Microsoft uses GPL code, Sun, AOL, the US government, put your favorite fortune 500 company here. If I GPL a web browser it does not mean every web browser has to be GPL'ed only that web browsers that use my code need to be. A compeating web browser need not employ any of the GPL code and may release under a non-gpl licence. Having the programs GPL'ed does not impead the use of the standards behind them. A new licence would have to be crafted in order to make a standard GPL like since the GPL refers only to software (note there is a seperate licence for releasing documentation in a GPL like way). The web would not be much different today had its components been GPL'ed. For the most part the web's components have been developed as if they were GPL'ed (source staying in the open). The rare exception to this was up until recently (with the release of Mozilla) web browsers which because of its proprietary start is plauged with incompatibilities, even with strong standards in place.
Would you please cite your statistics? I worked in London as an intern for a Solicitors office. I worked on mostly the criminal law cases. The two most violent cases I worked on was one where a guy broke a bottle and stabbed another guy in a fight and a case where the client was accused of stabbing a family friend in an argument none of which resulted in deaths. I asked about gun violence and was told it almost never happens.
In the US I have had a classmate shot and killed over a girl back in highschool and saw a guy stab a girl in the face with a broken bottle for no apparent reason at a bar in NYC.
While I don't belive the US should ban guns outright, measures such as the Smart Gun law that would effectivly keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people is a good thing. That is providing the chips work effectivly and don't misfire when a person is under stress. While it will take some time to see the effects of smart guns, given that regular guns will still be sold nationwide, perhaps NJ could set an example for the rest of the US.
Wow, people fail to understand that Linux would not be so popular and be the only growing Server OS in a downed economy (as stated by many market research groups). Without the FSF and the GPL Linux would not have had the market penetration it has had nor the momentum it has right now. Look at all the *BSD's. Why are they not as popular? they are certantly condusive to becoming propriatary products. Apple has even used their code base but guess what, Apple has been losing market share. As another poster has stated Linux is due to surpass Apple in Desktop installs in 2005. As for third party application development most of the big iron developers have alread released products. The Desktop may take awhile longer but remeber the Linux Desktop is relativly new. Apple still supports their old development libaries and have a heathy NextStep/OpenStep development base for their newer libraries.
Your remarks about the dustbin of history are funny and not backed up by any facts. The truth is because of their moves Linux has been relgated to history making stardom as the only thing in recent memory that has the power to challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
The FSF and Richard Stallman are in no way responsible for the current meltdown. Thank stupid dot com'ers, venture capitalists who had little technical knowledge and the investment bankers who kept saying buy, buy, buy. In fact Free and OpenSource programs are empowering poorer countries to stimulate their economies.
In brief it states that you can make binary only loadble modules with major restrictions. Most of the kernel system calls are cut off by setting a non-GPL "taint" flag. You can get around this by modifing the kernel but that is strictly unethical and most likely in breach of the GPL. The best option I see if you to create a generic driver that can be GPL'ed and have the IP bits placed in userland.
I have found that a better outlet for my disgust at the high price of propriatary software was to find a piece of Open Source/Free Software that worked similar and use that. It seems to me that pirating software is counter productive because it artificialy inflates the popularity of a piece of software, causes prices to go up (or at least is used as an excuse for high prices) for ligitimate users and detracts from the use and improvement of Open Source alternatives. What is the appeal of using unlicenced software over Open Source?
He who controls CVS controls the source. Ususaly somone will demonstrate that they adhear to your vision by the patches they send in. Then, to aliviate the workload you can give them CVS access. If they deviate too much you can revoke it (though this is rarely done). If people feel you are not taking it in the direction they want they can simply take the code and set up under a different project name. They get what they want, and you keep a tree that adhears to your vision. Of course it is always best not to fork a project and being flexable will sometimes get you to where you want to be faster than if you were not.
There are many styles of interview however interviews are mainly set up to nail down the specific view of a person or group. I think this article qualifies.
Basically they said they could care less and that the lawsuit brought on their behalf was done so unknowingly to them. In Germany anybody can sue on behalf of someone else in cases of trademark violations even if that party has no connection with the trademark holder. To top that off the bar for preliminary injunctions is much lower than that in other countries.
While supporting Linux may not show any direct impact in the game market as of yet what it would do is allow your company to market the product as a cross platform game compiler. Before your compiler would be of any use in that area you would need to have a PPC port, ideally both Linux and Mac. Also the most important part of a cross compiler is optimized libraries that run on every supported platform. This allows for a game company to develop once and target a number of different platforms with a simple compile. The ability for a game company to widen their audience with minimal work and investment will make your compiler an attractive option whether or not Linux has a huge game market.
Another area where Linux would be a boon is as compile farms. If a Linux version of your compiler came out that could target not just Linux but every other platform you support then companies could set up cheap compile farms to compile large programs in the background while a developers work stations\ remain free for development or testing. The beauty of it is that the compiler itself can be targeted to Linux and not specifically to an architecture like x86 and compiled to work on any Linux platform (which is almost any platform out there). With the PS2 running Linux a bunch of these boxes could be set up for this.
If game companies could target any platform they wish without having to invest it makes them happy. The game industry is fickle. One year this is the platform to target, the next it is completely different. Having Linux as a target may not cause a developer to start pumping out Linux games but what it does do is leave the option open if the industry should shift that way. It makes developers sleep easier at night knowing their code will not become obsolete by the time they wake up.
is very hard work. Most games fail before they even hit the shelf. I worked on a game a few years back. It was my first real job and I got it out of sheer luck. The game "Casper:The Interactive Adventure" did make it to market but it was stuck in the bargin bin the day after it came out. The company I worked for was small and had private funding. The game was developed with this funding and then at the E3 convention we were able to pick up a distributer to distribute the game. The funny thing about that is the distributer gets their name all over the box while the developer's name gets very little realestate (unless of course the developer happens to be Id). While it was fun to make I will never go through that again. Our funding wasn't very good and our goals were a bit lofty for a first time out of the gate game. The best way to break into game making is to do it for fun. Raven - the developers of Heritic got the job because they made the top mods for Quake. Counter Strike - which is the most played game on the net right now - started out as a free mod to Half-life. It is still free but Sierra now pays the developers to improve it and they package it for those who don't want the 150 meg download. Even having a big name doesn't give you an edge. Some of the former employee's of Id started a company called Crack.com, hired the kid who created the great game Abuse and then promptly closed their doors and open sourced their game engin because they couldn't get funding. They had tried to secure funding but they couldn't get funding until they had a complete game. My advice is to make the game for fun. If it is good enough and with a little luck you will be noticed and you can start getting paid for doing what you love.
...closed source developers because there have not been many Open Source companies to choose from. I would prefer to work for an Open Source company (or a company that works with Open Source) but the truth is that as long as the company respects the fact that I will be working on Open Source in my free time then I would embrace the opportunity. I always recommend portions of code that are of no strategic value to the company and cost money to maintain be placed under an Open Source license but if the answer is no (which it usually is) I don't take the issue any further. The fact is that by hiring an Open Source developer you not only give back to the community but you are most likely gaining a person who is dedicated and passionate about any project, closed or open, that they enjoy working on. Perhaps they can even enhance some of those Open Source tools I know your using.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft uses GPL code, Sun, AOL, the US government, put your favorite fortune 500 company here. If I GPL a web browser it does not mean every web browser has to be GPL'ed only that web browsers that use my code need to be. A compeating web browser need not employ any of the GPL code and may release under a non-gpl licence. Having the programs GPL'ed does not impead the use of the standards behind them. A new licence would have to be crafted in order to make a standard GPL like since the GPL refers only to software (note there is a seperate licence for releasing documentation in a GPL like way). The web would not be much different today had its components been GPL'ed. For the most part the web's components have been developed as if they were GPL'ed (source staying in the open). The rare exception to this was up until recently (with the release of Mozilla) web browsers which because of its proprietary start is plauged with incompatibilities, even with strong standards in place.
They use an all OpenGL widget set. I was amazed to see that you could scale the widgets like any OpenGL object.
Would you please cite your statistics? I worked in London as an intern for a Solicitors office. I worked on mostly the criminal law cases. The two most violent cases I worked on was one where a guy broke a bottle and stabbed another guy in a fight and a case where the client was accused of stabbing a family friend in an argument none of which resulted in deaths. I asked about gun violence and was told it almost never happens.
In the US I have had a classmate shot and killed over a girl back in highschool and saw a guy stab a girl in the face with a broken bottle for no apparent reason at a bar in NYC.
While I don't belive the US should ban guns outright, measures such as the Smart Gun law that would effectivly keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people is a good thing. That is providing the chips work effectivly and don't misfire when a person is under stress. While it will take some time to see the effects of smart guns, given that regular guns will still be sold nationwide, perhaps NJ could set an example for the rest of the US.
--
J5
Wow, people fail to understand that Linux would not be so popular and be the only growing Server OS in a downed economy (as stated by many market research groups). Without the FSF and the GPL Linux would not have had the market penetration it has had nor the momentum it has right now. Look at all the *BSD's. Why are they not as popular? they are certantly condusive to becoming propriatary products. Apple has even used their code base but guess what, Apple has been losing market share. As another poster has stated Linux is due to surpass Apple in Desktop installs in 2005. As for third party application development most of the big iron developers have alread released products. The Desktop may take awhile longer but remeber the Linux Desktop is relativly new. Apple still supports their old development libaries and have a heathy NextStep/OpenStep development base for their newer libraries.
Your remarks about the dustbin of history are funny and not backed up by any facts. The truth is because of their moves Linux has been relgated to history making stardom as the only thing in recent memory that has the power to challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
The FSF and Richard Stallman are in no way responsible for the current meltdown. Thank stupid dot com'ers, venture capitalists who had little technical knowledge and the investment bankers who kept saying buy, buy, buy. In fact Free and OpenSource programs are empowering poorer countries to stimulate their economies.
In brief it states that you can make binary only loadble modules with major restrictions. Most of the kernel system calls are cut off by setting a non-GPL "taint" flag. You can get around this by modifing the kernel but that is strictly unethical and most likely in breach of the GPL. The best option I see if you to create a generic driver that can be GPL'ed and have the IP bits placed in userland.
-- J5
I have found that a better outlet for my disgust at the high price of propriatary software was to find a piece of Open Source/Free Software that worked similar and use that. It seems to me that pirating software is counter productive because it artificialy inflates the popularity of a piece of software, causes prices to go up (or at least is used as an excuse for high prices) for ligitimate users and detracts from the use and improvement of Open Source alternatives. What is the appeal of using unlicenced software over Open Source?
He who controls CVS controls the source. Ususaly somone will demonstrate that they adhear to your vision by the patches they send in. Then, to aliviate the workload you can give them CVS access. If they deviate too much you can revoke it (though this is rarely done). If people feel you are not taking it in the direction they want they can simply take the code and set up under a different project name. They get what they want, and you keep a tree that adhears to your vision. Of course it is always best not to fork a project and being flexable will sometimes get you to where you want to be faster than if you were not.
There are many styles of interview however interviews are mainly set up to nail down the specific view of a person or group. I think this article qualifies.
Basically they said they could care less and that the lawsuit brought on their behalf was done so unknowingly to them. In Germany anybody can sue on behalf of someone else in cases of trademark violations even if that party has no connection with the trademark holder. To top that off the bar for preliminary injunctions is much lower than that in other countries.
I remeber when I got the upgrade. Downloading porn went from an all day event to just around a half an hour. Yippy!!!
While supporting Linux may not show any direct impact in the game market as of yet what it would do is allow your company to market the product as a cross platform game compiler. Before your compiler would be of any use in that area you would need to have a PPC port, ideally both Linux and Mac. Also the most important part of a cross compiler is optimized libraries that run on every supported platform. This allows for a game company to develop once and target a number of different platforms with a simple compile. The ability for a game company to widen their audience with minimal work and investment will make your compiler an attractive option whether or not Linux has a huge game market.
Another area where Linux would be a boon is as compile farms. If a Linux version of your compiler came out that could target not just Linux but every other platform you support then companies could set up cheap compile farms to compile large programs in the background while a developers work stations\ remain free for development or testing. The beauty of it is that the compiler itself can be targeted to Linux and not specifically to an architecture like x86 and compiled to work on any Linux platform (which is almost any platform out there). With the PS2 running Linux a bunch of these boxes could be set up for this.
If game companies could target any platform they wish without having to invest it makes them happy. The game industry is fickle. One year this is the platform to target, the next it is completely different. Having Linux as a target may not cause a developer to start pumping out Linux games but what it does do is leave the option open if the industry should shift that way. It makes developers sleep easier at night knowing their code will not become obsolete by the time they wake up.
is very hard work. Most games fail before they even hit the shelf. I worked on a game a few years back. It was my first real job and I got it out of sheer luck. The game "Casper:The Interactive Adventure" did make it to market but it was stuck in the bargin bin the day after it came out. The company I worked for was small and had private funding. The game was developed with this funding and then at the E3 convention we were able to pick up a distributer to distribute the game. The funny thing about that is the distributer gets their name all over the box while the developer's name gets very little realestate (unless of course the developer happens to be Id). While it was fun to make I will never go through that again. Our funding wasn't very good and our goals were a bit lofty for a first time out of the gate game. The best way to break into game making is to do it for fun. Raven - the developers of Heritic got the job because they made the top mods for Quake. Counter Strike - which is the most played game on the net right now - started out as a free mod to Half-life. It is still free but Sierra now pays the developers to improve it and they package it for those who don't want the 150 meg download. Even having a big name doesn't give you an edge. Some of the former employee's of Id started a company called Crack.com, hired the kid who created the great game Abuse and then promptly closed their doors and open sourced their game engin because they couldn't get funding. They had tried to secure funding but they couldn't get funding until they had a complete game. My advice is to make the game for fun. If it is good enough and with a little luck you will be noticed and you can start getting paid for doing what you love.
...closed source developers because there have not been many Open Source companies to choose from. I would prefer to work for an Open Source company (or a company that works with Open Source) but the truth is that as long as the company respects the fact that I will be working on Open Source in my free time then I would embrace the opportunity. I always recommend portions of code that are of no strategic value to the company and cost money to maintain be placed under an Open Source license but if the answer is no (which it usually is) I don't take the issue any further. The fact is that by hiring an Open Source developer you not only give back to the community but you are most likely gaining a person who is dedicated and passionate about any project, closed or open, that they enjoy working on. Perhaps they can even enhance some of those Open Source tools I know your using.