But did other, more restictive, EULA, has been in court?
And remember, the GPL is *not* an EULA (*end user* license agreement) , it's a license for the developer(s).
Nope, if the properity part is sufficently seperated from the GPL code, it doesn't have to be GPL.
You force it to be GPL if you distribue the whole thing together.
I think that his idea about the installer would work.
> don't see how the LGPL applies to Dynamic Link Libraries though-- the LGPL seemed to me to be more intended for use with STATIC libraries (libraries that must be linked against, for example, the C runtime libraries). With DYNAMIC libraries though, the GPL or LGPL would be enough to give the public the right to access code in the DLL as long as the code IN the DLL remained GPL'd and open source
They ship the DLL with their product, therefor, according to the GPL, they must GPL the entire thing.
You are more or less correct.
You don't have to GPL your own product if it's sufficently seperate from the GPL code (I think that DLL files are enough for that).
/However/, if you ship those DLLs with your programs, then you *must* release the whole thing under the GPL.
Close the floating windows, look at the little X in the top right corner.
Small workspace? What do you mean by that?
Perhaps you should try increasing resultion and maximizing both outer & inner window?
> how many users use the default Windows theme and compare that number with the ones who customize.
Most of them, actually.
The requirement from the theme is to be easy to see, and unobstractive(sp?). Windows does it, and so only people who like to tinker change it.
> Put someone in front of KDE or Ximian and force them to use only it for a month. They'll be as proficient with it as they are currently with Windows. And when they see the power and the non-crash feature, they'll never want to use Windows again.
Not quite.
The great advantage of Windows & Macs are that they have *consistent* user interface. This mean that a user can easily transfer knowledge between applications.
Alt+F+P will usually bring a print dialog, ctrl+f4 will close the window in MDI, alt+f4 will close the application, etc.
The same cannot be said about Linux's applications.
As for crashing, they can get rid of 9x, that alone reduce the crashes to once in a blue moon.
55. Is it possible to make a sector-by-sector copy of a GPT disk?
No. The Disk and Partition GUIDs will no longer be unique. This must never happen. You can make a sector-by-sector copy of the contents of ESP or basic data partitions.
You can't make a sector copy, so this is a non-issue.
subst (thanks for the info) simply ties a path to a drive, which is nice, but not what I meant.
You can't tie a partition to this, frex, at least to my knowledge.
Well, I suppose that subst & mountvol would work, but that is an extra jump.
Is there something that combine both?
Performance, did you consider that?
You are *Very* unlikely to have a display adapter to compete with the XBox's one.
And if you do, well, then it would probably cost more than the XBox anyway.
> MacOS 1.0 made DOS look stable as a rock. That little system bomb was the first step onto a long, dark road of quick and dirty releases of big, complicated software products.
DOS is possibly the most stable OS ever.
It doesn't *do* anything. When you start an application, it owns the computer until it decide to release it.
If it hang, it's the *application*'s fault.
Of course, you won't be able to have 26 *drive letters* (24, actually, 2 are reserved), but you can mount anything on an NTFS drive.
It's called junctions.
mountvol is the cmd line utility to do it, btw.
GUID are 128bits number, unless the algoritm that generate them is *really* *really* *really* dumb (to the level of bogo sort). I would be surprised if you would get any duplicate GUID on any computer.
Well, you *might* get into trouble if you want to use more than 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 HDs, but that is really pushing it.
Slashdot Mirror
But did other, more restictive, EULA, has been in court?
And remember, the GPL is *not* an EULA (*end user* license agreement) , it's a license for the developer(s).
No creating your own headers is *very* easy.
You can even write a program that does it.
I don't think that this apply here.
Yes, if Photoshop was distribued with GPL plug-ins, then Adobe would've to GPL it.
No, if they win, then get ready to see GPL stuff in a lot of products.
Including, dare I say, Microsoft's.
Nope, if the properity part is sufficently seperated from the GPL code, it doesn't have to be GPL.
You force it to be GPL if you distribue the whole thing together.
I think that his idea about the installer would work.
> don't see how the LGPL applies to Dynamic Link Libraries though-- the LGPL seemed to me to be more intended for use with STATIC libraries (libraries that must be linked against, for example, the C runtime libraries). With DYNAMIC libraries though, the GPL or LGPL would be enough to give the public the right to access code in the DLL as long as the code IN the DLL remained GPL'd and open source
They ship the DLL with their product, therefor, according to the GPL, they must GPL the entire thing.
> Besides, how many viable compilers are there for any particular platform? It's not hard to try them all.
For x86/Windows ?
GCC, LCC (based on GCC), MS-VC, Intel C++ compiler, Borland C++ builder, etc.
That isn't the problem, the GPL code is assembly, meaning that you just debug it to see the "source code".
You are more or less correct.
You don't have to GPL your own product if it's sufficently seperate from the GPL code (I think that DLL files are enough for that).
/However/, if you ship those DLLs with your programs, then you *must* release the whole thing under the GPL.
However, reading the algoritm/way of doing it is not covered by the GPL.
Where is the Gnu/VB compiler?
> PS. Original Motif widget set is pathetic as compared to current Qt.
PS. Original Linux offering is pathetic compared to current... anything!
Don't make comparision between what was and what is, it really serves no purpose.
Close the floating windows, look at the little X in the top right corner.
Small workspace? What do you mean by that?
Perhaps you should try increasing resultion and maximizing both outer & inner window?
As usual with MS, three versions.
> how many users use the default Windows theme and compare that number with the ones who customize.
Most of them, actually.
The requirement from the theme is to be easy to see, and unobstractive(sp?). Windows does it, and so only people who like to tinker change it.
> Put someone in front of KDE or Ximian and force them to use only it for a month. They'll be as proficient with it as they are currently with Windows. And when they see the power and the non-crash feature, they'll never want to use Windows again.
Not quite.
The great advantage of Windows & Macs are that they have *consistent* user interface. This mean that a user can easily transfer knowledge between applications.
Alt+F+P will usually bring a print dialog, ctrl+f4 will close the window in MDI, alt+f4 will close the application, etc.
The same cannot be said about Linux's applications.
As for crashing, they can get rid of 9x, that alone reduce the crashes to once in a blue moon.
You mean J2EE, don't you? Which is a balatant rip-off of MTS? Micrososft Transaction Server?
95% of the server market doesn't need a GUI toolkit anyway.
Hello, Mr. Bush, today we will learn advance technology, how to turn on a computer...
55. Is it possible to make a sector-by-sector copy of a GPT disk?
No. The Disk and Partition GUIDs will no longer be unique. This must never happen. You can make a sector-by-sector copy of the contents of ESP or basic data partitions.
You can't make a sector copy, so this is a non-issue.
A & B
subst (thanks for the info) simply ties a path to a drive, which is nice, but not what I meant.
You can't tie a partition to this, frex, at least to my knowledge.
Well, I suppose that subst & mountvol would work, but that is an extra jump.
Is there something that combine both?
Performance, did you consider that?
You are *Very* unlikely to have a display adapter to compete with the XBox's one.
And if you do, well, then it would probably cost more than the XBox anyway.
> MacOS 1.0 made DOS look stable as a rock. That little system bomb was the first step onto a long, dark road of quick and dirty releases of big, complicated software products.
;-)
DOS is possibly the most stable OS ever.
It doesn't *do* anything. When you start an application, it owns the computer until it decide to release it.
If it hang, it's the *application*'s fault.
So, basically, you *can't* crash DOS.
No, it's there in 2000 as well. It's for the dynamic disks.
Of course, you won't be able to have 26 *drive letters* (24, actually, 2 are reserved), but you can mount anything on an NTFS drive.
It's called junctions.
mountvol is the cmd line utility to do it, btw.
GUID are 128bits number, unless the algoritm that generate them is *really* *really* *really* dumb (to the level of bogo sort). I would be surprised if you would get any duplicate GUID on any computer.
Well, you *might* get into trouble if you want to use more than 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 HDs, but that is really pushing it.
AFAIK, the first *true* XBoxes were manufactured several days ago.
No idea when they are going to mass-produce them.