Right know Foobar Computers and Foobar Foodstuff are fighting over the domain foobar.com. If you get rid of TLDs, they will fight for.foobar. What's the difference?
Using trademarks for domain names won't work either. Foobar Computers and Foobar Foodstuff may well both have a trademark on the word Foobar, but for different products.
For a fun real-world illustration, see
this page. It lists many products called "Unix", such as Unix® diapers and Unix eyeglass frames.
The only solution I see, is (a) getting rid of.com,.net, etc. and only keep the regional domains and maybe.int, and (b) force organisations to use their full name. Of course, you won't have short URLs with this scheme...
It can't be copied unless you somehow intercepted the packets
If you don't know what you're talking, don't talk.
If you looked at the HTML of a lyrics.ch page, you would see that it linked to two CAB files: one containing the actual display applet, the other the lyrics in an (unencrypted) vector graphics file with 'rpf' extension (one per page).
(I say vector graphics, because it supports a lot of drawing primitives, but lyrics.ch only uses "set font" and "render text".)
If you just strip all non-ASCII characters, you get the lyrics and some junk (therefore, unencrypted). If you disassemble the Java code to figure out the file format, you can easily write a proper reader.
The lyrics are not encrypted. They are stored in some kind of vector graphics format, much like Windows Metafiles.
Try it:
Select a song, and look at the HTML code. It will load two CAB files, one with the Java applet, the other with the lyrics. Each page is stored in a file with as extension '.rpf'. Strip out the non-ASCII characters and you're left with the lyrics.
If you want to do it the "right" way, you can disassemble the Java code, find out the file format and write a proper reader. It's quite trivial.
TenDRA (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~patrykz/TenDRA/) also exists. The only thing I know about it is that it is included in Debian Woody. If anobody knows more, please reply:)
However the project needs to solve its legal issues.
Who says they ever will be solved? The whole OpenWatcom project can just disappear one morning because legal issues. Until source has been released I consider the project vaporware.
I looked a little in their BugZilla system, and saw that the DOS/4GW extender is one of those 'legal issues'. But why do they have to wait for permission for DOS/4GW to release the rest of the system? They can just strip out the utilities, libraries and what else they can't distribute. The result might not even compile, but that's not important. The important thing is that there's source. Maybe somebody can write replacements for the parts with 'legal issues'. Maybe we'll have to wait until they can sort it out. But in the meantime, the rest of the system is available, and will be available forever.
Still, the only thing they've done so far is make a end-of-life product (since June 30, 1999) available for download. That's nothing exceptional, Borland for example does the same thing with their old compilers.
BTW, there are several ports of gcc to DOS (DJGPP) and Windows (Cygwin, MinGW).
gcc is portable to dozens of different architectures, and can relatively easily be ported to new architectures or new languages. That's a very impressive feat.
Watcom generates very optimal code for the i386. That's also a very impressive feat.
In other words, but compilers are extremely good in what they are designed for.
First: being released under the GPL is very different from being released in the public domain. I direct you to the Copyright FAQ.
Watcom and gcc will never be a single compiler. Watcom's primary goal is to generate optimum code for the i386/DOS. gcc's goal is to be free and as portable as possible. Many of Watcom's optimisations will most likely find their way into gcc (and DJGPP), but they will remain two distinct projects.
This OpenWatcom project has existed for over a year, claiming they will make a open source release.
Yet they still haven't released a single line of source. They haven't even decided on a license. All they did is release a binary patch.
Why don't they just rip out the stuff they can't distribute, and publish the incomplete source? At the very least, it would be a proof of their intentions.
And as an extra plus, the people of the giFT project have already reverse-engineered the basics of the protocol.
They're planning on making a CGI, a Java and a wxWindows client. The current client is just a proof-of-concept, but (just barely) usable. (No multi-source downloading, no sharing of your own files). As a plus, you don't need an username.
The "Napster" name is still very well know. If you say "LimeWire" or "Morpheus", most people have no clue what you're talking about. Say "Napster" and everybody knows it's about getting music. In the popular press, these terms are synonyms.
When there's an agreement, it will be with a big artictle in every computer-related publication. It will most likely even be on the TV news. All saying "Napster/music downloading is now legal".
Napster will start a mass marketing campain. Paying computer magazines and ISPs to include their software on their CDs. They probably won't have problems with including it anyway, as it'd be legal. Combine that with paid-for nice reviews, and banners and the usual stuff, and you'd be suprised how quick the comeback of Napster can be. Even as a paid service.
I hear this everytime somebody ports $FREE_OS to $CONSOLE.
Has anybody actually written such a system? I'm sure there exists lots of MP3 libraries. But has anybody actually bothered to write an user interface for such thing? Like download the ISO, burn it and you're ready to go?
If you want to develop software for the Dreamcast, use KOS, which is a free development system, much better suited to the task than Linux. Similar systems exist for almost every proprietary platform (I know of a C compiler for the gameboy...)
Porting from the PC to console will never be easy anyway. Consider input methods. Most PC games use the mouse, with a lot of keyboard shortcuts. That won't work on a console.
Many PC games also assume a specific display resulotion. If the Dreamcast has less, you've got problems. (And the resolution of a TV ain't great.)
It's nice to see the portability of Linux demonstrated. And you can use it to really freak out some non-Linux people.
But has this any practical use? A TV screen isn't any good to display text. It isn't useful for developing games either. The Dreamcast community has created tools that are far better suited for that.
Here in Belgium, if you're mentioned in a newspaper article, and you don't agree with what it said, the newspaper is required by law to publish your reply. This is quite drastic, and thus not often done, but if you're sufficiently pissed off...
From your question I gather no such laws exist in the U.S.
Such a system would enforce extreme location transparency?any code fragment might run anywhere, any data object might live anywhere?and the system would manage the locality, replication, and migration of computations and data.
Oh boy... Windows 2050 is going to have problems with the SSSCA...;)
Slashdot Mirror
Right know Foobar Computers and Foobar Foodstuff are fighting over the domain foobar.com. If you get rid of TLDs, they will fight for .foobar. What's the difference?
Using trademarks for domain names won't work either. Foobar Computers and Foobar Foodstuff may well both have a trademark on the word Foobar, but for different products.
For a fun real-world illustration, see this page. It lists many products called "Unix", such as Unix® diapers and Unix eyeglass frames.
The only solution I see, is (a) getting rid of .com, .net, etc. and only keep the regional domains and maybe .int, and (b) force organisations to use their full name. Of course, you won't have short URLs with this scheme...
If you don't know what you're talking, don't talk.
If you looked at the HTML of a lyrics.ch page, you would see that it linked to two CAB files: one containing the actual display applet, the other the lyrics in an (unencrypted) vector graphics file with 'rpf' extension (one per page).
(I say vector graphics, because it supports a lot of drawing primitives, but lyrics.ch only uses "set font" and "render text".)
If you just strip all non-ASCII characters, you get the lyrics and some junk (therefore, unencrypted). If you disassemble the Java code to figure out the file format, you can easily write a proper reader.
It's some work, but you only have to do it once.
The lyrics are not encrypted. They are stored in some kind of vector graphics format, much like Windows Metafiles.
Try it: Select a song, and look at the HTML code. It will load two CAB files, one with the Java applet, the other with the lyrics. Each page is stored in a file with as extension '.rpf'. Strip out the non-ASCII characters and you're left with the lyrics.
If you want to do it the "right" way, you can disassemble the Java code, find out the file format and write a proper reader. It's quite trivial.
TenDRA (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~patrykz/TenDRA/) also exists. The only thing I know about it is that it is included in Debian Woody. If anobody knows more, please reply :)
since I put the NT 4.0 CD, that came with my computer, in the microwave.
The only acceptable use policy for Windows CD's :)
Who says they ever will be solved? The whole OpenWatcom project can just disappear one morning because legal issues. Until source has been released I consider the project vaporware.
I looked a little in their BugZilla system, and saw that the DOS/4GW extender is one of those 'legal issues'. But why do they have to wait for permission for DOS/4GW to release the rest of the system? They can just strip out the utilities, libraries and what else they can't distribute. The result might not even compile, but that's not important. The important thing is that there's source. Maybe somebody can write replacements for the parts with 'legal issues'. Maybe we'll have to wait until they can sort it out. But in the meantime, the rest of the system is available, and will be available forever.
Ok, I admit I was a little trollish.
Still, the only thing they've done so far is make a end-of-life product (since June 30, 1999) available for download. That's nothing exceptional, Borland for example does the same thing with their old compilers.
BTW, there are several ports of gcc to DOS (DJGPP) and Windows (Cygwin, MinGW).
Watcom was also known for generating very optimal code. It easily beat most other compilers.
When (if) they release it under the GPL, gcc's i386 code generation will become a lot better.
gcc is portable to dozens of different architectures, and can relatively easily be ported to new architectures or new languages. That's a very impressive feat.
Watcom generates very optimal code for the i386. That's also a very impressive feat.
In other words, but compilers are extremely good in what they are designed for.
Just pointing out that they haven't released a single line of code yet. They haven't shown any proof they will.
Therefore it is hardly a substantial Free/Open software project, and donating money is a little optimistic.
First: being released under the GPL is very different from being released in the public domain. I direct you to the Copyright FAQ.
Watcom and gcc will never be a single compiler. Watcom's primary goal is to generate optimum code for the i386/DOS. gcc's goal is to be free and as portable as possible. Many of Watcom's optimisations will most likely find their way into gcc (and DJGPP), but they will remain two distinct projects.
People are already writing very gcc-specific code for Linux. I've often seen that installation instructions for other Unices begin with 'install gcc'.
Slashdot, 22 August 2000 (not 2001): Sybase to Open Souce Watcom C/C++ & Fortran Compiler
They've been saying for over a year they will release the source.
This OpenWatcom project has existed for over a year, claiming they will make a open source release.
Yet they still haven't released a single line of source. They haven't even decided on a license. All they did is release a binary patch.
Why don't they just rip out the stuff they can't distribute, and publish the incomplete source? At the very least, it would be a proof of their intentions.
As it stands, this thing is just a hoax.
And as an extra plus, the people of the giFT project have already reverse-engineered the basics of the protocol.
They're planning on making a CGI, a Java and a wxWindows client. The current client is just a proof-of-concept, but (just barely) usable. (No multi-source downloading, no sharing of your own files). As a plus, you don't need an username.
The "Napster" name is still very well know. If you say "LimeWire" or "Morpheus", most people have no clue what you're talking about. Say "Napster" and everybody knows it's about getting music. In the popular press, these terms are synonyms.
When there's an agreement, it will be with a big artictle in every computer-related publication. It will most likely even be on the TV news. All saying "Napster/music downloading is now legal".
Napster will start a mass marketing campain. Paying computer magazines and ISPs to include their software on their CDs. They probably won't have problems with including it anyway, as it'd be legal. Combine that with paid-for nice reviews, and banners and the usual stuff, and you'd be suprised how quick the comeback of Napster can be. Even as a paid service.
Join the EFF.
Or at least donate.
You would think everybody on Slashdot would know about it by now.
I hear this everytime somebody ports $FREE_OS to $CONSOLE.
Has anybody actually written such a system? I'm sure there exists lots of MP3 libraries. But has anybody actually bothered to write an user interface for such thing? Like download the ISO, burn it and you're ready to go?
That's worth being on Slashdot.
If you want to develop software for the Dreamcast, use KOS, which is a free development system, much better suited to the task than Linux. Similar systems exist for almost every proprietary platform (I know of a C compiler for the gameboy...)
Porting from the PC to console will never be easy anyway. Consider input methods. Most PC games use the mouse, with a lot of keyboard shortcuts. That won't work on a console.
Many PC games also assume a specific display resulotion. If the Dreamcast has less, you've got problems. (And the resolution of a TV ain't great.)
It's nice to see the portability of Linux demonstrated. And you can use it to really freak out some non-Linux people.
But has this any practical use? A TV screen isn't any good to display text. It isn't useful for developing games either. The Dreamcast community has created tools that are far better suited for that.
Really, it's a nice hack. But it's been on slashdot before (Dreamcast runs Linux, X-Windows on Dreamcast).
Here in Belgium, if you're mentioned in a newspaper article, and you don't agree with what it said, the newspaper is required by law to publish your reply. This is quite drastic, and thus not often done, but if you're sufficiently pissed off...
From your question I gather no such laws exist in the U.S.
Here in Belgium, if you're named in a newspaper article and feel misrepresented, the newspaper is required by law to publish your reply.
Apparently, no such law exist in the U.S.
I think his opinion on that is pretty clear...
Oh boy... Windows 2050 is going to have problems with the SSSCA... ;)
If you mean a /. poll, don't be suprised if 30% answers 'cyberspace' or 'CowboyNeal' ;)