The GNU tools and the Linux kernel are released under a license that allows this very thing. This sounds exactly like Stallman's stupid rant about how everyone should call it "GNU/Linux" because "that's the right thing to do". If the people who release software under licenses like the GPL don't like this, then may I suggest a change of license?
In any case, just like he did with XEmacs and everything else that uses his software in accordance to his license, I'm sure RMS will start calling it "GNU/Java Desktop" whenever he can.
If this woman wants to see some touchy-feely good akcnowledgements from a corporation she (and everyone else) is in for a big disappointment.
This is where the rubber meets the road, and you can't have it both ways. As long as your license is not being violated, suck it up or stop releasing software under it. It's that simple.
Microsoft (not Dell, no) decided to bundle an application that did not work with the OS they were shipping with the box.
All the Corel applications I've ever used in Windows run fine. But of course when it comes to "WP Lite" Corel somehow ran into the problem with the "hidden APIs" and "WP Lite" was diabolically disabled.
So this is your evidence that Microsoft deliberately "broke" WP. Correct?
Score one for the ever-enlightening "editorial" comment. I absolutely love how anything that remotely looks like an opinion that differs from the sheep mindset is automatically branded as "flamebait". $deity forbid someone asks some valid questions about anything related to open source.
"OMFG some d00d said something badd about teh Linux!! KILL!! KILL!!"
The inability to understand that you don't have all the bases covered is the first step towards irrelevance. And you only get to make that mistake once.
Yes, yes! Let's bring in Microsoft (or better, "M$") to the table. Whatever irrational "everything should be free" Slashbot bullshit your post might contain is blotted out by the insightful reference to "teh evil empire". Talk about ensuring your karma allocation for the day.
There's MetaCrawler. If my memory serves me correctly, it appeared before WebCrawler went to this format.
I honestly don't remember the first time I saw MetaCrawler (but it used to be much simpler back then!) so I don't know if it predates Google. WebCrawler's idea however is not new, AFAIK.
You don't need the daemon if you're working with a local repository (at least on Windows), which is I suspect something that would work for the guy asking the question.
SVN used that way is more like VSS than CVS. CVS AFAIK can't work without a daemon (or service in Win32).
However, if you work with a local repository, dropping VSS for SVN is a bit dumb because you lose the GUI (TortoiseSVN is nice but the VSS explorer is better, IMO) and the integration with MS tools (the one SVN SCC I've tried with VS.NET was a bit flaky).
Of course if you want real source control then neither VSS nor SVN (in local mode) are real options. But again, the OP isn't asking for an industrial strength solution.
Bullshit. What about "copies of everything somewhere else" is different from making backups of the repository every day? Regardless of whether you use VSS or CVS or anything else. Perhaps you're confusing "source control" with "backup".
VSS is hardly the cream of the crop, but what it does do it does well. It is not an industrial strength SCC, and Microsoft has never sold it as such. So yes, branching and merging are not that hot, and it's not a client/server system and etc., but if you need that then get something else. But for medium-sized projects with 1-6 developers it works perfectly well. As long as you don't try to be clever and try to coax it into doing something it was not designed to do.
If you know what you're doing you should never get corrupted files or lose history or anything like that.
Many people use VSS because it ships with Visual Studio. Many people have fucked things up because they had no idea how to manage source control, and of course they blame it on the tool. "Bwaaahh, my 6.2GB VSS database that I never defragmented or checked is corrupted, bwaaahhh, VSS is a POS". If Microsoft had shipped the best SCC tool in the world with their development tools people whould still fuck things up, because they have no idea of what they're doing.
Let's see, I'll try another approach. I will not agree to further the wet dreams of crackpots like RMS by subsidizing distribution of software that is not absolutely free and in the public domain through the public library system, which I also pay for. This includes anything that is licensed under the GPL, BSD, MIT, X11, etc.
Now that sounds more like a troll, but it means exactly the same thing.
and you might think you'd see Free Software CD's on the rack right next to Frank Zappa, Duke Ellington, and Bach.
I'm going to produce some free porn and request - no, demand - that it be placed next to your Linux CDs. Porn is free speech, right? Why shouldn't public library patrons be exposed to my free porn just as they're being exposed by your "free" software?
Now, if you're talking about software that is in the public domain and comes with absolutely no license and no restrictions on use or distribution then sure, I have no problem with that. I'll be happy to pay for it next time I do my taxes.
Since the average computer user has no idea how the thing works to begin with.
No matter how hard you lock a PC down, a sufficiently determined and stupid user will figure out a way to install that really cool "desktop enhancer" he heard about from a friend.
Linux does compete with Windows. It competes on the server and embedded space and on the desktop to a lesser extent. To put it quite simply, any alternative to my product is by definition also my competition.
But this:
Microsoft consider Linux as a threat
Is simply wrong. Microsoft does not consider Linux a threat. It considers Linux a competitor. A competitor that plays by different rules, but a competitor nonetheless. If Microsoft saw anything that goes against them as a threat they would be hysterical and they would have disappeared by now. Which is more than I can say for FOSS, which has always seen "M$" as a threat instead of an opportunity to compete.
Talk to any MSFT executive and you will hear the same thing time and again. Microsoft internally has never considered Linux or open source as threats, ever. From the first time Linux started registering in their radar screens they've understood that. It's just that it has taken them long enough to figure out how to adapt to the new rules of engagement. Novell, Sun, IBM and RedHat have pretty much leveled the field, and Microsoft is more than happy to oblige, trust me.
I think it's pretty much clear by now that Linux could not have transcended beyond its "happy hacker OS" status without some sort of corporate backing (free software after all thrives in the same environment it intends to obsolete), but the best possible chance it had to whack Microsoft was to stay out of the corp arena entirely.
You can't have your cake and eat it, I guess.
But anyway, I'm just amused whenever I see comments that claim "M$ is scared shitless of open source". The first mistake you make in a conflict is to underestimate your enemy. And you can be sure as hell Microsoft does not underestimate Linux. Or anyone else that they see as a competitor.
They've gone to scheduled patch releases on the second tuesday of every month to make it easier for admins and users. That's today in case you missed it. AFAIK all the vulnerabilities had been published earlier by third parties.
If and when there's an actual exploit in the wild for a given vulnerability then they'll release the patch immediately, just like they've done before.
Whoever modded you "Insightful" should have used the "-1, Another Stupid Conspiracy Theory" mod instead.
Well I guess we can add your utopian psycho babble to the list as well, seeing that you missed the entire point of the article. Perhaps next time you could try to shift your impressive intelectual powers from understanding how the whole thing works to understanding how it may become better by working in a different way.
The tendency to think that everything that even slightly criticizes your value system is "bashing"
The utter inability to understand, absorb and apply constructive criticism so you can avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.
The childish, immature attitude that drives someone like "GPLDAN" to post something like this. Hey, it's "bashing" open source so let's also get the obligatory "M$" quippy! Of course in this case you didn't even check what the site was running. Do you feel stupid? 'Cause you sure look stupid.
The retarded and completely stupid double standard - same scenario but with a "non-bashing" article and an Apache box spewing out MySQL and PHP errors all over the place 30 seconds after being posted on Slashdot: no comments about what the server is running, eh?
I guess we can add you and everyone like you (and the people who actually moderated you up) as fundamental problems with this whole open source thing.
You are absolutely right. Everything you said is correct and I agree 100% with it. I expect Apple to do these things, just like any other company would.
But that wasn't the point. I'm not whining about what Apple is doing.
Apple strong-arming the little guys? Apple using the DMCA to kill a free software project? Apple behaving like Microsoft et. al? And then reported on MacSlash? What is the world coming to??
I can't wait to read all the apologist crap that's about to be posted here. Let the McFanboy fest begin.
For future reference, it's empirical. If you're going to flame me at least learn how to spell your high' fallutin' words correctly.
On to your "point". Let me know when you can go from your stupid generalization to forming an opinion of someone who writes a very public blog - based on the contents of said blog.
Oh, and I also copied this to ainsoph@aol.com, in case you miss it.
Cringely is so far out there, so consistently wrong in amost every single slightly technical topic he tackles that I find it hard to believe that anyone still reads his crap.
Don't believe me? Look up the last slashbork story that quoted him on anything remotely technical and read through the comments, preferably at +3 or so. Yeah, that hurts.
Oh, but when he goes off in a bogus "M$ is teh suxx" rant, he gets airplay. I don't believe for a second he's got the scoop "from friends of friends" on what's going on with the compliance team in Redmond. Bullshit. Not that I don't doubt Microsoft is ignoring it, but that's not the point. But bring up a vague accusation using vague references to vague characters in vague positions and presto, you have a fact! Journalism at its best.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, just like he did with XEmacs and everything else that uses his software in accordance to his license, I'm sure RMS will start calling it "GNU/Java Desktop" whenever he can.
If this woman wants to see some touchy-feely good akcnowledgements from a corporation she (and everyone else) is in for a big disappointment.
This is where the rubber meets the road, and you can't have it both ways. As long as your license is not being violated, suck it up or stop releasing software under it. It's that simple.
- Microsoft (not Dell, no) decided to bundle an application that did not work with the OS they were shipping with the box.
- All the Corel applications I've ever used in Windows run fine. But of course when it comes to "WP Lite" Corel somehow ran into the problem with the "hidden APIs" and "WP Lite" was diabolically disabled.
So this is your evidence that Microsoft deliberately "broke" WP. Correct?I lost you at "WhineDoze". You were saying?
Score one for the ever-enlightening "editorial" comment. I absolutely love how anything that remotely looks like an opinion that differs from the sheep mindset is automatically branded as "flamebait". $deity forbid someone asks some valid questions about anything related to open source.
"OMFG some d00d said something badd about teh Linux!! KILL!! KILL!!"
The inability to understand that you don't have all the bases covered is the first step towards irrelevance. And you only get to make that mistake once.
Mad propz to you sir!
I honestly don't remember the first time I saw MetaCrawler (but it used to be much simpler back then!) so I don't know if it predates Google. WebCrawler's idea however is not new, AFAIK.
SVN used that way is more like VSS than CVS. CVS AFAIK can't work without a daemon (or service in Win32).
However, if you work with a local repository, dropping VSS for SVN is a bit dumb because you lose the GUI (TortoiseSVN is nice but the VSS explorer is better, IMO) and the integration with MS tools (the one SVN SCC I've tried with VS.NET was a bit flaky).
Of course if you want real source control then neither VSS nor SVN (in local mode) are real options. But again, the OP isn't asking for an industrial strength solution.
VSS is hardly the cream of the crop, but what it does do it does well. It is not an industrial strength SCC, and Microsoft has never sold it as such. So yes, branching and merging are not that hot, and it's not a client/server system and etc., but if you need that then get something else. But for medium-sized projects with 1-6 developers it works perfectly well. As long as you don't try to be clever and try to coax it into doing something it was not designed to do.
If you know what you're doing you should never get corrupted files or lose history or anything like that.
Many people use VSS because it ships with Visual Studio. Many people have fucked things up because they had no idea how to manage source control, and of course they blame it on the tool. "Bwaaahh, my 6.2GB VSS database that I never defragmented or checked is corrupted, bwaaahhh, VSS is a POS". If Microsoft had shipped the best SCC tool in the world with their development tools people whould still fuck things up, because they have no idea of what they're doing.
Let's see, I'll try another approach. I will not agree to further the wet dreams of crackpots like RMS by subsidizing distribution of software that is not absolutely free and in the public domain through the public library system, which I also pay for. This includes anything that is licensed under the GPL, BSD, MIT, X11, etc.
Now that sounds more like a troll, but it means exactly the same thing.
I'm going to produce some free porn and request - no, demand - that it be placed next to your Linux CDs. Porn is free speech, right? Why shouldn't public library patrons be exposed to my free porn just as they're being exposed by your "free" software?
Now, if you're talking about software that is in the public domain and comes with absolutely no license and no restrictions on use or distribution then sure, I have no problem with that. I'll be happy to pay for it next time I do my taxes.
No matter how hard you lock a PC down, a sufficiently determined and stupid user will figure out a way to install that really cool "desktop enhancer" he heard about from a friend.
But this:
Microsoft consider Linux as a threat
Is simply wrong. Microsoft does not consider Linux a threat. It considers Linux a competitor. A competitor that plays by different rules, but a competitor nonetheless. If Microsoft saw anything that goes against them as a threat they would be hysterical and they would have disappeared by now. Which is more than I can say for FOSS, which has always seen "M$" as a threat instead of an opportunity to compete.
Talk to any MSFT executive and you will hear the same thing time and again. Microsoft internally has never considered Linux or open source as threats, ever. From the first time Linux started registering in their radar screens they've understood that. It's just that it has taken them long enough to figure out how to adapt to the new rules of engagement. Novell, Sun, IBM and RedHat have pretty much leveled the field, and Microsoft is more than happy to oblige, trust me.
I think it's pretty much clear by now that Linux could not have transcended beyond its "happy hacker OS" status without some sort of corporate backing (free software after all thrives in the same environment it intends to obsolete), but the best possible chance it had to whack Microsoft was to stay out of the corp arena entirely.
You can't have your cake and eat it, I guess.
But anyway, I'm just amused whenever I see comments that claim "M$ is scared shitless of open source". The first mistake you make in a conflict is to underestimate your enemy. And you can be sure as hell Microsoft does not underestimate Linux. Or anyone else that they see as a competitor.
You need to find someone who gives a shit my man.
If and when there's an actual exploit in the wild for a given vulnerability then they'll release the patch immediately, just like they've done before.
Whoever modded you "Insightful" should have used the "-1, Another Stupid Conspiracy Theory" mod instead.
We can only hope.
- The tendency to think that everything that even slightly criticizes your value system is "bashing"
- The utter inability to understand, absorb and apply constructive criticism so you can avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.
- The childish, immature attitude that drives someone like "GPLDAN" to post something like this. Hey, it's "bashing" open source so let's also get the obligatory "M$" quippy! Of course in this case you didn't even check what the site was running. Do you feel stupid? 'Cause you sure look stupid.
- The retarded and completely stupid double standard - same scenario but with a "non-bashing" article and an Apache box spewing out MySQL and PHP errors all over the place 30 seconds after being posted on Slashdot: no comments about what the server is running, eh?
I guess we can add you and everyone like you (and the people who actually moderated you up) as fundamental problems with this whole open source thing.We can add attitudes like yours to the list and have six fundamental problems.
1994 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN! ...
1995 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
1996 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
1997 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
1998 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
1999 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2000 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2001 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2002 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2003 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2004 - UGRADE AND TRY AGAIN!
2005 -
But that wasn't the point. I'm not whining about what Apple is doing.
I can't wait to read all the apologist crap that's about to be posted here. Let the McFanboy fest begin.
I was going to say "Welcome to Slahsdot!" and then I saw your UIN. I must assume that you have other issues, then.
I am also spouting said drivel
Well said.
For future reference, it's empirical. If you're going to flame me at least learn how to spell your high' fallutin' words correctly.
On to your "point". Let me know when you can go from your stupid generalization to forming an opinion of someone who writes a very public blog - based on the contents of said blog.
Oh, and I also copied this to ainsoph@aol.com, in case you miss it.
Don't believe me? Look up the last slashbork story that quoted him on anything remotely technical and read through the comments, preferably at +3 or so. Yeah, that hurts.
Oh, but when he goes off in a bogus "M$ is teh suxx" rant, he gets airplay. I don't believe for a second he's got the scoop "from friends of friends" on what's going on with the compliance team in Redmond. Bullshit. Not that I don't doubt Microsoft is ignoring it, but that's not the point. But bring up a vague accusation using vague references to vague characters in vague positions and presto, you have a fact! Journalism at its best.
Maybe it's Groundhog Day and I'm still stuck in yesterday.
Well you just keep saying that and maybe one day it will actually happen.