to use an Open Source system, this excuse would become fairly hollow...
Anyway, when you have a problem on Unix you don't ever reach some inscrutable, impenetrable barrier. You can look at what every component does, and if required, dive into the source and fix it. There are no artificial limits. The fact that anyone can look at the source means that people are less inclined to publish crappy code... And this effect increases with time.
To your "advantages":
DFS - please. This is a dodgy hack of SMB - it is not "distributed" in any real sense. OpenAFS is about as good as gets there, maybe Coda when it gets stable...
User administration: Huh? Can your helpdesk staff not learn a web front end to do this? Its not very hard to find one.... eg webmin, linuxconf. And this kind of thing is easy to customise - ie force your staff to put the required info..
and frankly it will always be easier As soon as someone uses the word "frankly", it means "I'm going to say something completely unsupported and expect you to believe it."
Comparing windows to unix is like comparing a swiss pen knife to a fully equipped machine shop, with almost every tool available to you to use. Except you can fit it in your pocket....
Erm, being in the energy trading biz, I'd love to hear about your methods of storing electricity "directly". It'd sure help us avoid those pesky fines for being out of balance at gate closure...
How do you think a battery works? Clue: it stores the energy chemically. Just like this system.
Do you not understand? The government should PREFER open source software. They should NOT consider it just as good to go for proprietary software.
This is not about equality. The point is: * govts need to stop wasting money on reimplementing things over and over. * govt. data needs to remain accessible and meaningful. Forever. This is a lot easier to do when you have no restrictions on your ability to analyze existing programs. * Anything the govt. funds (through its purchases) should be a public good, and available to the people who payed for it ( taxpayers) without discrimination.
Re:File server shoot-out? You're kidding, right?
on
What's Microsoft Up To?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except the benchmark uses questionable methods, so most people who this could matter to will discount it.
It beats the pants off of any other remote desktop in terms of speed. Fully X based. Bits are GPL (proxy), bits are BSD (x lib patches) and bits are proprietary (gui) - if the proprietary bits are reimplemented it could be a killer app.
I fully agree. I put all my stuff under the GPL *if* it makes sense, LGPL if that makes sense, BSD ( MIT in fact) if that makes sense.
The GPL should imo only be applied to things that you can't conceive any bits of being turned into a library or framework. Otherwise you accept patches, and get stuck with the GPL, you can't relicence without major hassle.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should corporations have the right to base their code off work created for all the public without giving back exactly the same priviledges to the govt and populace?
They have the right to decide what they do with their own work. Why do you assign to them the right to do what they want with public work? If their work is only of use with other work that they do not have the resources to develop themselves, why should they be granted the right to use that work without giving anything back?
The fact that there is a hypothetical economic benefit to some parties does not make something right. There are also economic benefits to some people from slavery, tax evasion, copyright infringement, privatised police forces, universal automatic gun ownership, and cross media domination. Does that make them good? They all might create jobs in some twisted mindsets.
In case you don't realise, creating jobs is not the same as giving back to the commons. Its a strange point, as generally a richer commons will create more jobs than a balkanised one - and spur on greater competition.
The initial code created with the BSD licence is free for good. However, it opens up the door for proprietary extensions and purposefully introduced incompatibility, which can never be fixed without going back to the original and recreatign all the work done by the proprietary authors. And nowadays patents might even prevent you from doing that.
I'm amazed at how little effort some people make to understand other peoples arguments.
I really want to sort it out, port it to twisted. This has quite a few horrible hacks - I would be kind of annoyed at releasing it and theres nothing more annoying than a languishing, half broken, but interesting project.
... The konq stuff is lgpled, but its for 3.0 kde. The patches would not apply now, and I'd really have to convince the KHTML guys for a split of 1-1 DOM Nodes to RenderObjects, as thats what I did ( proxying RenderText, basic Decorator really). I'd want to fix up DOM / RenderObject mapping too, to allow plugins to add render objects ( SVG/MathML/XForms, here we come... with some extension to the render framework too ;-) )
There are a few things out there doing something-similar-if-you-squint in various states of brokenness -
google for redfoot and semplesh.
Also look up random semantic web stuff.
I also need to clear it with my uni, they make you sign some horrible IP transfer crap when you go there. ic.ac.uk
without *BSD system (and the licensing it has) computing world would be much poorer indeed. Windows might have a way worse network code, there would not be MacOS X etc...
IMO, without this code, Windows would probably be used by fewer people, as its networking code would be worse or would have cost MS more making something else worse, and MacOSX would have been based on Linux. Blatantly. Look at the compiler on MacOSX, it is GPLed - oooh, its gcc. Apple aren't scared of the gpl, its just far nicer for them to be able to rip off BSD, and not give back to the commons, if they ever feel the desire to dispense with Darwin.
So how is BSD better again?
My only argument for using BSD is when you have a reference implementation of an open standard that you want to get ripped off and incorporated into everything, eg X11, Kerberos, D-BUS, Apache etc.
Just in case it wasn't clear, the trust model was local to the client. Ie all trust computation was on the client - the trust network is not susceptible to the trusted server crap we put up with here.
So you only get annotations from people you trust, or people who you trust trust, ad nauseam, with a trust weakening scheme , lots of graph flow stuff, not light reading. In the end it was computationally feasible to do 7 levels of trust with each person trusting ~100 others, but this was all fake random data made up by me, so take it with a grain of salt.
Of course, trust aggregators can be implemented, eg teams can form and promote each others trust by repeating them, and asking people to trust the top of their ad-hoc tree of users.
Anyway, back to frickin option pricing....
This technology is really just the tip of the iceberg.
d iots filtering. Oh, and backlinks, using a partial XLink implementation.
;-)
This is a limited form of annotation and augmentation. For my final year project at uni, I created a web annotation project using a modified KHTML, KIO, and Konqueror.
The idea was that any entity could publish annotations of any uri addressable resource, and any portion of that resource via content specific identifiers - eg XPath for xml, substring matches for text, svg shapes for images, etc etc.
These annotations, which could also carry an rdf payload, were signed, and a web of trust created. The annotations were shared via a p2p network modeled on fast track, implemented in python.
Then whenever a location was visited, your client would perform a search for that uri, evaluate the trustworthyness of the annotations, and then display the ones it thought were useful. Moderation, in the slashdot sense was just a special form of annotation.
These annotations would be passed to the active component, and then, if it knew how, rendered appropriately. It also allowed eg. collaborative porn/ad/change-your-useragent-to-msie-for-these-i
It was a fairly neat project, and I got good marks for it, but I've never got round to polishing it up and releasing it - not sure if the KHTML would like all my changes anyway!
I had created a limited form of the Semantic Web, and when I do release it, I want to model the whole system just using rdf.
The other area I wanted to expand it to was collaborative tv ad filtering. Labeling TV show broadcasts with a unique urn, eg
urn:/BBC/Black Adder/03x04/Broadcast/UKGold/2003-04-14T2200 , and then use the same trust model to cut out ads, and add subtitles, commentarys, even hyperlinks and backlinks. Also geographic urns annotation presents some very exciting possibilty such as collaborative mapping and reviews, eg restaurants.
Well , now thats off my chest I just need to win the lottery, pay off my student loans, quit this mind numbing banking job and implement it...
So why can't corporations adapt, and use govt code in the way that brings the most benefit to all of society?
They are not losing anything but the ability to fuck over the citizenry with proprietary lock in schemes and dodgy data formats. How the hell is that in the public interest?
There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it. The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax. Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?
Most of the LOGICALS stuff can handily be done using the filesystem. IE writing stuff to /tmp ~/.tmp ~/.tmp/pid/
/tmp symlink races. I can't see how VMS could do better here, is it not a vulnerabilty of any shared namespace?
Of course, it is also completely dodgy in terms of security, we all know about the ultra fun of
This will hopefully become slightly more elegant with true per process namespaces ala plan 9, I'm hoping environment variables themselves can be implemented in terms of a stack of ramfs instances, ie all the parents environments. Need some copy on write logic to maintain old env vars when the parent overwrites them though...
Anyway, the main random namespaces that annoy me in Linux atm are: network devices, tcp/udp/etc ports, hostnames, device numbers, SQL servers / XPath based xml things / other sub-file addressing schemes / dodgy all consuming namespace things - kio/ gnomevfs.
Hopefully this can all be integrated in to one posixesque-but-sure-as-fuck-not-posix like namespace with reiserfs and a few other tricks.
I think the main reason for the speed of GTK# development is that they really, really need it. Windows.Forms on unix will never be pretty.
...
.NET is how little they improved from Java. I mean, how did they leave out generics? Continuations? Macros (for the lispers amongst us...)? Adding these things at a later point will probably not lead to the best results.... ;-(
.exe files on my path. I get annoyed enough with .py and .pl, they should stick their stuff somewhere else (/share ?) and use wrapper scripts or links with binfmt-misc.
Java has both Swing and SWT. Swing is great if your performance and fitting-in-with-the-locals requirements aren't too stringent. And the performance is really picking up
And there are just a whole bunch of GTK+ people working on Mono.... so its not a good comparison.
TBH, the main thing I'm amazed about with
And Mono really needs to stop putting those damn
By debugging I do not mean "playing with a debugger". VB needs a good debugger, because its very unlikely that you will ever work out what is going on with out it. It is a language that encourages horrible hacks, and it seems like the average vb coder really thinks that arrays are the be all and end all of data structures.
I mean finding out what causes a bug. I have found that the average piece of VB code is very hard to work out what is going on, because everyone has their own crazy error handling mechanisms and workarounds for other brokenness.
The point with COM is this:
If there had been a C++ ABI, then every other language would have supported it properly, ie parsing and generating C++ header files when necessary. Instead we got a horribly limited C++ Abi based on passing random numbers and pretending that we are typesafe. It is a worse hack than Corba.
The rest of your post is the normal stuff I would expect from someone who has never programmed anything outside of windows, and doesn't know just how much worse it is than a sane system.
I never said .NET was bad, but after all, it is still a Java clone.
.NET is useful, but I for one am hoping that its main use will be to get Sun to get its act together, and admit to a difference between the VM and the language, sort out JNI, get rid of checked exceptions, etc etc.
The point is, if you were starting fresh, why on earth would you use a tool beholden to MS? The only advantage is if you are already stuck on windows and would like to dig a deeper hole.
And Mono is nice, but until MS indemnify them against patent infringement claims its really hard to use without getting scared.
More languages? Really?
I agree that
As a long term unix developer who tried a job where windows was mandated:
.NET, yes, cloning Java is a good idea if you can't bring yourself to actually use something not invented here. But people still have to deal with the utterly brain dead attitude of windows, and Windows.Forms is still the absolute worst GUI toolkit in use... You still end up having to use COM, and anyway, why the hell wouldn't you just use Java unless you are a complete MS donkey?
It is an absolute nightmare to do anything on Windows that isn't explicitly allowed by Microsoft.
Have you ever tried to debug some random piece of crap VB dll or vbscript ( two of the four current VB dialects... vb.net, vb6, vbs, vba )? Its a fuckload harder than a horrible shell or perl script. Python scripts are pretty hard to make truly horrible, so those are usually even easier to debug.
COM is really just a horrible hack to make people think there is a C++ abi on Windows. It is an absolute disgrace to actually use. This is the reason so much is done in VB on Windows. Microsoft have made C and C++ into a completely useless platform for doing anything quick. There are over 30 different types of string used in the MS apis... what does that tell you?
Every api seems to have from 9 to 35 arguments. Nobody knows what they are for... its a cut and paste job from MSDN, yet again... and then we get on to business processes.
People start off with a spreadsheet or a word document. They add macros to it. They expand it. They go fucking insane. The next thing you know you are expected to work out what a fucking idiot has created in the worst language known to man, VBA. There are so many random limitations in this crud that even the bog standard excel user hits them on his first macro, and starts making up crazy work arounds, each different than the other. Fuck you, Joel Spoelsky..... . I can't believe that guy is proud of his "Excel macro strategy".
And before you say
On unix, the first thing is that I have choice... I don't have to go with Apache, or Tux, or publicfile, or roxen, or zope, or roll my own with twisted , my current favorite trick. On windows, if you don't use IIS, you are likely to get screwed over at any point.
Now, be honest. You tried to use unix but you got scared. "Mummy, theres no drive letters! I'm lost!!!!! Waaaaaah!!!!". You didn't want to know what was going on. Windows protects you from knowing what the hell you are doing by restricting you to do only what their focus groups tell them. Have you ever actually worked out what was happening when something broke on Windows? Or did you just give up and abandon that functionality, and blame it on Microsoft? Microsoft, in their incompetence, provide a great scapegoat for Windows developers. If they had to use an Open Source system, this excuse would become fairly hollow...
Anyway, when you have a problem on Unix you don't ever reach some inscrutable, impenetrable barrier. You can look at what every component does, and if required, dive into the source and fix it. There are no artificial limits. The fact that anyone can look at the source means that people are less inclined to publish crappy code... And this effect increases with time.
To your "advantages":
DFS - please. This is a dodgy hack of SMB - it is not "distributed" in any real sense. OpenAFS is about as good as gets there, maybe Coda when it gets stable...
User administration: Huh? Can your helpdesk staff not learn a web front end to do this? Its not very hard to find one.... eg webmin, linuxconf. And this kind of thing is easy to customise - ie force your staff to put the required info..
and frankly it will always be easier
As soon as someone uses the word "frankly", it means "I'm going to say something completely unsupported and expect you to believe it."
Comparing windows to unix is like comparing a swiss pen knife to a fully equipped machine shop, with almost every tool available to you to use. Except you can fit it in your pocket....
When will they switch to a *free* lossless format like FLAC?
Erm, being in the energy trading biz, I'd love to hear about your methods of storing electricity "directly". It'd sure help us avoid those pesky fines for being out of balance at gate closure...
How do you think a battery works? Clue: it stores the energy chemically. Just like this system.
Yeah... but this is cash.
That was mainly fake internet money - a stock swap during the boom probably wouldn't look that expensive now...
So wtf did you choose to clone .NET rather than make a decent free JVM, monoboy?
Erm, the URL isn't really about what you describe, is it?
You really need better teachers.
Haskell is an absolutely beautiful functional language, but has little in common with procedural languages.
You really need to rethink your entire philosophy before Haskell will make sense. You tell it what you want to do, not how to do it.
Do you not understand?
The government should PREFER open source software. They should NOT consider it just as good to go for proprietary software.
This is not about equality. The point is:
* govts need to stop wasting money on reimplementing things over and over.
* govt. data needs to remain accessible and meaningful. Forever. This is a lot easier to do when you have no restrictions on your ability to analyze existing programs.
* Anything the govt. funds (through its purchases) should be a public good, and available to the people who payed for it ( taxpayers) without discrimination.
Except the benchmark uses questionable methods, so most people who this could matter to will discount it.
Thats the nature of fabrication!
with all due respect
At what point does the respect due become so tiny that its not worth saying stuff "with" it?
Surely, on the topic of dupes, Slashdot has reached that limit.....
You have to try NX.
www.nomachine.com
It beats the pants off of any other remote desktop in terms of speed. Fully X based.
Bits are GPL (proxy), bits are BSD (x lib patches) and bits are proprietary (gui) - if the proprietary bits are reimplemented it could be a killer app.
Yep, full ascii art support.
Also with a hardware radio tuner and the right country of residence you can get
alpha channel!
I read it as cats...
;-)
Now water-rocket powered cats would be something to see....
I fully agree. I put all my stuff under the GPL *if* it makes sense, LGPL if that makes sense, BSD ( MIT in fact) if that makes sense.
The GPL should imo only be applied to things that you can't conceive any bits of being turned into a library or framework. Otherwise you accept patches, and get stuck with the GPL, you can't relicence without major hassle.
LGPL is my standard choice, really, nowadays.
Commonwealth English is the encompassing term, go en_GB!