Wow, all the way back to 1998, that's definitive! Nevertheless, the old definition still applies. Those who claimed that Half-Life 2 and OSX were vaporware were simply wrong. Apply a term incorrectly doesn't change its definition.
"Thus in modern terms, it is considered "correct" to use vapourware for a product that has not been delivered according to promises. Especially if new promises are continually made and broken. i.e. "Battlecruiser 3000AD was vapourware for seven years!""
I think the motivation for this "modern" view is partially political. It has allowed Vista to be labled as vaporware even though there was really no doubt that MS was going to release it eventually.
If a product is branded as vaporware but eventually is released, it simply means that the product was incorrectly classified, no working definition is required, the correct one works just fine.
Since when is patent enforcement based on whether you license the patent? A patent holder can say "I won't license the patent to anyone and I never will" and the court has no legal basis to obstruct the enforcement of that patent.
To be fair, Herbert Jr. was just continuing the Ass-raping of the Dune legacy that Herbert Sr. started with "Children of Dune". What can you say about a series when the only character that appears in every book, died in the first one?
What do you base this intrepretation on? Unless Novell modifies your code in such a way that it violates a MS patent when your original code did not, the scenario you outline is false. Of course, even if this agreement didn't exist, if Novell did add code that violated a MS patent then you couldn't redistribute the code without the threat of being sued by MS. Nothing in this agreement changes the patent realities for someone who wants to modify and redistribute GPL'd code from Novell or from anyone else.
It wasn't my intent to comment on the quality of the code, just the fact that the GPL doesn't protect ideas, just the particular expression of those ideas in the code.
There's a difference between "benefiting" from Samba code and "using" Samba code. MS or anyone else can look at the Samba code and incorporate its ideas in brand-new code without violating the GPL.
Once somebody has the adjective "legendary" applied to them they become more of a symbol than a key player. If there's such a thing as an FOSS Fellow (like an Apple Fellow) he should appy for it.
There's a trend toward imagining that any code you write might be the basis of the world's next big framework. Look at Netbeans and particularly Eclipse: apparently they believe that perfection has been achieved as IDEs so they have nothing better to do than turn them into platforms.
It would be more like if you made a living by charging people for exact duplicates of your car and I starting making them for free. The whole car analogy is imperfect, but the fundamental point is that giving away something you don't own isn't sharing in the charitable sense any more than copyright infringement is the same as stealing.
I guess your comment suggests that he paid for the movies in the first place. Do we know that for a fact?
In any case, everyone knows they're not "buying" the content: the annoying warnings at the start of DVDs make that quite clear. In addition, not being copied is part of the business model and has direct impact on the price you pay.
As I see it there are 3 alternatives: 1) keep laws as they are 2) reduce the penalties for non-profit copyright violation but add a fee to the purchase of each DVD to compensate for the copying loss. 3) reduce or eliminate the penalties and make only movies that cost under a million dollars (or some appropriate figure).
What isn't going to work is for significant movie copying to develop and for studios to continue to spend 100's of millions of dollars making movies. It just doesn't add up.
It's not a direct issue with Java as long as you don't intend to do systems programming with it. This is one of the reasons why Java is generally not used for that purpose.
That answer makes sense if you assume the only purpose of unsigned types is to perform arithmetic on them. Somehow I doubt Gosling did much real-world embedded development or he would understand that.
"I would venture to guess that outside of games, about 75% of what we do with computers these days as a society is not processed on our local machines. The other 25% is traditional business applications"
I don't know where you get your numbers. Of course for web apps to have displaced PC apps it would require that they replace at a minimum 51% of all apps (games included). Note this isn't necessarily the same as "what we do with computers these days" which may include new applications that only make sense with remote resources.
I guess you mean web applications or web services rather than "the web". In any case, thin-client computing isn't the same as web services or web apps. Thin-clients aren't conventional PC's running a browser, they boot off the network.
But definitions aside, web apps have not significantly displaced PC applications either. Most significant web apps offer new functionality that never existed on the PC because the functionality requires non-local resources or a large group of individuals (e.g. eBay). Use of the Google search engine is probably 2 or 3 orders of magnitude greater than use of Google's "office" web apps.
So you think if MS made the software source that implements the specs available, the F/OSS community is going to perform a comprehensive test of that software to determine if it properly implements the spec? Have they even done that level of testing on Open Office to insure that OpenDocument spec is perfect?
Usually it's traditional when making an argument to use an example of something that has actually happened. Thin client Computing has not displaced Personal Computing to any significant extent.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, all the way back to 1998, that's definitive! Nevertheless, the old definition still applies. Those who claimed that Half-Life 2 and OSX were vaporware were simply wrong. Apply a term incorrectly doesn't change its definition.
"Thus in modern terms, it is considered "correct" to use vapourware for a product that has not been delivered according to promises. Especially if new promises are continually made and broken. i.e. "Battlecruiser 3000AD was vapourware for seven years!""
I think the motivation for this "modern" view is partially political. It has allowed Vista to be labled as vaporware even though there was really no doubt that MS was going to release it eventually.
If a product is branded as vaporware but eventually is released, it simply means that the product was incorrectly classified, no working definition is required, the correct one works just fine.
Since when is patent enforcement based on whether you license the patent? A patent holder can say "I won't license the patent to anyone and I never will" and the court has no legal basis to obstruct the enforcement of that patent.
To be fair, Herbert Jr. was just continuing the Ass-raping of the Dune legacy that Herbert Sr. started with "Children of Dune". What can you say about a series when the only character that appears in every book, died in the first one?
What do you base this intrepretation on? Unless Novell modifies your code in such a way that it violates a MS patent when your original code did not, the scenario you outline is false. Of course, even if this agreement didn't exist, if Novell did add code that violated a MS patent then you couldn't redistribute the code without the threat of being sued by MS. Nothing in this agreement changes the patent realities for someone who wants to modify and redistribute GPL'd code from Novell or from anyone else.
It wasn't my intent to comment on the quality of the code, just the fact that the GPL doesn't protect ideas, just the particular expression of those ideas in the code.
There's a difference between "benefiting" from Samba code and "using" Samba code. MS or anyone else can look at the Samba code and incorporate its ideas in brand-new code without violating the GPL.
Once somebody has the adjective "legendary" applied to them they become more of a symbol than a key player. If there's such a thing as an FOSS Fellow (like an Apple Fellow) he should appy for it.
There's a trend toward imagining that any code you write might be the basis of the world's next big framework. Look at Netbeans and particularly Eclipse: apparently they believe that perfection has been achieved as IDEs so they have nothing better to do than turn them into platforms.
It would be more like if you made a living by charging people for exact duplicates of your car and I starting making them for free. The whole car analogy is imperfect, but the fundamental point is that giving away something you don't own isn't sharing in the charitable sense any more than copyright infringement is the same as stealing.
I guess your comment suggests that he paid for the movies in the first place. Do we know that for a fact?
In any case, everyone knows they're not "buying" the content: the annoying warnings at the start of DVDs make that quite clear. In addition, not being copied is part of the business model and has direct impact on the price you pay.
As I see it there are 3 alternatives: 1) keep laws as they are 2) reduce the penalties for non-profit copyright violation but add a fee to the purchase of each DVD to compensate for the copying loss. 3) reduce or eliminate the penalties and make only movies that cost under a million dollars (or some appropriate figure).
What isn't going to work is for significant movie copying to develop and for studios to continue to spend 100's of millions of dollars making movies. It just doesn't add up.
It's not as if he shared his food with the poor or something like that. It's more like me telling my buddy I'll share your car with him.
It's not a direct issue with Java as long as you don't intend to do systems programming with it. This is one of the reasons why Java is generally not used for that purpose.
Markup languages are just file formats with delusions of grandeur.
Most CS departments don't even own drums.
In my view, whatever works is A-okay. The rest is just religion.
"Second of all, people all too frequently seem to want to use inheritance for every task."
Actually, these days people all too frequently seem to want to use interfaces for every task.
That answer makes sense if you assume the only purpose of unsigned types is to perform arithmetic on them. Somehow I doubt Gosling did much real-world embedded development or he would understand that.
"I didn't just read the summary, I took a look at the standard.."
Great. Now where are the bugs, the security issues, the unreliability, the overpriced aspect etc?
So what's the problem?
"I would venture to guess that outside of games, about 75% of what we do with computers these days as a society is not processed on our local machines. The other 25% is traditional business applications"
I don't know where you get your numbers. Of course for web apps to have displaced PC apps it would require that they replace at a minimum 51% of all apps (games included). Note this isn't necessarily the same as "what we do with computers these days" which may include new applications that only make sense with remote resources.
I guess you mean web applications or web services rather than "the web". In any case, thin-client computing isn't the same as web services or web apps. Thin-clients aren't conventional PC's running a browser, they boot off the network.
But definitions aside, web apps have not significantly displaced PC applications either. Most significant web apps offer new functionality that never existed on the PC because the functionality requires non-local resources or a large group of individuals (e.g. eBay). Use of the Google search engine is probably 2 or 3 orders of magnitude greater than use of Google's "office" web apps.
So you think if MS made the software source that implements the specs available, the F/OSS community is going to perform a comprehensive test of that software to determine if it properly implements the spec? Have they even done that level of testing on Open Office to insure that OpenDocument spec is perfect?
Usually it's traditional when making an argument to use an example of something that has actually happened. Thin client Computing has not displaced Personal Computing to any significant extent.