Now of course that is uncompressed. But seriously, are you going to be compressing images that are getting processed many times? You might be able to encode the final cut, but you can't be encoding, decoding and then re-encoding stuff every time you want to process something.
It depends on the compression algorithm(s) you use. You would *not* apply a lossy compression algorithm until the final cut, but it could be reasonable to use non-lossy techniques if the encoding/decoding time isn't too long. There are some compression algorithms that feature fairly quick encoding/decoding times; maybe even quick enough for this application.
The reason that Qt for Windows can remain non-free is that it is a separate product. I'm sure it has a big overlap with the codebase of Qt for X11, but that overlap is far from 100%. And in any case, licensing something under the GPL doesn't prevent the copyright holder from relicensing the code to someone else under different terms. The copyright holder can release the same exact code under a million different sets of license terms to a million different people.
Now is there anything preventing some hacker from coming along and porting the Qt/X11 code to Windows? No, there hasn't been since Qt was released under the QPL. I don't think Trolltech is very worried about anyone doing this any time soon, since (a) such a task would not be easy, and (b) no one has made any moves toward doing it yet, even though it's been possible for months upon months.
Qt will be triple-licenced under either the GPL or the QPL or the commercial-type license available from Trolltech, at the option of the user. Authors of non-free software will still be able to use Qt under the terms of the QPL if they wish. This scheme was well thought-out. Nobody's getting left out in the cold.
"Why would I run MacOS X on intel when I can already run Linux or one of the BSDs?" The question could just as easily be, "Why run NetBSD on Intel when I could run Solaris x86 on Intel? Or the GNU Hurd? Or plain old Mach with the standard BSD personality?" Why run any Unix-like OS on your PC instead of any other? The answer is different strokes for different folks. All the various Unix-like OSen are just different enough from each other to make some people prefer one over the others.
Ok, that probably was not the answer you were looking for, so let me mention some of the technical features that MacOS X sports which you won't find in Linux or *BSD. The biggest difference that I can think of is the I/O and driver model that MacOS X uses. The IOKit is an OO framework for developing and making use of I/O and hardware drivers that was created from scratch by Apple mainly becuase FreeBSD's I/O subsystem didn't support the dynamic "plug-and-play" functionality that Apple wanted. Another big advantage that MacOS X has is its scalability to multi-processor machines. This is entirely due to the use of Mach as the core microkernel. One of Mach's original design goals was to be highly scalable on both closely coupled (a la SMP) and loosely coupled (a la Beowulf) multi-processor systems, and it shows in Mach's extensively multi-threaded and modular nature. There are also supposedly lots of fun things you can do with Mach's message passing/IPC facilities, but I don't know too much about that.
You have the wrong idea about the proper use of the powers of illusion. You don't go around pretending that you have the brute-force physical powers of a conjurer or evoker. Instead you have to be cunning and creative: you have to employ psychological warfare. Create a dazzling shower of light and sound to confuse your enemies and break their concentration. Or better yet, fool your enemies into believing that their allies are betraying them. Or you could even create illusions that are patently false, yet stunningly effective, like creating multiple images your fighter partner, only one of which is real (this last one is actually a pretty classic trick). The possibilies are truly endless.
The author of ROX is not implementing drag-and-drop from scratch. He is using the drag-and-drop API that is built into GTK+. Concerns about application compliancy is a complete red herring since all your GNOME and KDE apps will run perfectly well under ROX. You have to remember that GNOME and KDE play the role of application development framework in addition to their roles as desktop GUI. The two roles are actually quite distinct. ROX solely fills the role of desktop GUI and does not attempt to be an application framework at all. This is why developing ROX is a far lesser effort than developing GNOME or KDE. ROX also does not include a window manager, nor does it try to do engage in silly interactions with the window manager, thus making it even less complex. All of these reasons make a project like ROX worth implementing from scratch. It is not a wasted effort in the least.
Corel did not modify your license terms. They are merely refusing to distribute to a certain class of people. The GPL does not force Corel into distributing the software at all. If I have a peice of GPL'd software sitting here on my hard drive and you come up to me demanding that I give you a copy of it I have every right to refuse.
This might sound strange, but after reading the comments in this article that have Bruce Peren's name on them, I'm wondering if someone has not broken into his Slashdot account. How could anyone who has read and understood the GPL miss such an important point?
Still, if you want an OS that doesn't have a new libc library every fifteen minutes, FreeBSD is the one.
Oh, come now! That's a ridiculous amount of bitching over the *only* major binary incompatibility issue in the Linux world in the past four or five years. The only other comparable switchover in the history of Linux that I know of was the move from a.out to ELF waaay back when. (Already a fading memory by the time I joined the Linux camp.)
Besides, I personally found the switch from libc5 to glibc rather painless. I simply did a full distribution upgrade so that all the important stuff was using the new libc, and if I still needed to use apps linked to libc5, the old libs were still around to provide a compatibility layer.
If you want to criticize Linux, criticize it for some of its real issues. Indulging in hyperbole only makes you look foolish. So come on; less bitching, and more *real* criticism.
This tool does not have to run under Windows to still be very useful. It can be easily built into the install process of a Linux distro to allow non-destructive repartitioning. In fact this is probably easier than using Partition Magic before starting the Linux installation since the process is more integrated.
Superlatively cool indeed. Now how do I modify this to print "DANIEL" instead of "DAVID"? (Without going insane in the process.) The last half hour was vainly spent attempting this very feat. I think I'm making headway but I think I need to discover the magic number for my name before I can go any further.
I think you're over-reacting. All of the distributions patch up the original source code of the included packages in order to ensure that everything works as a coherent whole, and to conform to the in-house standards for that distro. Debian does this, Red Hat does this. This fact is even reflected by the.rpm and.deb package formats: patches against the original source are kept fully distinct from each other, in order to ensure the respective integrity of both versions. Quite often, the changes made by individual distros are rolled back into the orginal, if the changes made are general and useful outside of the specific distro. However, just as often the changes made are not useful outside the specfic distro. One of the greatest advantages of free software is your freedom to modify the original version *without* the hassle of getting special permission from the original authors. This freedom brings an enormous advantage to the distributor in terms of maintainablilty. Just one more reason why free software in general, and Linux in particular are so great.:)
I would say the majority are casual to cronic nug tokers, with a fair amount of shroom eaters, and few hard core old time LSD lovers. All non-addictive and non-harmful to the body or the mind.
Oh, tee hee hee hee. Tell me, is ignorance really as blissful as you make it look? Make sure you never crack open a medical journal or ever talk to anyone the least bit familiar with human biology. It would be such an utter shame to ever burst your little bubble there.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is stupid to prohibit pot and simultaneously permit alcohol, which is argably more harmful. But you are a fool if you think pot is harmless (much less shrooms or LSD!!).
Window clean-up rips off GNOME's drawers
on
GNOME 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
You know, it took me a few moments of staring at your comment, but I just got that, and now I'm snickering quite heartily. ----
You know, it's real easy to use KWM (KDE's default window manager) without using the rest of KDE). Just create a.xsession (or.xinitrc) like this:
#!/bin/sh
xterm & exec kwm
You will probably also want to add in an app-launcher or something, since KWM does not provide root menus or other app-launching stuff (it normally lets kpanel take care of that). ----
GTK/Mozilla --- why do we *want* Opera!?
on
Opera for Linux
·
· Score: 1
You complain because Netscape retains ownership to the code that it wrote? You obviously have not read the GPL, or else you would see that code licenced under the GPL also causes said code to remain owned and copyrighted by the author. Code does not have to be Public Domain in order to be Free.
The fact that Netscape/AOL still retains ownership of much of the Mozilla code is irrelevent. Mozilla's licence prevents Netscape/AOL from denying us our rights to the code that has already been released. ----
Silly boy, you won't have to licence anything from MicroSoft unless you are buying an app from MicroSoft. If you are using a Windoze app from some other vendor then all the necessary dlls will come with that particular app.
WINE provides a free implementation of all the DLL's that are a part of the Win32 API, which is the only thing any Windoze app needs to run.
You *really* don't need *any* code outside of the application itself. The reason you got screwed with SoftWindows on Irix is that it used cheesy emulation technology, which required a copy of Win95 to work. WINE is different. Wine Is Not an Eumlator. WINE does not require a single byte of data from Win95/NT. ----
[sarcasm]And of course, IBM's ridiculous decision to allow a teensy bit of openness absolutely ruined them. How can anyone expect Apple to be forced into something as terrible as competing in a Free market? You nasty Apple critics are so unrealisitc.[/sarcasm] ----
If you want to know how the thing works, just use the Source, Luke!:) The source code for their "registry" tool is GPL and can be grabbed from their ftp site.
I like these guys with their new distribution. They are trying to cater to the Windows crowd, which is a Good Thing (tm) in my book. Their goods do look frighteningly like Windoze, but you can easily forgive them when you remember, "Hey, that's their audience." The folk behind easyLinux really seem to get it, even if their English could use some work. ----
Slashdot Mirror
But what if you're agnustic?
The reason that Qt for Windows can remain non-free is that it is a separate product. I'm sure it has a big overlap with the codebase of Qt for X11, but that overlap is far from 100%. And in any case, licensing something under the GPL doesn't prevent the copyright holder from relicensing the code to someone else under different terms. The copyright holder can release the same exact code under a million different sets of license terms to a million different people.
Now is there anything preventing some hacker from coming along and porting the Qt/X11 code to Windows? No, there hasn't been since Qt was released under the QPL. I don't think Trolltech is very worried about anyone doing this any time soon, since (a) such a task would not be easy, and (b) no one has made any moves toward doing it yet, even though it's been possible for months upon months.
Qt will be triple-licenced under either the GPL or the QPL or the commercial-type license available from Trolltech, at the option of the user. Authors of non-free software will still be able to use Qt under the terms of the QPL if they wish. This scheme was well thought-out. Nobody's getting left out in the cold.
no!
"Why would I run MacOS X on intel when I can already run Linux or one of the BSDs?" The question could just as easily be, "Why run NetBSD on Intel when I could run Solaris x86 on Intel? Or the GNU Hurd? Or plain old Mach with the standard BSD personality?" Why run any Unix-like OS on your PC instead of any other? The answer is different strokes for different folks. All the various Unix-like OSen are just different enough from each other to make some people prefer one over the others.
Ok, that probably was not the answer you were looking for, so let me mention some of the technical features that MacOS X sports which you won't find in Linux or *BSD. The biggest difference that I can think of is the I/O and driver model that MacOS X uses. The IOKit is an OO framework for developing and making use of I/O and hardware drivers that was created from scratch by Apple mainly becuase FreeBSD's I/O subsystem didn't support the dynamic "plug-and-play" functionality that Apple wanted. Another big advantage that MacOS X has is its scalability to multi-processor machines. This is entirely due to the use of Mach as the core microkernel. One of Mach's original design goals was to be highly scalable on both closely coupled (a la SMP) and loosely coupled (a la Beowulf) multi-processor systems, and it shows in Mach's extensively multi-threaded and modular nature. There are also supposedly lots of fun things you can do with Mach's message passing/IPC facilities, but I don't know too much about that.
Gnomes are not a character class, they are a race. Sorry for nitpicking, but I just couldn't help it.
You have the wrong idea about the proper use of the powers of illusion. You don't go around pretending that you have the brute-force physical powers of a conjurer or evoker. Instead you have to be cunning and creative: you have to employ psychological warfare. Create a dazzling shower of light and sound to confuse your enemies and break their concentration. Or better yet, fool your enemies into believing that their allies are betraying them. Or you could even create illusions that are patently false, yet stunningly effective, like creating multiple images your fighter partner, only one of which is real (this last one is actually a pretty classic trick). The possibilies are truly endless.
Who cares if there are better x86 Unixes out there? Porting Darwin would be worth it just for the hack value.
The author of ROX is not implementing drag-and-drop from scratch. He is using the drag-and-drop API that is built into GTK+. Concerns about application compliancy is a complete red herring since all your GNOME and KDE apps will run perfectly well under ROX. You have to remember that GNOME and KDE play the role of application development framework in addition to their roles as desktop GUI. The two roles are actually quite distinct. ROX solely fills the role of desktop GUI and does not attempt to be an application framework at all. This is why developing ROX is a far lesser effort than developing GNOME or KDE. ROX also does not include a window manager, nor does it try to do engage in silly interactions with the window manager, thus making it even less complex. All of these reasons make a project like ROX worth implementing from scratch. It is not a wasted effort in the least.
Corel did not modify your license terms. They are merely refusing to distribute to a certain class of people. The GPL does not force Corel into distributing the software at all. If I have a peice of GPL'd software sitting here on my hard drive and you come up to me demanding that I give you a copy of it I have every right to refuse.
This might sound strange, but after reading the comments in this article that have Bruce Peren's name on them, I'm wondering if someone has not broken into his Slashdot account. How could anyone who has read and understood the GPL miss such an important point?
http://www.bedepot.com/order/promo_start.asp
Besides, I personally found the switch from libc5 to glibc rather painless. I simply did a full distribution upgrade so that all the important stuff was using the new libc, and if I still needed to use apps linked to libc5, the old libs were still around to provide a compatibility layer.
If you want to criticize Linux, criticize it for some of its real issues. Indulging in hyperbole only makes you look foolish. So come on; less bitching, and more *real* criticism.
This tool does not have to run under Windows to still be very useful. It can be easily built into the install process of a Linux distro to allow non-destructive repartitioning. In fact this is probably easier than using Partition Magic before starting the Linux installation since the process is more integrated.
Superlatively cool indeed. Now how do I modify this to print "DANIEL" instead of "DAVID"? (Without going insane in the process.) The last half hour was vainly spent attempting this very feat. I think I'm making headway but I think I need to discover the magic number for my name before I can go any further.
I think you're over-reacting. All of the distributions patch up the original source code of the included packages in order to ensure that everything works as a coherent whole, and to conform to the in-house standards for that distro. Debian does this, Red Hat does this. This fact is even reflected by the .rpm and .deb package formats: patches against the original source are kept fully distinct from each other, in order to ensure the respective integrity of both versions. Quite often, the changes made by individual distros are rolled back into the orginal, if the changes made are general and useful outside of the specific distro. However, just as often the changes made are not useful outside the specfic distro. One of the greatest advantages of free software is your freedom to modify the original version *without* the hassle of getting special permission from the original authors. This freedom brings an enormous advantage to the distributor in terms of maintainablilty. Just one more reason why free software in general, and Linux in particular are so great. :)
Don't get me wrong. I think it is stupid to prohibit pot and simultaneously permit alcohol, which is argably more harmful. But you are a fool if you think pot is harmless (much less shrooms or LSD!!).
You know, it took me a few moments of staring at your comment, but I just got that, and now I'm snickering quite heartily.
----
----
The fact that Netscape/AOL still retains ownership of much of the Mozilla code is irrelevent. Mozilla's licence prevents Netscape/AOL from denying us our rights to the code that has already been released.
----
WINE provides a free implementation of all the DLL's that are a part of the Win32 API, which is the only thing any Windoze app needs to run.
You *really* don't need *any* code outside of the application itself. The reason you got screwed with SoftWindows on Irix is that it used cheesy emulation technology, which required a copy of Win95 to work. WINE is different. Wine Is Not an Eumlator. WINE does not require a single byte of data from Win95/NT.
----
[sarcasm]And of course, IBM's ridiculous decision to allow a teensy bit of openness absolutely ruined them. How can anyone expect Apple to be forced into something as terrible as competing in a Free market? You nasty Apple critics are so unrealisitc.[/sarcasm]
----
I like these guys with their new distribution. They are trying to cater to the Windows crowd, which is a Good Thing (tm) in my book. Their goods do look frighteningly like Windoze, but you can easily forgive them when you remember, "Hey, that's their audience." The folk behind easyLinux really seem to get it, even if their English could use some work.
----
Siag Office
----