BSD Sockets is an *interface* (an API) to networking.
Winsock is an open standard that allow people to write networking code for Windows, as well as write the networking stack.
MS doesn't use the TCP/IP stack from BSD, though.
> If I pay taxes, and that tax money goes to pay for the development of some piece of code, then all taxpayers should never have to pay for that code again, ever.
And if it's public domain, that is exactly what will happen.
A company may take this code, improve/add/extend it, and try to sell it. *You* get to decide if the additions that the company made are worth the money.
Just like anywhere else.
Win95, Win98, WinME are not forks, they are upgrades/new versions.
WinNT, Win2000, WinXP are not forks, they are upgrades.
It's quetionable whatever NT is a fork of Windows (Windows predate NT. ), on general, I would say that it isn't, because the different code base was there from the start.
They didn't take Windows code and changed it to NT, they created a whole new OS.
Win95 can be thought of as a NT fork, because it uses the same API, but is totally different from the inside.
No, they can't.
Only if they are willing to release their software under the GPL.
OpenBSD can't use GPL code, because you can't do what you want with it, and that is against Theo's belief.
Apache can't use GPL code, because that would require GPLing the whole thing.
Assuming he was talking about GPL code, than Ballmer is correct in this statement.
> Incorrect. The GPL is also license-compatible with a number of less-restrictive licenses, and I would think that public-domain would also be included.
Incorrect, what you call license compatible means that you can turn code under one license to GPL code.
This is not what *I* call compatible.
Compatible will be using GPL code in my code, releasing the changes to the *GPL code* under the GPL, and doing WTF I want with *my* code.
GPL is not compatible with anything.
Because it places several limitation, and one of them is that you may not add more limitation to the GPL.
You seem to be worry about properity, but what about no-GPL OSS?
Releasing code under the GPL means that you can't use it in non-GPL code, that include BSD, Apache, X11, as well as a host of other stuff.
No, you can't.
I can't use it in non-GPL code, and that is a problem.
You seem to think that non-GPL == propeity, but that isn't so.
Apache can't use GPL code, neither can the *BSDs.
Let's say that the goverment fund a web server research, and they come up with the greatest & best web server code ever.
Now, if they release it to the public domain, Apache can incoporate parts of it into their own web server.
And *BSD could include it as part of their distribution.
Anyone can write plugins that extend this server capabilities.
However, if they release it under the GPL, none of the above is possible.
See what is the problem here? The goverment paid for it, meaning that it came from the taxpayer money.
And the goverment is blocking you from using code the you paid for, basically.
Goverment fund code, the goverment funding came from *you*.
Now, they release it to the public.
You go and change the code, why would there any limitation on what you can do with it?
In essence, *you* paid for it, so you can't use it the way you want?
The right way to license software which was paid by the tax payers is to release it under public domain.
That way, everyone can use it, to whatever they want.
Usually, when someone write a piece of software, they sit down and design it (assuming they are smart).
They built a list of requirements and then code that answer those requirements.
Making the design extendible is a nice requirement to have, but it's *not* there, more often that not.
And "Do it *fast*" requirement, is *always* there.
So you get an application that does what the client says they need.
Then you need a new version, with more stuff in it, so you build on top of the old design, and the next version build on top of that, etc.
There is a limit to how much you can extend a design without a major re-write.
Especially since it takes a *lot* of time & effort to get the design right in the first place. And even then, a re-write from scratch means that you get a better design, (well, usually).
Take Netscape, frex. Built on Mozilla's code, it was an excellent browser for 3 versions, and on 4.0 it flopped. Why? Because NS got cought on hype. (Not to mention the bad stuff that happen when you do cross platform development.)
They re - wrote large parts of their browser in Java, realized too late that it's too slow and re-wrote it *again* in C++.
NS 4 is something of a mastery, of how *not* to extend a design.
By 4.0, NS engineers realized that this code-base was going no where. They could invest tremendous amount of effort cleaning up their act, but that would be stupid. It would be much better to re-write from scratch, you still get to use the old code for a lot of thing, but you don't have to adapt a design that may not be applicable anymore to your needs.
It certainly didn't help that NS tried to be everything all at once.
On contrast, take IE. Built on the same code base (Mozilla), but apperantly making much better seperation & modolization, allow MS to continue expend IE.
I would hazzard a guess that using COM help very much.
IE is much more complex project than NS, and I don't think that NS decision to throw everything but the kitchen sink inside the browser was wise.
I think that Mozilla made the same design mistake, they shouldv'e focused on getting to 1.0 with a usable *browser*, email programs/WYSIWYG HTML editor/news clients there are aplenty, and they are quite good.
Lucky for Mozilla, they seperated stuff much better than NS did, so you can take just the renderring engine (the heart of a browser) and make just a browser (still, I cannot help but grieve on all those man hours spent on programming email & news clients).
BTW, on of MS' most prized possesion, Win2K, is about 40% re-write (but then, you have to consider what they put in).
And XP is little more than a shell & compatability update.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, like the zip code, licensed from WinZip, defragger, licensed from DiskKeeper, TS licensed from Critix, etc?
Actually, MS has a standard n-2 support policy. ;-D )
This mean that (currently), NT 3.51 is still on the support list, (And Win95 isn't
BSD Sockets is an *interface* (an API) to networking.
Winsock is an open standard that allow people to write networking code for Windows, as well as write the networking stack.
MS doesn't use the TCP/IP stack from BSD, though.
1M per customer isn't very much.
Consider how much a system solution can cost (check TPC.org for details).
Beside, 5000 Windows licenses are 1M.
> If I pay taxes, and that tax money goes to pay for the development of some piece of code, then all taxpayers should never have to pay for that code again, ever.
And if it's public domain, that is exactly what will happen.
A company may take this code, improve/add/extend it, and try to sell it. *You* get to decide if the additions that the company made are worth the money.
Just like anywhere else.
Let's say that MS bundle a GPL program on Windows CD.
This mean that all of Windows now must be GPLed.
No, he can't.
A passage from a book fall under fair use laws.
If you copied considerable parts (full chapters), *then* he would've a point.
That is the opposite, actually, it's Win9x that is the fork, not NT.
No, I don't think so.
Win9x can be considered a Win32 fork, but NT & Win32 are the same thing. (IE, Win32 was developed to NT, and NT always had it).
You mean, like MSDN, msdn.microsoft.com
Win95, Win98, WinME are not forks, they are upgrades/new versions.
WinNT, Win2000, WinXP are not forks, they are upgrades.
It's quetionable whatever NT is a fork of Windows (Windows predate NT. ), on general, I would say that it isn't, because the different code base was there from the start.
They didn't take Windows code and changed it to NT, they created a whole new OS.
Win95 can be thought of as a NT fork, because it uses the same API, but is totally different from the inside.
About netscape being the best, did you compare the memory foot print of the two browsers? The amount of crashes per unit-of-time? Standard compliance?
On all of the above, IE is the clear winner.
> I am "limited" (giggle) to true cross-platform browsers like Netscape, Opera, and yes, Internet Explorer.
You might've meant that as a joke, but IE is indeed cross platform.
No, they can't.
Only if they are willing to release their software under the GPL.
OpenBSD can't use GPL code, because you can't do what you want with it, and that is against Theo's belief.
Apache can't use GPL code, because that would require GPLing the whole thing.
Assuming he was talking about GPL code, than Ballmer is correct in this statement.
> Incorrect. The GPL is also license-compatible with a number of less-restrictive licenses, and I would think that public-domain would also be included.
Incorrect, what you call license compatible means that you can turn code under one license to GPL code.
This is not what *I* call compatible.
Compatible will be using GPL code in my code, releasing the changes to the *GPL code* under the GPL, and doing WTF I want with *my* code.
GPL is not compatible with anything.
Because it places several limitation, and one of them is that you may not add more limitation to the GPL.
You seem to be worry about properity, but what about no-GPL OSS?
Releasing code under the GPL means that you can't use it in non-GPL code, that include BSD, Apache, X11, as well as a host of other stuff.
You see what is the problem here?
No, what the pubic domain means is that *everybody* can use it, however they want, whatever they paid their taxes or not.
There *isn't* a free-er code than this.
No, you can't.
I can't use it in non-GPL code, and that is a problem.
You seem to think that non-GPL == propeity, but that isn't so.
Apache can't use GPL code, neither can the *BSDs.
*Now* do you begin to see the problem?
Let's say that the goverment fund a web server research, and they come up with the greatest & best web server code ever.
Now, if they release it to the public domain, Apache can incoporate parts of it into their own web server.
And *BSD could include it as part of their distribution.
Anyone can write plugins that extend this server capabilities.
However, if they release it under the GPL, none of the above is possible.
See what is the problem here? The goverment paid for it, meaning that it came from the taxpayer money.
And the goverment is blocking you from using code the you paid for, basically.
No, it isn't.
Goverment fund code, the goverment funding came from *you*.
Now, they release it to the public.
You go and change the code, why would there any limitation on what you can do with it?
In essence, *you* paid for it, so you can't use it the way you want?
The right way to license software which was paid by the tax payers is to release it under public domain.
That way, everyone can use it, to whatever they want.
But any of your customers may take *your* products, and sell it, or even give it away.
You see why commercial software can't use the GPL?
Because it doesn't spread to the rest of the project?
If I license some code from company A, that doesn't mean that suddenly *all* my code must be licensed from company A.
But in the first case, there is no pretense of it being free.
I believe that the US consitition says that the goverment can't hold copy-right, so everything it does/fund must be public domain.
Usually, when someone write a piece of software, they sit down and design it (assuming they are smart).
They built a list of requirements and then code that answer those requirements.
Making the design extendible is a nice requirement to have, but it's *not* there, more often that not.
And "Do it *fast*" requirement, is *always* there.
So you get an application that does what the client says they need.
Then you need a new version, with more stuff in it, so you build on top of the old design, and the next version build on top of that, etc.
There is a limit to how much you can extend a design without a major re-write.
Especially since it takes a *lot* of time & effort to get the design right in the first place. And even then, a re-write from scratch means that you get a better design, (well, usually).
Take Netscape, frex. Built on Mozilla's code, it was an excellent browser for 3 versions, and on 4.0 it flopped. Why? Because NS got cought on hype. (Not to mention the bad stuff that happen when you do cross platform development.)
They re - wrote large parts of their browser in Java, realized too late that it's too slow and re-wrote it *again* in C++.
NS 4 is something of a mastery, of how *not* to extend a design.
By 4.0, NS engineers realized that this code-base was going no where. They could invest tremendous amount of effort cleaning up their act, but that would be stupid. It would be much better to re-write from scratch, you still get to use the old code for a lot of thing, but you don't have to adapt a design that may not be applicable anymore to your needs.
It certainly didn't help that NS tried to be everything all at once.
On contrast, take IE. Built on the same code base (Mozilla), but apperantly making much better seperation & modolization, allow MS to continue expend IE.
I would hazzard a guess that using COM help very much.
IE is much more complex project than NS, and I don't think that NS decision to throw everything but the kitchen sink inside the browser was wise.
I think that Mozilla made the same design mistake, they shouldv'e focused on getting to 1.0 with a usable *browser*, email programs/WYSIWYG HTML editor/news clients there are aplenty, and they are quite good.
Lucky for Mozilla, they seperated stuff much better than NS did, so you can take just the renderring engine (the heart of a browser) and make just a browser (still, I cannot help but grieve on all those man hours spent on programming email & news clients).
BTW, on of MS' most prized possesion, Win2K, is about 40% re-write (but then, you have to consider what they put in).
And XP is little more than a shell & compatability update.