It's an academic boondoggle that has enough support to keep it alive, but not enough to actually keep it up to date. Implementations of it, like T-engine, feel like circa 1990 era SDKs, particularly if you want to write actual user applications (you know, if you have a job) rather than low level drivers.
For the most glaring example, there is no way (in the SDK that I have, at least) for process-based user applications to write to the screen. None. Yes, I'm serious. The one example in the SDK that attempts to do so fails (correctly) with an access violation. You actually have to write a custom screen driver if you want to allow your application to access the screen buffer.
T-Engine is fussy, confusingly documented, and basically just unpleasant to use compared to modern application platforms like Symbian, BREW or J2ME. I don't exactly see device manufacturers abandoning ARM chipsets and OSes in droves either. This is just another joke announcement about a toy OS designed for HelloWorld level projects.
I'm surprised that there was any expectation that the Supremes would rule any other way. If you've been following the evidence, it's clear that the defendants were engaged in the business of enabling and inducing others to violate copyright.
You can make a handgun. You can market the handgun as being great for "home defence." But when you market the handgun as being ideal for "Jacking hoopties" you've crossed a line.
I don't really see what the fuss is about. Since when were we pro-marketdroid rather than pro-technology round these parts anyway? The technology is still there, and can still be obtained. All that's changed is that now businesses won't be able to promote it so aggressively, and users will have to use a little effort to get it. You know, about as much effort as it would take to name files correctly, which can't be a bad thing.
I get all that. But I've heard BSD developers of all sorts claim that Linux is inferior because it accepts any old garbage into the (single) kernel. I don't get how Linus accepting one patch out of five candidates is more likely to produce garbage than five BSD distros each using (an equivelant) different candidate to do the same thing. In fact, it seems likely that 4 out of 5 BSD distros have picked a sub-optimal patch.
Maybe it's all just petty politics and dick swinging; I just wondered if there was any actual technical merit behind any of the claims.
Property right is not copyright. You can own a copy of a book without having the rights to make more copies, or for that matter to claim to others that you own all the rights in that book.
If acceptance of BSD code is 100% based on merit as I've repeatedly heard claimed, then why are there multiple different distributions? Shouldn't they all be using the best code?
> unless the board of the corporation EXPLICITLY turned the companies intellectual property over to the public domain.
How? There's no way to uncreate copyright. Saying "This work is in the public domain" is - at best - a vague indication that the work is licensed liberally and explicitely in perpetuity. It's a sort-of license that's wide open to challenge by the new owners, who would be able to go after everyone who has a copy.
You'd be better assigning the rights to a body that you trust to perform and protect liberal licensing of the work.
Seriously. You can claim rights on your additions, but you've laid claim to the whole thing. Did you re-write it from scratch, server, client, graphics, sound, videos, everything?
> if you release the binaries to the world, you must release your own code under the GPL to anyone to whom you supply binaries
And you can quote the part of the GPL that mandates that requirement, exactly that requirement, and only that requirement, right? I can see at least two things wrong with what you just said. Do you know what they are?
Where does the poster say that Windows was designed as a gaming platform? He says that it is a gaming platform.
BTW, ClanLib + Ogre is a viable complete cross platform API. It's all there and waiting right now. The only thing stopping it is, as you say, market share.
Seriously now. Remember when SCO were the good guys? Remember when Red Hat were... uh... hang on, they're still the good guys, right? Right? And they'll never, ever sell out to (for example) Microsoft, right? I mean, if they go under, they'll invoke the little known Chapter Eagle Scout bankruptcy protection to ensure that their liquidators eschew their fiduciary duty to make the most money for creditors and shareholders, and only sell the "defensive" patent portfolio to those who promise to use it for Good. Right?
For those with eyes to see, note and note well the difference between an unspecified "pledge", and an explicit, irrevocable license in perpetuity. They are not the same thing. IBM is offering the former for a reason. The reason is so that they can revoke it, at their sole discretion. Ponder on that. Ponder on it well.
IBM have changed before. They can change again. You'd have to be wildly optimistic or touchingly trusting to use any of the inventions covered by these patents.
(and notice how I "quote" you), I presume that you'll be able to cite the part of the article that says "the failed businesses [are] a tragedy to the man's resume."
What I notice that they actually said was:
"We liken investors giving Mr. Roberts money to people playing dice in Vegas. You just have to roll enough times and sooner or later you'll get a winner. Obviously, this isn't a solid winning strategy in Vegas or the business world."
You'll notice that I've again used quotation marks to indicate that this is something that they actually said, rather than something that I just believe that they might have said.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an academic boondoggle that has enough support to keep it alive, but not enough to actually keep it up to date. Implementations of it, like T-engine, feel like circa 1990 era SDKs, particularly if you want to write actual user applications (you know, if you have a job) rather than low level drivers. For the most glaring example, there is no way (in the SDK that I have, at least) for process-based user applications to write to the screen. None. Yes, I'm serious. The one example in the SDK that attempts to do so fails (correctly) with an access violation. You actually have to write a custom screen driver if you want to allow your application to access the screen buffer. T-Engine is fussy, confusingly documented, and basically just unpleasant to use compared to modern application platforms like Symbian, BREW or J2ME. I don't exactly see device manufacturers abandoning ARM chipsets and OSes in droves either. This is just another joke announcement about a toy OS designed for HelloWorld level projects.
I'm surprised that there was any expectation that the Supremes would rule any other way. If you've been following the evidence, it's clear that the defendants were engaged in the business of enabling and inducing others to violate copyright.
You can make a handgun. You can market the handgun as being great for "home defence." But when you market the handgun as being ideal for "Jacking hoopties" you've crossed a line.
I don't really see what the fuss is about. Since when were we pro-marketdroid rather than pro-technology round these parts anyway? The technology is still there, and can still be obtained. All that's changed is that now businesses won't be able to promote it so aggressively, and users will have to use a little effort to get it. You know, about as much effort as it would take to name files correctly, which can't be a bad thing.
Excuse me, please quote where they talked about "making" rather than what they actually said, which was (actual quote) "distributing".
Thanks, that's a good answer. So, is there a decent - informed but independent - resource that describes which BSD is good for which purpose?
I get all that. But I've heard BSD developers of all sorts claim that Linux is inferior because it accepts any old garbage into the (single) kernel. I don't get how Linus accepting one patch out of five candidates is more likely to produce garbage than five BSD distros each using (an equivelant) different candidate to do the same thing. In fact, it seems likely that 4 out of 5 BSD distros have picked a sub-optimal patch.
Maybe it's all just petty politics and dick swinging; I just wondered if there was any actual technical merit behind any of the claims.
Property right is not copyright. You can own a copy of a book without having the rights to make more copies, or for that matter to claim to others that you own all the rights in that book.
So you can stop arguing about the cost of rice and beans now.
If acceptance of BSD code is 100% based on merit as I've repeatedly heard claimed, then why are there multiple different distributions? Shouldn't they all be using the best code?
How? There's no way to uncreate copyright. Saying "This work is in the public domain" is - at best - a vague indication that the work is licensed liberally and explicitely in perpetuity. It's a sort-of license that's wide open to challenge by the new owners, who would be able to go after everyone who has a copy.
You'd be better assigning the rights to a body that you trust to perform and protect liberal licensing of the work.
It turns out that people generally don't understand or care about the issues of renting the right to play encrypted content.
Note that I didn't say for whom this was excellent news.
Seriously. You can claim rights on your additions, but you've laid claim to the whole thing. Did you re-write it from scratch, server, client, graphics, sound, videos, everything?
I have an extensive DVD libary that proves that he's a cretin. Next.
It's nice to see an adult posting here.
Oh, just read the damn license. I'm tired of explaining this crap to you cretins.
And you can quote the part of the GPL that mandates that requirement, exactly that requirement, and only that requirement, right? I can see at least two things wrong with what you just said. Do you know what they are?
The primary purpose of bnetd was to provide LAN based alternatives to Blizzard servers which, at the time of development, were in total disarray.
The primary use to which they were eventually put may have been different, but that's a different argument.
Where does the poster say that Windows was designed as a gaming platform? He says that it is a gaming platform.
BTW, ClanLib + Ogre is a viable complete cross platform API. It's all there and waiting right now. The only thing stopping it is, as you say, market share.
"because few residential users can justify spending money for vmware"
You know, if you really believe that, there's not one damn thing stopping you from selling it yourself.
Why don't you?
You have no idea how many people have beggared themselves after making that assumption.
With my reputation?
Waaaait a second...
Seriously now. Remember when SCO were the good guys? Remember when Red Hat were... uh... hang on, they're still the good guys, right? Right? And they'll never, ever sell out to (for example) Microsoft, right? I mean, if they go under, they'll invoke the little known Chapter Eagle Scout bankruptcy protection to ensure that their liquidators eschew their fiduciary duty to make the most money for creditors and shareholders, and only sell the "defensive" patent portfolio to those who promise to use it for Good. Right?
For those with eyes to see, note and note well the difference between an unspecified "pledge", and an explicit, irrevocable license in perpetuity. They are not the same thing. IBM is offering the former for a reason. The reason is so that they can revoke it, at their sole discretion. Ponder on that. Ponder on it well.
IBM have changed before. They can change again. You'd have to be wildly optimistic or touchingly trusting to use any of the inventions covered by these patents.
Xebus, it's hardly fucking brain surgery to work out.
(and notice how I "quote" you), I presume that you'll be able to cite the part of the article that says "the failed businesses [are] a tragedy to the man's resume."
What I notice that they actually said was:
"We liken investors giving Mr. Roberts money to people playing dice in Vegas. You just have to roll enough times and sooner or later you'll get a winner. Obviously, this isn't a solid winning strategy in Vegas or the business world."
You'll notice that I've again used quotation marks to indicate that this is something that they actually said, rather than something that I just believe that they might have said.
You know... little nekkid girls with huge eyes. School uniforms and huge guns (both sorts) never hurt either.