i dunno about linus but some issues i have with CVS: no support for atomic commits of sets of changes no support for rolling back change sets. it only really supports files as the basic item you are checking in. very slow to do complete diffs, no silent background syncing whilst you work. Handles directories in an odd way
On the plus side it is better than Visual source safe. but then, what isn't.
whereas the MySQL approach is to add things one at a time, making sure that everything works right from the beginning...
Yeah thats right you heard it here first! MYSQL hasn't had proper data integrity gurantees/ACID-compliance for years because they were trying to make sure "everything worked right".
There are often goverment grants or tax rebates available for research and development. I think OSS research and development is not neccessarily a bad thing even if isn't required for a specific "product".
Kind of ironic give that major OSS projects either have or do want to move away from C. KDE and GNOME spring to mind and so many security issues are caused by stupid things like directly addressing memory - that modern languages don't allow.
Fotunartely I don't think VB is in the running for a new gnome development platform.
Thats true and I agree they should fix major things like the box model and PNG support first. But I was talking about the difficulties of implementing *full* CSS2 compliance.
I expect the widgets are maintained by another team;)
Re:This sounds great but...
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps some of CSS2 requires updating the windows widgets to support more styling effects - I could see that being a bit of a pain.
Anyway realistically they only need to improve IE enough to supress firefox growth. I'm sure they don't really care that much about CSS support. For advanced web-applications they'd much rather people use the proprietary Avalon stuff soon to be released in 2009*.
Is that native like firefox, eg still slower than gnome apps with laggy menus and poor performance under X. Eg, a lightweight rendering system that needs to be re-optimised on every single platform to approach the performance of truly native toolkits? Or a properly cross platform native toolkit like SWT?
Sure better native emulation is nice, but unless they are planning on a truly native GUI then i hope OO doesn't kill other gnome office apps.
And why is it with these native GUI emulation systems in browsers, Openoffice and Java the only platform people want to make the GUI trully native in is osX. I suspect it's because mac users don't want to be shafted with 2nd class "native emulation" applications.
Bah, perhaps i should just give up on gnome and buy a mac mini...
It might be the case that publishers would refuse to allow publisher side ad systems to send profiling information back to the advertisers. But if I was an advertiser i would just make it a requirement of the deal.
Technically of course it wouldn't be too hard to proxy the cookie-ing through the publisher back to the advertiser if it ever became neccessary.
Although people go on about "user profiling" I see it happening relatively rarely *across* publisher sites, all the cookie-ing is generally used to give advertisers a unified reporting tool for all their advertising rather than having to try and get information from say 20 separate publishers and aggregate it manually in excel. This functionality is quite essential to company marketing departments so they can spend hours agonising over whether green or red backgrounds work better on tuesdays, and thus justify their salaries.
There is no "plan" in the ad industry. There are competing adserver/management products.
Ultimately if third party serving is not possible then content will be pulled B2B and embedded using publisher side admanagement solutions.
One side effect of this would probably be an increase in DHTML and DHTML/flash adverts. At the moment publishers quite like simple 3rd party serving but that is largely because they are less work and don't require changing the page content.
I don't see what you mean about people "giving up control of their site" the control is pretty similar the only difference will be their server will request 3rd party adverts and embed them rather than clients browsers doing it. And in both cases the 3rd party advertising product will probably be second to a publisher ad management product like DFP (dart for publishers) so they will remain in control as they do now.
The industry is pretty much driven by publishers most of whom are using advertising as their primary revenue stream. Some advertisers will pay large sums of money to run annoying DHTML/popup adverts some publishers will agree to this.
I think browsers should clearly block things that people never want, like unrequested windows. But with things like DHTML ads I think we'll have to wait for publishers to see a drop in users. Complaining to the publisher probably doesn't hurt either.
Whilst i'd be happy to use a micropayment system for the web rather than see adverts i'm probably in the minority.
I can see what you are saying, but I guess you know why?
Here is the IBM stack.
1. IBM hardware. 2. Linux/AIX OS 3. Java VM 5. Enterprise Application Platform + dev tools 6. Custom Development and Consultancy.
Only steps 5 and 6 make IBM money. IBM wants hardware to be cheap and plentiful and run Linux but mainly stable enterprise versions like redhat that can be certified. IBM wants java to be succesful and open and free. IBM wants the world to use it's development tools and kit so it makes lot's of them free like Eclipse even though it's quite cutting edge. IBM wishes to sell the very high end enterprise development tools and deployment platforms for $$ and also make a killing in consultancy and support contracts.
The hardware is already cheap and plentiful so they are ditching their own stuff. They are putting money into linux to make sure it becomes the server platform of choice. They are releasing Java tools like there is no tomorrow and trying to persuade sun to open it up.
Arguably, the GPL license is more free because it cancels out artificial restrictions placed on the software by copyright law. By cancelling out the copyright law effect it allows you to do "more" with the software not "less".
I'm not convinced that restrictions makes something less "free" if the restriction is designed to cancel out a larger set of restriction imposed by artificial laws. (laws = restrictions)
You can't relicense GPL'd software unless you have copyright on all contributions or permission from all the contributors. So if I release a contribution into a program under the GPL license and never agree to another license then it does remain free.
There are currently legal restrictions that can be placed on future versions of BSD licensed software that would make the modified software non-free. Mainly these are artificial restrictions such as copyright or license agreement (legal) restrictions.
The restrictions mentioned in the GPL are there to negate these legal restrictions.
To draw a parallel the IBM open source license puts in a paragraph of legal waft to try to protect the free software from patent disputes. this makes the license longer and more complicated but it does help to ensure the sofware remains "free" by most accepted defitions of "free". Someone could contribute to a BSD or GPL project whilst holding a patent on key technologies and neither the BSD or GPL license currently try to prevent this.
What i'm trying to get at is that due to artificial laws already in place in most countries designed to restrict freedoms (copyright and patent laws) it is probably neccessary to make licenses longer to guarantee the software remains "free".
Are the extra limitations really "limitatation" if they are designed to cancel out limitation imposed by copyright or patent law? The BSD license doesn't have these restrictions to cancel out the future restrictions that could be placed by law on the modified software. So if I contribute a module to apache and then a software company modifies my contribution by one line and sells it, copyright law prevents me from taking the modified software even though i wrote most of it, and selling it myself or modifying that copy.If the module had been GPL the extra legal waft in the license effectively stops copyright law from kicking in and guarantees that modified copy is as free as it would be in a world with copyright law.
It's fairly well established that some people believe something is more free if it has a license that restricts users ability to make versions of the software non-free whilst some people believe that software is more free if you have the right to make non-free versions.
I think regardless of how you define "free" both the BSD and GPL style licenses have different purposes.
When you say that if something was 100% free it wouldn't need a license that might be true if the world had no laws or commercial interests. That extra waft in the GPL that makes it longer than the BSD license is to make it clear that the software can't be moved from the category of "free" software to the category of "non-free" software by commercial interests.
Imagine another world (as Stallman problably does) where the law by default rather than supporting commercial interests supported freedom of software. In this world the GPL would be short and the BSD license long because the BSD license would need to explain that future versions of the software could be taken by private companies and changes withheld unlike "normal software" where future versions of the free software must remain free by default.
Slashdot Mirror
i dunno about linus but some issues i have with CVS:
no support for atomic commits of sets of changes
no support for rolling back change sets.
it only really supports files as the basic item you are checking in.
very slow to do complete diffs, no silent background syncing whilst you work.
Handles directories in an odd way
On the plus side it is better than Visual source safe. but then, what isn't.
It's also the best reason I can think of for Great Britain to stay out of the Euro.
Heh, yeah that, and we like having jobs.
whereas the MySQL approach is to add things one at a time, making sure that everything works right from the beginning...
Yeah thats right you heard it here first! MYSQL hasn't had proper data integrity gurantees/ACID-compliance for years because they were trying to make sure "everything worked right".
lol
There are often goverment grants or tax rebates available for research and development. I think OSS research and development is not neccessarily a bad thing even if isn't required for a specific "product".
Buying SUSE and claiming they are saving money on software licenses!
;)
Perhaps i could save money on my Windows licenses by buying Microsoft
Why do they float on top of everything else then? I always assumed that was because they were native/heavyweight.
Heh.
Kind of ironic give that major OSS projects either have or do want to move away from C. KDE and GNOME spring to mind and so many security issues are caused by stupid things like directly addressing memory - that modern languages don't allow.
Fotunartely I don't think VB is in the running for a new gnome development platform.
Thats true and I agree they should fix major things like the box model and PNG support first. But I was talking about the difficulties of implementing *full* CSS2 compliance.
;)
I expect the widgets are maintained by another team
Perhaps some of CSS2 requires updating the windows widgets to support more styling effects - I could see that being a bit of a pain.
Anyway realistically they only need to improve IE enough to supress firefox growth. I'm sure they don't really care that much about CSS support. For advanced web-applications they'd much rather people use the proprietary Avalon stuff soon to be released in 2009*.
(* Give or take a few years)
Simple remap root to an NFS share on my machine. reboot. voila :)
Then change the list of winners every 5 seconds just for the amusement value.
but in the longer term i'm not convinced many people are going to want to watch movies back to front.
Might be better if we had something other than a mouse for navigation.
Is that native like firefox, eg still slower than gnome apps with laggy menus and poor performance under X. Eg, a lightweight rendering system that needs to be re-optimised on every single platform to approach the performance of truly native toolkits? Or a properly cross platform native toolkit like SWT?
Sure better native emulation is nice, but unless they are planning on a truly native GUI then i hope OO doesn't kill other gnome office apps.
And why is it with these native GUI emulation systems in browsers, Openoffice and Java the only platform people want to make the GUI trully native in is osX.
I suspect it's because mac users don't want to be shafted with 2nd class "native emulation" applications.
Bah, perhaps i should just give up on gnome and buy a mac mini...
I see what you are saying but calling my lovingly crafted machine a shitbox doesn't endear me to the argument.
It might be the case that publishers would refuse to allow publisher side ad systems to send profiling information back to the advertisers. But if I was an advertiser i would just make it a requirement of the deal.
Technically of course it wouldn't be too hard to proxy the cookie-ing through the publisher back to the advertiser if it ever became neccessary.
Although people go on about "user profiling" I see it happening relatively rarely *across* publisher sites, all the cookie-ing is generally used to give advertisers a unified reporting tool for all their advertising rather than having to try and get information from say 20 separate publishers and aggregate it manually in excel.
This functionality is quite essential to company marketing departments so they can spend hours agonising over whether green or red backgrounds work better on tuesdays, and thus justify their salaries.
There is no "plan" in the ad industry. There are competing adserver/management products.
Ultimately if third party serving is not possible then content will be pulled B2B and embedded using publisher side admanagement solutions.
One side effect of this would probably be an increase in DHTML and DHTML/flash adverts. At the moment publishers quite like simple 3rd party serving but that is largely because they are less work and don't require changing the page content.
I don't see what you mean about people "giving up control of their site" the control is pretty similar the only difference will be their server will request 3rd party adverts and embed them rather than clients browsers doing it. And in both cases the 3rd party advertising product will probably be second to a publisher ad management product like DFP (dart for publishers) so they will remain in control as they do now.
The industry is pretty much driven by publishers most of whom are using advertising as their primary revenue stream. Some advertisers will pay large sums of money to run annoying DHTML/popup adverts some publishers will agree to this.
I think browsers should clearly block things that people never want, like unrequested windows. But with things like DHTML ads I think we'll have to wait for publishers to see a drop in users. Complaining to the publisher probably doesn't hurt either.
Whilst i'd be happy to use a micropayment system for the web rather than see adverts i'm probably in the minority.
Matt
Arr sorry, I was talking about the UK.
Netware is entrenched in goverment organisations. therefore Suse/Novell open server needs to be rubber stamped ASAP.
I can see what you are saying, but I guess you know why?
;)
Here is the IBM stack.
1. IBM hardware.
2. Linux/AIX OS
3. Java VM
5. Enterprise Application Platform + dev tools
6. Custom Development and Consultancy.
Only steps 5 and 6 make IBM money.
IBM wants hardware to be cheap and plentiful and run Linux but mainly stable enterprise versions like redhat that can be certified.
IBM wants java to be succesful and open and free.
IBM wants the world to use it's development tools and kit so it makes lot's of them free like Eclipse even though it's quite cutting edge.
IBM wishes to sell the very high end enterprise development tools and deployment platforms for $$ and also make a killing in consultancy and support contracts.
The hardware is already cheap and plentiful so they are ditching their own stuff. They are putting money into linux to make sure it becomes the server platform of choice. They are releasing Java tools like there is no tomorrow and trying to persuade sun to open it up.
It's an odd fit cos IBM used to sell hardware
heh, yeah their best bet on the desktop front is currently Suns java desktop or linspire.
Doesn't inspire confidence that we'll achieve desktop linux this year does it.
Arguably, the GPL license is more free because it cancels out artificial restrictions placed on the software by copyright law. By cancelling out the copyright law effect it allows you to do "more" with the software not "less".
I'm not convinced that restrictions makes something less "free" if the restriction is designed to cancel out a larger set of restriction imposed by artificial laws. (laws = restrictions)
You can't relicense GPL'd software unless you have copyright on all contributions or permission from all the contributors. So if I release a contribution into a program under the GPL license and never agree to another license then it does remain free.
There are currently legal restrictions that can be placed on future versions of BSD licensed software that would make the modified software non-free. Mainly these are artificial restrictions such as copyright or license agreement (legal) restrictions.
The restrictions mentioned in the GPL are there to negate these legal restrictions.
To draw a parallel the IBM open source license puts in a paragraph of legal waft to try to protect the free software from patent disputes. this makes the license longer and more complicated but it does help to ensure the sofware remains "free" by most accepted defitions of "free". Someone could contribute to a BSD or GPL project whilst holding a patent on key technologies and neither the BSD or GPL license currently try to prevent this.
What i'm trying to get at is that due to artificial laws already in place in most countries designed to restrict freedoms (copyright and patent laws) it is probably neccessary to make licenses longer to guarantee the software remains "free".
Are the extra limitations really "limitatation" if they are designed to cancel out limitation imposed by copyright or patent law? The BSD license doesn't have these restrictions to cancel out the future restrictions that could be placed by law on the modified software. So if I contribute a module to apache and then a software company modifies my contribution by one line and sells it, copyright law prevents me from taking the modified software even though i wrote most of it, and selling it myself or modifying that copy.If the module had been GPL the extra legal waft in the license effectively stops copyright law from kicking in and guarantees that modified copy is as free as it would be in a world with copyright law.
I don't know if you comment is a troll or not.
It's fairly well established that some people believe something is more free if it has a license that restricts users ability to make versions of the software non-free whilst some people believe that software is more free if you have the right to make non-free versions.
I think regardless of how you define "free" both the BSD and GPL style licenses have different purposes.
When you say that if something was 100% free it wouldn't need a license that might be true if the world had no laws or commercial interests. That extra waft in the GPL that makes it longer than the BSD license is to make it clear that the software can't be moved from the category of "free" software to the category of "non-free" software by commercial interests.
Imagine another world (as Stallman problably does) where the law by default rather than supporting commercial interests supported freedom of software. In this world the GPL would be short and the BSD license long because the BSD license would need to explain that future versions of the software could be taken by private companies and changes withheld unlike "normal software" where future versions of the free software must remain free by default.
Matt.
But they might as well block it now for the cheapo juke boxes later.
depends what features you use.