if SCO wins in court. That's right the 2.2 kernel. And the 2.2 maintainer's gonna have to put up with all sorts of new feature requests, VM integration, iptables etc. to get it up to speed with 2.4's functionality. Not a lot of fun if you're used to stable kernel development.
Get a grip, man. He's not talking about improving his mathematical odds when he says "get up and walk". He's talking about not getting noticed by the casino manager. If you double their buy-in in the first half-hour you walk in the casino you're going to get noticed and they will ask you to leave. If you keep winning big they'll send your mug around Las Vegas and no one in town will let you gamble.
Every game is always watched at a casino. Looking out for big winners helps them identify the counters that are really costing them. You want to be somewhere below the casino's alert threshold.
Get down from your Ivory Tower for a minute and see how the real world works.
Then why are SCO charging for single processor licenses? Sure a SMP compiled kernel will use SMP code but a kernel compiled without SMP should be exempt since it doesn't use the SMP code that SCO allegedly owns.
The big problem I see with this scheme is how do you collect the Gigs of data (ie content) without wholesale copyright violation or licensing (big bucks). Sure you can get lots of content whose copyright ran out from the Guttenburg project. But that's gonna be +70 year stuff.
Add the fact that the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension act and related legislation threaten to extend copyright terms for infinity minus a day and you're never gonna have much content available that reflects CURRENT usage of the languages you're trying to translate.
For example, IBM (International Business Machines) allows you to select the country of your location on their webpage. To solve the authors ordering difficulties, he should visit IBM's Hungarian Website.
This Dell site says this "Please call a Dell Local Distributor to order" on each model AFAICT.
Have a look yourself.
That doesn't help much since he said we wanted to order on the WWW.
Why not use a centrifuge for the Watt balance? You'd think that if you can have the centrifuge spinning at a constant rate parallel to the earth you wouldn't need to calculate the local gravitational field.
Thanks, I already did use it: BOOL GetWindowRectClient(HWND hwnd, HWND hwnd_parent, RECT *rect) {
POINT p;
if (!GetWindowRect(hwnd, rect))
return FALSE;
p.x = rect->left;
p.y = rect->top;
if (!ScreenToClient(hwnd_parent, &p))
return FALSE;
rect->left = p.x;
rect->top = p.y;
p.x = rect->right;
p.y = rect->bottom;
if (!ScreenToClient(hwnd_parent, &p))
return FALSE;
rect->right = p.x;
rect->bottom = p.y;
return TRUE; }
One of these days someone (maybe me) should make a library for all the "missing" API calls. You know the ones you have to code yourself that should have been in the API in the first place
I'm using mingw/cygwin for my development. I don't have Visual C++. Besides, I still don't trust C++ in general yet. So I suppose you figure I'm already a sucker for punishment and should stop complaining:). But hey, I'm not a total ludite like those win32 in assembly programmers:)
Anyways, somehow I guess I missed the MapWindowPoints function, thanks for the tip. I usually use the first thing in the win32api that'll do the trick and I didn't stumble on that one right away.
I'm just a bit bitter cause I spent half a day banging my head against simple problem which the w32api doesn't let you solve simply.
I have a dialog from a resource file. I want to change the width of the dialog depending on what the text width is going to be (sorta like MesageBox does but I need a fixed width font).
OK not too bad, now I want to center the OK button. But to do that I've got to figure where the top of the button was so I can pass that back to the SetWindowPos call. Brick wall...
Here's what I had to do...
case WM_INITDIALOG: {
int st_width, st_height;
int dlg_width, dlg_height;
RECT tmp_rect;
int dlg_x, dlg_y;
int bt_x, bt_y, bt_width;
TEXTMETRIC tm;
HDC hdc = GetDC(hwnd);
The function GetWindowRectClient(hwnd,hwnd_parent,rect) I had to write that myself because SetWindowPos requires coordinates relative to its parents client area. There is no function in the w32api that gives you that information, but your supposed to pull it out of your ass if you want to change an X coordinate of a window and not the Y coordinate
Of course, this opens up all the little issues like, well, if it's truly open sourced, Canada could use it against us in an upcoming war.
And that's about the only thing Canada could you use against the states in a war given the state of our military equipment and that our last few helicopters have been crashing into our carriers... Jeez Louize, you've been too much South Park!
I'm under the impression that you will continue to be powerless even if GPL3 covers this situation.
The GPL code that the offending company is using was provided to them under the terms of the original GPL, not GPL3. I doubt you can stuff the genie back in the bottle by saying: "You know that code you're using? Well now it's licensed to you under new terms so stop what you're doing."
Of course any new versions you publish can be put under GPL3 so they wouldn't have access to your bug fixes.
You might be better off coming to an arangement with the authors of the JAR software to relicense the code to you under different terms.
Cygwin is one example of a codebase that is GPL'd. But they state that you may obtain it under a different license if you want to use for non-GPL'd software.
Maybe that's your goal for OSS is. If that was the true goal of most OSS developers, to compete with Microsoft, it wouldn't be where it is today, because it would have only started about a decade ago.
I for one hope that most OSS developers don't throw in the towel at this news since there will always be a need for a rich OSS community.
Canadian Cross is when you are building a cross compiler to be hosted on a different platform than you are building it on.
Example: Using a Linux-x86 system to build a windows hosted powerPC compiler.
"Canadian" refers to there being three different platforms (parties*) involved: the target platform (powerPC), the hosting platform (windows), and the platform building the cross-compiler (Linux).
* There used to be three national political parties in Canada before those pesky Quebecois formed a national party.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
And the problem with "We get to sue whoever breaks into our system no matter how easy it was." is that it absolves them of any responsibility for being negligent. You've got to set the bar somewhere so it might as well somewhere where most people (ie > 99.9%) won't be able to hurdle it.
In my opinion Intentia are in a position of having some legal action taken against them by their shareholders (or securities commission) who didn't have access to this information before it was "published" to a select few. For all we know they've been doing this for a while and someone's been doing some insider trading based on information from earning's report before they are released.
Its interesting to note that a couple of Joel's examples of code which is tempting to chuck are do to MicroSoft-isms:
"That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95."
"One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer."
Maybe Microsoft has a better chance of starting from scratch since they don't have a nasty layer of software to write on top of (except the legacy BIOS of course).
I have my doubts that Microsoft is getting EXCLUSIVE rights to any of SGIs patents.
IANAL but AFAIK if anyone else depends on SGI patents for their products they would have licensed them from SGI for a specified amount of time (ie 1 year, 3 years, depends on their licence agreement). For Microsoft to block products (SW or HW) with SGI patents they would have to wait for those patent licences to die, prevent SGI from issuing new licences (by making some sort of deal involving some sort of deal for exclusive licences for X number of years).
Seems more likely that Microsoft is just getting a non-exlusive license which lets them use SGI technology in DX*, or their OS, or the XBOX or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: "Big Dig".
In Boston btw.
if SCO wins in court. That's right the 2.2 kernel. And the 2.2 maintainer's gonna have to put up with all sorts of new feature requests, VM integration, iptables etc. to get it up to speed with 2.4's functionality. Not a lot of fun if you're used to stable kernel development.
then you can afford an electrician.
What you can't afford is burning your building down.
Nuff said
Get a grip, man. He's not talking about improving his mathematical odds when he says "get up and walk". He's talking about not getting noticed by the casino manager. If you double their buy-in in the first half-hour you walk in the casino you're going to get noticed and they will ask you to leave. If you keep winning big they'll send your mug around Las Vegas and no one in town will let you gamble.
Every game is always watched at a casino. Looking out for big winners helps them identify the counters that are really costing them. You want to be somewhere below the casino's alert threshold.
Get down from your Ivory Tower for a minute and see how the real world works.
Then why are SCO charging for single processor licenses? Sure a SMP compiled kernel will use SMP code but a kernel compiled without SMP should be exempt since it doesn't use the SMP code that SCO allegedly owns.
The big problem I see with this scheme is how do you collect the Gigs of data (ie content) without wholesale copyright violation or licensing (big bucks). Sure you can get lots of content whose copyright ran out from the Guttenburg project. But that's gonna be +70 year stuff.
Add the fact that the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension act and related legislation threaten to extend copyright terms for infinity minus a day and you're never gonna have much content available that reflects CURRENT usage of the languages you're trying to translate.
This Dell site says this "Please call a Dell Local Distributor to order" on each model AFAICT. Have a look yourself.
That doesn't help much since he said we wanted to order on the WWW.
Why not use a centrifuge for the Watt balance? You'd think that if you can have the centrifuge spinning at a constant rate parallel to the earth you wouldn't need to calculate the local gravitational field.
Thanks, I already did use it:
BOOL GetWindowRectClient(HWND hwnd, HWND hwnd_parent, RECT *rect)
{
POINT p;
if (!GetWindowRect(hwnd, rect))
return FALSE;
p.x = rect->left;
p.y = rect->top;
if (!ScreenToClient(hwnd_parent, &p))
return FALSE;
rect->left = p.x;
rect->top = p.y;
p.x = rect->right;
p.y = rect->bottom;
if (!ScreenToClient(hwnd_parent, &p))
return FALSE;
rect->right = p.x;
rect->bottom = p.y;
return TRUE;
}
One of these days someone (maybe me) should make a library for all the "missing" API calls. You know the ones you have to code yourself that should have been in the API in the first place
I'm using mingw/cygwin for my development. I don't have Visual C++. Besides, I still don't trust C++ in general yet. So I suppose you figure I'm already a sucker for punishment and should stop complaining :). But hey, I'm not a total ludite like those win32 in assembly programmers :)
Anyways, somehow I guess I missed the MapWindowPoints function, thanks for the tip. I usually use the first thing in the win32api that'll do the trick and I didn't stumble on that one right away.
I'm just a bit bitter cause I spent half a day banging my head against simple problem which the w32api doesn't let you solve simply.
0 ,0,_ x,bt_y,T EXT,0,(LPARAM)parse_text);
I have a dialog from a resource file. I want to change the width of the dialog depending on what the text width is going to be (sorta like MesageBox does but I need a fixed width font).
OK not too bad, now I want to center the OK button. But to do that I've got to figure where the top of the button was so I can pass that back to the SetWindowPos call. Brick wall...
Here's what I had to do...
case WM_INITDIALOG:
{
int st_width, st_height;
int dlg_width, dlg_height;
RECT tmp_rect;
int dlg_x, dlg_y;
int bt_x, bt_y, bt_width;
TEXTMETRIC tm;
HDC hdc = GetDC(hwnd);
SelectObject(hdc, GetStockObject(SYSTEM_FIXED_FONT));
GetTextMetrics(hdc, &tm);
ReleaseDC(hwnd,hdc);
GetWindowRect(hwnd, &tmp_rect);
dlg_height = tmp_rect.bottom - tmp_rect.top;
GetWindowRectClient(GetDlgItem(hwnd, PB_PARSE_OK), hwnd, &tmp_rect);
bt_y = tmp_rect.top;
bt_width = tmp_rect.right - tmp_rect.left;
GetWindowRect(GetDlgItem(hwnd, ST_PARSE_TEXT), &tmp_rect);
st_height = tmp_rect.bottom - tmp_rect.top;
st_width = get_max_line_width(parse_text) * tm.tmAveCharWidth + 40;
dlg_width = st_width + 12;
bt_x = (dlg_width-bt_width)/2;
GetWindowRect(GetDesktopWindow(), &tmp_rect);
dlg_x = (tmp_rect.right-dlg_width)/2;
dlg_y = (tmp_rect.bottom-dlg_height)/2;
SetWindowPos(GetDlgItem(hwnd,ST_PARSE_TEXT),NULL,
st_width,st_height,SWP_NOZORDER|SWP_NOMOVE);
SetWindowPos(hwnd,NULL,dlg_x,dlg_y,
dlg_width,dlg_height,SWP_NOZORDER);
SetWindowPos(GetDlgItem(hwnd,PB_PARSE_OK),NULL,bt
0,0,SWP_NOZORDER|SWP_NOSIZE);
SendMessage(GetDlgItem(hwnd,ST_PARSE_TEXT),WM_SET
}
Ugly isn't it.
The function GetWindowRectClient(hwnd,hwnd_parent,rect)
I had to write that myself because SetWindowPos requires coordinates relative to its parents client area. There is no function in the w32api that gives you that information, but your supposed to pull it out of your ass if you want to change an X coordinate of a window and not the Y coordinate
F#ing Visual C++
F#ing VB.
F#ing Win32 API
It's called a chainsaw. I'm not to sure your neighbours would approve though.
Of course, this opens up all the little issues like, well, if it's truly open sourced, Canada could use it against us in an upcoming war.
And that's about the only thing Canada could you use against the states in a war given the state of our military equipment and that our last few helicopters have been crashing into our carriers...
Jeez Louize, you've been too much South Park!
What else do you call a company that has more lawyers than engineers? ... Rambus
Oh yeah
I'm under the impression that you will continue to be powerless even if GPL3 covers this situation.
The GPL code that the offending company is using was provided to them under the terms of the original GPL, not GPL3. I doubt you can stuff the genie back in the bottle by saying: "You know that code you're using? Well now it's licensed to you under new terms so stop what you're doing."
Of course any new versions you publish can be put under GPL3 so they wouldn't have access to your bug fixes.
You might be better off coming to an arangement with the authors of the JAR software to relicense the code to you under different terms.
Cygwin is one example of a codebase that is GPL'd. But they state that you may obtain it under a different license if you want to use for non-GPL'd software.
Maybe that's your goal for OSS is. If that was the true goal of most OSS developers, to compete with Microsoft, it wouldn't be where it is today, because it would have only started about a decade ago.
I for one hope that most OSS developers don't throw in the towel at this news since there will always be a need for a rich OSS community.
Canadian Cross is when you are building a cross compiler to be hosted on a different platform than you are building it on.
Example:
Using a Linux-x86 system to build a windows hosted powerPC compiler.
"Canadian" refers to there being three different platforms (parties*) involved: the target platform (powerPC), the hosting platform (windows), and the platform building the cross-compiler (Linux).
* There used to be three national political parties in Canada before those pesky Quebecois formed a national party.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
And the problem with "We get to sue whoever breaks into our system no matter how easy it was." is that it absolves them of any responsibility for being negligent. You've got to set the bar somewhere so it might as well somewhere where most people (ie > 99.9%) won't be able to hurdle it.
In my opinion Intentia are in a position of having some legal action taken against them by their shareholders (or securities commission) who didn't have access to this information before it was "published" to a select few. For all we know they've been doing this for a while and someone's been doing some insider trading based on information from earning's report before they are released.
This must scare the hell out of the XBox group at MS.
How do you moderate something as Harsh?
Its interesting to note that a couple of Joel's examples of code which is tempting to chuck are do to MicroSoft-isms:
"That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95."
"One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer."
Maybe Microsoft has a better chance of starting from scratch since they don't have a nasty layer of software to write on top of (except the legacy BIOS of course).
http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2001/oc tober/microsoft.html
Looks to me to be the same story.
I have my doubts that Microsoft is getting EXCLUSIVE rights to any of SGIs patents.
IANAL but AFAIK if anyone else depends on SGI patents for their products they would have licensed them from SGI for a specified amount of time (ie 1 year, 3 years, depends on their licence agreement). For Microsoft to block products (SW or HW) with SGI patents they would have to wait for those patent licences to die, prevent SGI from issuing new licences (by making some sort of deal involving some sort of deal for exclusive licences for X number of years).
Seems more likely that Microsoft is just getting a non-exlusive license which lets them use SGI technology in DX*, or their OS, or the XBOX or whatever.