There are few "feminine" activities available on computers, which is most certainly a result of few "feminine" people creating the activities (programs). Too bad. Chicken-and-egg problems are usually very sticky to get out of.
First, I must say that I extend much sympathy towards osm. osm was not a spammer, like 90% of the "trolls" on Slashdot today, but a true troll through and through. His absence in the last few days (maybe a week or more now?) has definitely been missed. That said, more information on the case would be nice. The page you linked to (on his site) has very little to say other than "thanks everyone, but my lawyer says I can't say anything". He doesn't even say what the legal trouble is about (last time I checked, off-topic posts were not illegal). If anyone has more information on the case, I'd greatly appreciate it. Obviously we can't expect Slashdot to report on it.
There is no D/A or A/D conversion going on, because you are not as stupid as the OP. You do not even need to have a sound card. Just set up a fake/dev/dsp (or the equivalent under Windows) to save it to.wav. This is not new stuff.
Yes, it is different. Digital world != real world. Information != property. Once a single person labours for (literally) 4 or 5 seconds or so and transforms the.riaa into an.mp3, then the security effectively does not exist for anyone else in the world. That single.mp3 can be copied verbatim to anyone else, making the.riaa literally inferior (and hence useless).
This is not the same as a security system on the house. Once I break into your house, I can not copy the entire inside of your house and share it with everyone in the world.
The real question is why they're using the name "Amiga" at all. There really isn't any similarity between the two products, except a general feeling of "coolness". It's almost as if they went out of their way to confuse people.
Just a small nit, but the patch you pointed out would fix a logic error, not a syntax error or anything like that. In other words, if it compiled with the patch, it would compile just as well without it.
Okay I should say that I had something specific in mind. I was imagining someone writing, say, a 3D polygon transformation library, and then have that used by a games company or something. I think it's fair to say that everyone would agree that CORBA, piping or even shared memory would not be acceptable in this case.
You're right, though; CORBA would get around the problem quite well in many cases.
I'm not sure I understand anything that you've said.
You do realise that when you buy a copy of Quake 3 at the store for $59.99 you are not buying it, right? You are only buying a licence. In order to buy Quake 3 (if it were ever up for sale), you would probably have to pay some hundreds of milions of dollars.
That said (just making sure we're on the same page), licencing of software from one company to another very rarely involves the GPL. Just because Foo Inc. has released product X under the GPL, it does not mean that they can't simultaneously release product X to company Bar Inc. under the MegaExpensiveProprietaryLicence. The fact that it is still held under the GPL doesn't enter in to it.
Although I've never used a TiVo, I can see what you're getting at. I've often thought about making a portable cookbook or a TiVo-like device. Writing and using the software would be absolutely trivial (making a cool looking box for it is another matter), but it all comes down to the content. All sites (that I'm familiar with) that have recipes or TV guides are formatted for people. Having a computer try to get a complete TV listing would just not be worth the effort.
I hope that some day (hopefully soon), we will see machine-friendly TV listings and recipe listings. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to make this terribly commercially attractive, but it could happen.
Your argument that it would be impractical to make money off a proprietary version of free software may work for end products, but most definitely not for libraries. The restrictions in the GPL make it extremely attractive for use with libraries if you're concerned about someone using your code in a proprietary product without giving you money.
That is completely wrong. long long was not in C89, but it is in C99. From section 6.7.2:
Syntax
[#1]
type-specifier: long
Constraints
[#2] At least one type specifier shall be given in the declaration specifiers in each declaration, and in the specifier-qualifier list in each struct declaration and type name. Each list of type specifiers shall be one of the following sets (delimited by commas, when there is more than one set on a line); the type specifiers may occur in any order, possibly intermixed with the other declaration specifiers.
-- long long, signed long long, long long int, or signed long long int
Actually, the 80186 is (even currently) arguably the most widely used microprocessor in the world. It was designed for traffic controllers (the kind of traffic without wings), not personal computers. And, FYI, the 4004 did a very decent job of what it was designed to do.
Umm you do realise that you didn't actually prove your point.
it's like saying "We'll categorize all the places to get drugs - some of those are pharmacies, some are crack dealers. We won't make an effort to tell which." Now, they'd certainly be arrested for that!
No, they wouldn't. People do not get arrested for telling people where to buy crack. People get arrested for selling crack.
It's time to stop the warez doodz on the web, or else you'll start to see (by extension) sites which "link to software", but some are closed-source modifications of GPL'ed software. How'd you like that, huh? The MP3 thing is no different than that.
I'm glad we agree on something -- it is no different. Who fucking cares if someone links to a GPL copyright violation? Slashdot does it all the time (KDE is a GPL copyright violation). Is it too much to ask that only people who are breaking the law get punished by it?
Uhh moron, you just contradicted yourself. You conceded to bojay's point, saying that if not everything could be stored in RAM, it would have to be stored somewhere else, like in a swap file. "That's what it's there [for], to catch whatever won't fit in RAM". Then you say that it won't require any intervention from software? Swapping is implemented in software always. If the kernel tries to write to a portion in memory that can't physically exist (because all the memory's already been taken up because hax0r_j03 is running his random-memory-allocator-bomb), then bad stuff will start to happen. Either the kernel is notified that all the memory's taken up (e.g. there must be a software side to this) or unexpected things (most likely death) will happen.
It has to do with the users not the developers. Apple has done everything they can to make sure that the developers don't have to do anything (and it looks like they've done a good job). Assuming they're 100% perfect coders and do not have any bugs, all MacOS and all BSD programs should run unmodified together in fairyland.
But from the users' point of view, things are different. If I try to load a file in program X, it's called "happy/sad: a poem"; if I try to load the same file in program Y, it's called "happy:sad/ a poem". The part of mounting drives in legacy code and having to keep it a secret from the BSD part of the OS is especially scary.
So in conclusion: developers: yay happy fun users: what's going on?
I haven't tried out 2.3 or 2.4, but I'm running devfs on 2.2 so I think I can answer B.
Basically, you don't have to do anything to get it started. Once devfs support is compiled in, the kernel will populate/dev for you. However, you have to get used to the name changes. devfs adds namespaces, so you have either have to change stuff like your/etc/fstab (/dev/hda1 becomes/dev/discs/disc0/part1 or/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1, whatever you prefer), or you install devfsd (which is a user-space daemon) and set it up to keep 'legacy' devices in/dev populated for you (via symlinks).
I suppose you could keep all your old devices in/dev if you wanted to (which isn't actually a bit idea to ease the strain until you get things figured out), but it kind of defeats the purpose of using devfs.
Slashdot Mirror
There are few "feminine" activities available on computers, which is most certainly a result of few "feminine" people creating the activities (programs). Too bad. Chicken-and-egg problems are usually very sticky to get out of.
Hmm yes, that would be much more difficult. You could still get around it by using a VMWare approach, though, presumably.
First, I must say that I extend much sympathy towards osm. osm was not a spammer, like 90% of the "trolls" on Slashdot today, but a true troll through and through. His absence in the last few days (maybe a week or more now?) has definitely been missed. That said, more information on the case would be nice. The page you linked to (on his site) has very little to say other than "thanks everyone, but my lawyer says I can't say anything". He doesn't even say what the legal trouble is about (last time I checked, off-topic posts were not illegal). If anyone has more information on the case, I'd greatly appreciate it. Obviously we can't expect Slashdot to report on it.
There is no D/A or A/D conversion going on, because you are not as stupid as the OP. You do not even need to have a sound card. Just set up a fake /dev/dsp (or the equivalent under Windows) to save it to .wav. This is not new stuff.
Yes, it is different. Digital world != real world. Information != property. Once a single person labours for (literally) 4 or 5 seconds or so and transforms the .riaa into an .mp3, then the security effectively does not exist for anyone else in the world. That single .mp3 can be copied verbatim to anyone else, making the .riaa literally inferior (and hence useless).
This is not the same as a security system on the house. Once I break into your house, I can not copy the entire inside of your house and share it with everyone in the world.
Yes, I did read anything, and it is not forward or backward compatible; it includes an emulator.
The real question is why they're using the name "Amiga" at all. There really isn't any similarity between the two products, except a general feeling of "coolness". It's almost as if they went out of their way to confuse people.
I must say, good job. It's not often that we see Godwin's Law enter at the *beginning* of a thread.
Just a small nit, but the patch you pointed out would fix a logic error, not a syntax error or anything like that. In other words, if it compiled with the patch, it would compile just as well without it.
Okay I should say that I had something specific in mind. I was imagining someone writing, say, a 3D polygon transformation library, and then have that used by a games company or something. I think it's fair to say that everyone would agree that CORBA, piping or even shared memory would not be acceptable in this case.
You're right, though; CORBA would get around the problem quite well in many cases.
I'm not sure I understand anything that you've said.
You do realise that when you buy a copy of Quake 3 at the store for $59.99 you are not buying it, right? You are only buying a licence. In order to buy Quake 3 (if it were ever up for sale), you would probably have to pay some hundreds of milions of dollars.
That said (just making sure we're on the same page), licencing of software from one company to another very rarely involves the GPL. Just because Foo Inc. has released product X under the GPL, it does not mean that they can't simultaneously release product X to company Bar Inc. under the MegaExpensiveProprietaryLicence. The fact that it is still held under the GPL doesn't enter in to it.
Although I've never used a TiVo, I can see what you're getting at. I've often thought about making a portable cookbook or a TiVo-like device. Writing and using the software would be absolutely trivial (making a cool looking box for it is another matter), but it all comes down to the content. All sites (that I'm familiar with) that have recipes or TV guides are formatted for people. Having a computer try to get a complete TV listing would just not be worth the effort.
I hope that some day (hopefully soon), we will see machine-friendly TV listings and recipe listings. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to make this terribly commercially attractive, but it could happen.
That is already the case.
Your argument that it would be impractical to make money off a proprietary version of free software may work for end products, but most definitely not for libraries. The restrictions in the GPL make it extremely attractive for use with libraries if you're concerned about someone using your code in a proprietary product without giving you money.
Actually, in fairness, the GPL does make a special exception for linking againts system libraries. That term is not well defined, though.
IINM, there is also more than one town.
Ahh. Thanks for saying exactly what Draeker said, but in a more incoherent way. That was very "insightful" of you.
Actually, the 80186 is (even currently) arguably the most widely used microprocessor in the world. It was designed for traffic controllers (the kind of traffic without wings), not personal computers. And, FYI, the 4004 did a very decent job of what it was designed to do.
Plus a constant.
it's like saying "We'll categorize all the places to get drugs - some of those are pharmacies, some are crack dealers. We won't make an effort to tell which." Now, they'd certainly be arrested for that!
No, they wouldn't. People do not get arrested for telling people where to buy crack. People get arrested for selling crack.
It's time to stop the warez doodz on the web, or else you'll start to see (by extension) sites which "link to software", but some are closed-source modifications of GPL'ed software. How'd you like that, huh? The MP3 thing is no different than that.
I'm glad we agree on something -- it is no different. Who fucking cares if someone links to a GPL copyright violation? Slashdot does it all the time (KDE is a GPL copyright violation). Is it too much to ask that only people who are breaking the law get punished by it?
Uhh moron, you just contradicted yourself. You conceded to bojay's point, saying that if not everything could be stored in RAM, it would have to be stored somewhere else, like in a swap file. "That's what it's there [for], to catch whatever won't fit in RAM". Then you say that it won't require any intervention from software? Swapping is implemented in software always. If the kernel tries to write to a portion in memory that can't physically exist (because all the memory's already been taken up because hax0r_j03 is running his random-memory-allocator-bomb), then bad stuff will start to happen. Either the kernel is notified that all the memory's taken up (e.g. there must be a software side to this) or unexpected things (most likely death) will happen.
It has to do with the users not the developers. Apple has done everything they can to make sure that the developers don't have to do anything (and it looks like they've done a good job). Assuming they're 100% perfect coders and do not have any bugs, all MacOS and all BSD programs should run unmodified together in fairyland.
But from the users' point of view, things are different. If I try to load a file in program X, it's called "happy/sad: a poem"; if I try to load the same file in program Y, it's called "happy:sad/ a poem". The part of mounting drives in legacy code and having to keep it a secret from the BSD part of the OS is especially scary.
So in conclusion:
developers: yay happy fun
users: what's going on?
I haven't tried out 2.3 or 2.4, but I'm running devfs on 2.2 so I think I can answer B.
/dev for you. However, you have to get used to the name changes. devfs adds namespaces, so you have either have to change stuff like your /etc/fstab (/dev/hda1 becomes /dev/discs/disc0/part1 or /dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1, whatever you prefer), or you install devfsd (which is a user-space daemon) and set it up to keep 'legacy' devices in /dev populated for you (via symlinks).
/dev if you wanted to (which isn't actually a bit idea to ease the strain until you get things figured out), but it kind of defeats the purpose of using devfs.
Basically, you don't have to do anything to get it started. Once devfs support is compiled in, the kernel will populate
I suppose you could keep all your old devices in
Actually, according to href="http://www.bandwidth.com">www.bandwidth.co m</a> anyway, there is such :).
a thing as an OC-255. It looks out of place on their table, though