Exactly. But only if you link statically. Dinamic linking is OK.
I also think is inconsistent with the purpose of the LGPL. At least if you want to avoid DLL hell.
It seems to be mainly intended for C libraries like glibc and not for general purpose software in arbitraly languages. In Lisp for example there is no clear difference between static and dinamic linking because you can link to a library in runtime (dinamically) and then save that running Lisp image as a file for later loading, making the linking static.
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
--snip--
Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
So, the GP quoted the wrong Web page, but your statement is wrong. If you need static linking the LGPL is as infectious as the GPL. (That's why ECL LGPL license is pointless, as ECL is intended to be statically linked).
Well, not exactly. You don't need a console to use a gamepad. I have one for my pc, it's a Logitech one that looks exactly like the PS2 one.
What I did was this: In one pc: mouse + keyboard. Me. In the other pc: logitech gamepad. An 'expert' Halo player.
I have to say, the Halo player is a damn good bastard. I expected total ownage and I still won half the time, but it was not what I expected. He could beat me more times than I was ready to accept. It also helps that the logitech gamepad is very good, better than I feel the PS2 ones. And that he beats everyone else I know at Halo.
My revenge? I put him online, and really good players kicked his ass, but he still got too many frags for all the "controller's sucks" crowd to believe.
However, I had a crappy mouse, and now I have a superb Logitech MX500 with zero acceleration and great response. I hope to do round 2 as soon as possible.
It doesn't matter that nobody programmed on bare Win32. The end user only needed win32 to run the programs, and all looked the same, and all had the same clipboard since the beginning and so on. An extra DLL in the application directory didn't really made any difference. The different GUI toolkits existed as a help to the programmer, they didn't look different and the end user didn't need to know about them.
In Linux when the programmer chooses a GUI API it sort of limits itself to half the linux users. That's much less true now than when Gnome started, and I truly like the freedesktop.org thing, but it's still true to a degree (i.e. it depends on each user).
Bear in mind, that all this time I have talked about the hordes of developers that once wrote Foxpro apps, then Visual basic and now Java and.NET stuff. They're the ones that are NOT developing Linux desktop stuff as a result of Gnome.
Also, if GUI toolkits are not that important, but the logic is, then everybody should do only console programs (and Web stuff), that's what you're telling me? Try to sell that to end users.
Finally: I should NOT HAVE TO port an application between GTK+ and QT. There should not be dependency hell in any OS. An unified standard API with GUI components would help a lot about that.
Almost totally wrong men. I prefer Windows to Linux as a desktop, and sometimes as a server, as I do mostly SQLServer DBA stuff. No fanboyism here. But I think APIs are important. In fact, the lack of an unified Linux API and the boring religious wars have driven me out of Linux development. OSX is the one that interests me now. However, I don't believe in coincidences. Everything I said could perfectly be true. You don't believe me, fine. Time will tell. I stand by my position. Refute my points if you want to and if you have the info, but attacking me? That's so catholic church-like.
I thing all the projects started by Icaza have been secretly backed by Microsoft (except midnight commander). This includes Gnome.
MS monopoly is all about protecting the API. As Ballmer said: developers, developers, developers! They had one API everybody used, win32, and it was their crown jewel. As long as everybody keep developing for win32, MS would win.
Then came Linux. If Linux distros could provide a competing API to Win32, MS would be screwed. MS solution? fragment the Linux API. You see, one of the main values of a successful API is that it's universal. So how to destroy Linux? Destroy the universality of the API. Make not one, but TWO competing APIs! Then developers would have endless religious wars and Linux would not grow as a competing commercial platform against Win32. How to do it? Make Gnome and start a religious war against the then 'closed license' QT libraries. Forward ten years and what's the result? Nobody uses either KDE or Gnome to develop commercial software, the 'developers, developers, developers' are still somewhere else. Oracle uses Java as the API when running in Linux. And who started Gnome? Icaza.
Meanwhile Java becomes stronger against C++. Developers switch to Java.
Now what happens, MS decides to create a new API from zero, sacrificing their beloved Win32. The new API is then called.NET. They have to do this, because they could not destroy Java. Now MS has to protect.NET, make it the universal API that every developer would use. Linux (as always) is a threat to MS. So what's MS strategy this time? The same they used against Java, just a little backwards.
Against Java they used the embrace and extend, promoting J++, that used MS proprietary extensions to the Java language to achieve developer lock in. To protect.NET from Linux, they would do a backwards embrace an extend: give Linux a limited.NET implementation, so that developers would still be locked to.NET proprietary extensions in the Windows platform. This limited.NET implementation is MONO. And who started MONO? Icaza.
Right now it is Java vs.NET, everywhere where developers make $$$.
Icaza is also a strong backer of the Novel-MS deal.
All I can see Icaza doing lately is telling everybody: "why can't we be friends?", but I seriously suspect the motives behind it.
Well, you should ask the Starcraft players that hit 250 actions per minute using just the mouse.
AFAIK they're doing fine. On the other hand, they can spend $100 on a mouse, and are not using el-cheapo brands.
In my experience the mouse shape and quality are very decisive factors. I'm 29, I use a Logitech MX-500 and doing 120 clicks per minute during half an hour makes absolutely no impact on me. However using another mouse just for Web browsing makes me feel very uncomfortable very soon.
The Java API is as awful as the language behind it. You can only say that if you have not used any other useful API, ever. Java the language is not a better C++, is a dumbed down C++ with some standard stuff added to make it buzzword compliant.
The Java VM, however, with its JIT compiler and stuff, is a marvelous work of art. This JVM is not necessarily 'Java the language' centric, as compilers for other languages have been provided. I only mention this so you won't confuse both concepts. Garbage collection is a feature both of the JVM and of the language, but guess where's implemented?
With this JVM you have a bytecode class file, and it runs pretty much everywhere. And it runs fast. Fast like hell for a partially interpreted language. It's still slower than C/C++, but it's slower by only a factor of 10 or even 2 in some cases. Compare it with all the other heavily used multiplatform languages, like PHP, Ruby and so on, and they are slower than C by much bigger factors, between 20 and 100 times slower.
I put all the reasons of the success of Java in the JVM, that's it, what users have to use to run java programs, than in the language per se, that is, what the programmers have to endure and suffer in order to create said Java programs. Stuff like bignums are so painful after you have tasted Lisp power that it hurts. However, Lisp doesn't have the JVM, and Java does.
I do agree with you, and I have to add something else:
In consoles, controler setup is the most crappy thing ever. You have like 4 fixed setups and you have to chose one of them.
I got used to shift gears in car sims and racers with the R1 y R2 keys in a PS2 like gamepad in the PC. I can use the gamepad any way I like in the PC. Then going to a console and getting just 4 crappy setups that have no logic or ergonomics in them is very very frustrating.
And that can happen in the exactly same game, in both cases, like NFSU.
When playing both Descent and Descent Freespace, I had to find a reference direction of "Up" and assume that it's really up, not because the ship needed it, but because I needed it.
We still think more or less in 2D, for positioning and stuff.
It is almost evident that a charismatic leader activates in his followers the exact 'religious center' of the brain that's the central point of this article. I'm sure Hitler did it, and probably most of the local leaders in Communism.
And any scientist doubting and rechecking his results is the common example of the anti-dogmatist.
And both things could perfectly happen to the very same person. So the custom of labelling people is most of the time a waste.
As Heinlein said: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
I also remember reading somewhere that early christianity helped the grow of civilization because it finally ended with the practice of child murdering.
Where you see problems I see a business opportunity.
I'm sure the Flash/Flex people see things the same way, but they are making stuff to get into the RIA framework industry to tackle that business. May be even creating that industry.
About the OS in your browser, and the excess of XML praise, well those practices will not get that far. So I see no problem there. At all.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. But only if you link statically. Dinamic linking is OK.
I also think is inconsistent with the purpose of the LGPL. At least if you want to avoid DLL hell.
It seems to be mainly intended for C libraries like glibc and not for general purpose software in arbitraly languages. In Lisp for example there is no clear difference between static and dinamic linking because you can link to a library in runtime (dinamically) and then save that running Lisp image as a file for later loading, making the linking static.
I really like this (previously unheard of) CDDL license.
And your reasons are just right on the spot.
So, the GP quoted the wrong Web page, but your statement is wrong. If you need static linking the LGPL is as infectious as the GPL. (That's why ECL LGPL license is pointless, as ECL is intended to be statically linked).
I use they grey-silver theme, or recently, a black one.
Yes the blue is awful, but the grey one looks better than Win95-2k.
Well, not exactly. You don't need a console to use a gamepad. I have one for my pc, it's a Logitech one that looks exactly like the PS2 one.
What I did was this:
In one pc: mouse + keyboard. Me.
In the other pc: logitech gamepad. An 'expert' Halo player.
I have to say, the Halo player is a damn good bastard. I expected total ownage and I still won half the time, but it was not what I expected. He could beat me more times than I was ready to accept. It also helps that the logitech gamepad is very good, better than I feel the PS2 ones. And that he beats everyone else I know at Halo.
My revenge? I put him online, and really good players kicked his ass, but he still got too many frags for all the "controller's sucks" crowd to believe.
However, I had a crappy mouse, and now I have a superb Logitech MX500 with zero acceleration and great response. I hope to do round 2 as soon as possible.
It doesn't matter that nobody programmed on bare Win32. The end user only needed win32 to run the programs, and all looked the same, and all had the same clipboard since the beginning and so on. An extra DLL in the application directory didn't really made any difference. The different GUI toolkits existed as a help to the programmer, they didn't look different and the end user didn't need to know about them.
.NET stuff. They're the ones that are NOT developing Linux desktop stuff as a result of Gnome.
In Linux when the programmer chooses a GUI API it sort of limits itself to half the linux users. That's much less true now than when Gnome started, and I truly like the freedesktop.org thing, but it's still true to a degree (i.e. it depends on each user).
Bear in mind, that all this time I have talked about the hordes of developers that once wrote Foxpro apps, then Visual basic and now Java and
Also, if GUI toolkits are not that important, but the logic is, then everybody should do only console programs (and Web stuff), that's what you're telling me? Try to sell that to end users.
Finally: I should NOT HAVE TO port an application between GTK+ and QT. There should not be dependency hell in any OS. An unified standard API with GUI components would help a lot about that.
True, there's Openmotif, bare X and some more stuff.
But GTK and QT are the only ones that really matter.
Almost totally wrong men.
I prefer Windows to Linux as a desktop, and sometimes as a server, as I do mostly SQLServer DBA stuff.
No fanboyism here.
But I think APIs are important.
In fact, the lack of an unified Linux API and the boring religious wars have driven me out of Linux development. OSX is the one that interests me now.
However, I don't believe in coincidences. Everything I said could perfectly be true. You don't believe me, fine. Time will tell. I stand by my position. Refute my points if you want to and if you have the info, but attacking me? That's so catholic church-like.
I believe that's a reason for just ONE desktop. Of course I'm talking about KDE. The first and true one.
I thing all the projects started by Icaza have been secretly backed by Microsoft (except midnight commander). This includes Gnome.
.NET. They have to do this, because they could not destroy Java. Now MS has to protect .NET, make it the universal API that every developer would use. Linux (as always) is a threat to MS. So what's MS strategy this time? The same they used against Java, just a little backwards.
.NET from Linux, they would do a backwards embrace an extend: give Linux a limited .NET implementation, so that developers would still be locked to .NET proprietary extensions in the Windows platform. This limited .NET implementation is MONO. And who started MONO? Icaza.
.NET, everywhere where developers make $$$.
MS monopoly is all about protecting the API. As Ballmer said: developers, developers, developers! They had one API everybody used, win32, and it was their crown jewel. As long as everybody keep developing for win32, MS would win.
Then came Linux. If Linux distros could provide a competing API to Win32, MS would be screwed. MS solution? fragment the Linux API. You see, one of the main values of a successful API is that it's universal. So how to destroy Linux? Destroy the universality of the API. Make not one, but TWO competing APIs! Then developers would have endless religious wars and Linux would not grow as a competing commercial platform against Win32. How to do it? Make Gnome and start a religious war against the then 'closed license' QT libraries. Forward ten years and what's the result? Nobody uses either KDE or Gnome to develop commercial software, the 'developers, developers, developers' are still somewhere else. Oracle uses Java as the API when running in Linux. And who started Gnome? Icaza.
Meanwhile Java becomes stronger against C++. Developers switch to Java.
Now what happens, MS decides to create a new API from zero, sacrificing their beloved Win32. The new API is then called
Against Java they used the embrace and extend, promoting J++, that used MS proprietary extensions to the Java language to achieve developer lock in. To protect
Right now it is Java vs
Icaza is also a strong backer of the Novel-MS deal.
All I can see Icaza doing lately is telling everybody: "why can't we be friends?", but I seriously suspect the motives behind it.
Well, you should ask the Starcraft players that hit 250 actions per minute using just the mouse.
AFAIK they're doing fine. On the other hand, they can spend $100 on a mouse, and are not using el-cheapo brands.
In my experience the mouse shape and quality are very decisive factors. I'm 29, I use a Logitech MX-500 and doing 120 clicks per minute during half an hour makes absolutely no impact on me. However using another mouse just for Web browsing makes me feel very uncomfortable very soon.
To all the whiners: buy a better mouse.
The Java API is as awful as the language behind it. You can only say that if you have not used any other useful API, ever. Java the language is not a better C++, is a dumbed down C++ with some standard stuff added to make it buzzword compliant.
The Java VM, however, with its JIT compiler and stuff, is a marvelous work of art. This JVM is not necessarily 'Java the language' centric, as compilers for other languages have been provided. I only mention this so you won't confuse both concepts. Garbage collection is a feature both of the JVM and of the language, but guess where's implemented?
With this JVM you have a bytecode class file, and it runs pretty much everywhere. And it runs fast. Fast like hell for a partially interpreted language. It's still slower than C/C++, but it's slower by only a factor of 10 or even 2 in some cases. Compare it with all the other heavily used multiplatform languages, like PHP, Ruby and so on, and they are slower than C by much bigger factors, between 20 and 100 times slower.
I put all the reasons of the success of Java in the JVM, that's it, what users have to use to run java programs, than in the language per se, that is, what the programmers have to endure and suffer in order to create said Java programs. Stuff like bignums are so painful after you have tasted Lisp power that it hurts. However, Lisp doesn't have the JVM, and Java does.
I have JVM envy.
Well, that's exactly what our neighbors made of normal matter think about it. They have a mayority of the mass of the universe after all.
However, they can't see us either. The universe is a little like the silent hill movie.
You should be more open minded, after all this is the year of the fruitbat ^^
I've being doing this in Opera for months, perhaps years.
/. bookmark'.
In fact the first time I realized it, I just thought: 'one moment, I don't remember saving that
Anyway, good thing you noticed it ^^.
There are like five or six of you.
I do agree with you, and I have to add something else:
In consoles, controler setup is the most crappy thing ever. You have like 4 fixed setups and you have to chose one of them.
I got used to shift gears in car sims and racers with the R1 y R2 keys in a PS2 like gamepad in the PC. I can use the gamepad any way I like in the PC. Then going to a console and getting just 4 crappy setups that have no logic or ergonomics in them is very very frustrating.
And that can happen in the exactly same game, in both cases, like NFSU.
In this case, PC gaming rules.
When playing both Descent and Descent Freespace, I had to find a reference direction of "Up" and assume that it's really up, not because the ship needed it, but because I needed it.
We still think more or less in 2D, for positioning and stuff.
No need to go to extremes.
It is almost evident that a charismatic leader activates in his followers the exact 'religious center' of the brain that's the central point of this article. I'm sure Hitler did it, and probably most of the local leaders in Communism.
And any scientist doubting and rechecking his results is the common example of the anti-dogmatist.
And both things could perfectly happen to the very same person. So the custom of labelling people is most of the time a waste.
As Heinlein said: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
I think you're right.
I also remember reading somewhere that early christianity helped the grow of civilization because it finally ended with the practice of child murdering.
Well, they both were very dogmatic movements with charismatic leaders. Or at least Hitler was very charismatic, don't know about Stalin.
I can only consider true atheists people without dogmatic beliefs.
Totally agree with you.
However, I do think that religion give us an evolutionary advantage: Religion makes us much better killers. Not individually, but in large groups.
Where you see problems I see a business opportunity.
I'm sure the Flash/Flex people see things the same way, but they are making stuff to get into the RIA framework industry to tackle that business. May be even creating that industry.
About the OS in your browser, and the excess of XML praise, well those practices will not get that far. So I see no problem there. At all.
No, you don't get shocked all the time. In fact I have never received a shock from them.
However, you can mildly burn your skin if very few water passes through the resistance. My skin is red after I take a shower, as I like hot water.
They are so common and safe that I can only consider your comment as very ignorant. Even Retarded.
R -SHOWER-HEAD_W0QQitemZ160089373049QQihZ006QQcatego ryZ115967QQcmdZViewItem
The two in my house look close to this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ELECTRIC-TANKLESS-WATER-HEATE