While it's true that we are much less fettered by export regulations than our neighbours to the south, we still do have some restrictions on the export of software here in Canada. For more information, see the following web pages:
As someone who has done an undergrad degree in CS and is currently working in the industry for a large company (they don't get much larger), I would say that I strongly endorse Smalltalk as the best language for teaching the fundamentals of OO. If you haven't heard of it, Smalltalk is a language with a very simple english-like syntax; the syntax can be mastered in less than a day. This is very important, because many languages which are touted as great for teaching have such a massively complicated syntax that the only time the entire rules were bound together in one volume, it underwent gravitational collapse and became a black hole (apologies D. Adams). I've seen students get so caught up in the syntax of these languages that they lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be learning how to PROGRAM, not how to PROGRAM IN (insert language of choice for this year).
Many of the "new" features of a language such as Java were in fact borrowed from Smalltalk, which has boasted them for over 20 years. These features include Virtual Machine/Bytecode technology and Garbage Collection. However, Smalltalk has many other features that make it ideal for teaching. For example, EVERYTHING is an object: no base types, no "magic" classes that aren't really objects, etc.; Java sacrificed these critical features in the name of efficiency.
For a time, the university that I attended taught Smalltalk as the first year language (after I had gone through...). Unfortunately, choosing a good language is only half the journey. I saw, much to my dismay, that rather than getting a solid grounding in Object theory, students were learning useless and irrelevant things like how to put pretty buttons on windows. I realize that SOME visible gratification is necessary, but delving right into widgetry before the basis of programming has been drilled in is useless. Such things are implementation dependent, and much more importantly, language dependent. When Java becomes the thing of the past, there will be 200,000 Swing programmers out there who are screwed because the only thing they know how to do is add a component to a panel. They don't understand the deeper issues at hand, and will find it hard to adapt to new technology because they will have to learn it all over again. Given a solid grounding, any new language is simply a variation on principles that you learned in your first year.
Please don't think that I believe that OO is the solution for everything. I've done my share of C, Assembly, and other non-OO languages. I simply think that OO is a great teaching tool because it mirrors real-life interactions, responsibilities and state of objects. I also know that it is relevant in the workplace, otherwise I wouldn't have a job right now. Even procedural languages can be programmed in an object-oriented manner, although the method of doing so usually overrides the simplicity desired of a teaching language.
I don't want this to sound like an advertisement, but you can get gnu-smalltalk for just about any unix-like system. VisualAge for Smalltalk is available from IBM on www.software.ibm.com/ad. VisualWorks is available from ObjectShare, formerly ParcPlace, at www.objectshare.com. Squeak is available from www.create.ucsb.edu/squeak.
And what have you done about it? I don't mean to sound harsh, but Netscape released some code a year and a half ago, and it was very kind of them. They used VC++ for their build environment. And now you bitch because it won't build using your preferred compiler/ide? Please... what have YOU done to make it build with egcs/win32? You said you were looking to contribute a little to the mozilla project; here's your chance.
Answer to question #1: It doesn't matter if you code from the ground up w/o the ISO code, as long as you are using the algorithm for which they have a patent, you are infringing on their patent.
Answer to question #2: Not sure, but if the ISO code on which his implementation was based has some sort of a BSD (minus the advertising clause) or X-style license, he can release it under the GPL or LGPL.
Rogers @home in Ottawa has the no servers policy but has made it clear that as long as you aren't running mp3/warez/porn or other services that you've advertised or publicly made known, they don't care. They're not out to get people who set up an ftp server to share files with friends or leave telnet going to get in from work. They're leaving themselves a legal way to get rid of people who are a drain on the system for everyone.
I've been a subscriber of @Home in Ottawa (Ontario, Canada) for a year now. The service is TERRIBLE (hold time for customer support ranges from 40 minutes to nearly two hours in the evening), there are technical problems (the mail and news servers are down almost daily - mail is down as I type), and the speed is nowhere near what they advertise.
But I'm still with them, and here's why: 1. Although speed is not what they claim, it's much better than any dialup connection. 2. It's really not that expensive. $40CDN per month == about $27US. 3. Static IP. Yes, they use DHCP, but you always get the same IP. Just register a domain name so you don't resolve to cr836502-b.slnt1.on.wave.home.com (not my real name, btw), and you're cooking. 4. Although you technically aren't allowed to run any servers, they clearly spelled that out for us at a recent meeting: as long as you aren't advertising your site so as to invite high traffic, it's no problem. So run FTP and telnet for some friends, they don't care. It's just to stop the mp3/warez/porn sites that suck up so much bandwidth. 5. Persistence. It's so much more convenient to just sit down and use the net rather than dialing in and tying up the phone line.
(BTW, most of the above points, except for #3, could also be solved with DSL, which is slightly more expensive around here than cable modems).
For me, the bandwidth cap is not a big deal, since I don't run any servers and don't do a lot of uploading of large files.
Every once in a while someone brings up this question on the wine mailing list or news group. The concensus seems to be that there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible, it would just be a lot of work. You're welcome to code something up...:-)
Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Thank you. Actually, that guy did much to prove my point about people attacking people who try gently to point out deficiencies. He's the perfect example of that.
Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Heehee... that's funny.:-) Thanks for the laugh. I won't even bother intruding on your little fantasy world.
Why does everyone insist on blasting winelib? Here is the basic idea:
winelib is a library of widgets, networking, and other functions. On the top, it looks exactly like the windows API. Underneath, it's really just linux (or bsd, or whatever) native code. How could using winelib widgets be any slower than using, say, GTK widgets? (In principle, anyway; implementations may differ). It's not like it's "emulating" anything except the windows API and the behaviour of those API. Explain to me please how this would be inefficient. A WINELIB APPLICATION IS NATIVE CODE! That's all there is to it.
Having said that, there are a couple of limitations of windows that show through in winelib. The most significant of these, in my point of view, is the dos-like filesystem; wine assigns drive letters to different directories and from the application's point of view, it looks just like a dos/vfat/network drive, with letters and everything. So a winelib application will always "look" like a win app rather than a linux app from this point of view.
Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Let me clarify some of my points, since I think they were misunderstood.
I hate windows. I've been using Linux for 5 years. I've used Slackware, Debian and RedHat and installed them all for other people on at least 30 occasions. I'm not spreading FUD, I'm basing my opinions on my (not exactly limited) experience. I've also installed and used Win95 and NT 4.0 on multiple machines under a variety of hardware configurations.
Recently I installed RedHat 5.2 for some friends of mine. At the time, we didn't have the CD, so we downloaded the files onto the windows partition, rawrite'd a boot disk and started the install. The installation procedure would only mount the windows partition as msdos, not vfat, so the installation wouldn't proceed. Two hours later, after breaking the install to get a shell, mounting as vfat and making symbolic links to it from the root ramdisk, it finally worked. That is crap you shouldn't have to deal with on an install. It was avoided as soon as I got a hold of a CD, of course. Provided you do things EXACTLY as they expect you to, you run in to fewer problems. Furthermore, the Cirrus video chips we were using were not autodetected, and it took great amounts of tweaking, two trips to dejanews, a random (unmatching) selection in the X setup, and three server parameters in order to get X even working; and it didn't work very well. In the end we ended up swapping video cards with a Mach 64 just to get X to stop crashing. Let's keep in mind, too, that RedHat is much better even than Debian or Slackware in terms of installation. By the end of each of these installations, my friends (all experienced window-using computer-type people) were shaking their head in disbelief and scorn at this operating system I had told them was so much better than windows. I was at a loss to explain to them why the installation was such a nightmare.
I should point out that, on certain hardware configurations AND once I got a redhat CD, installations were slightly smoother. But many options are arcane and online help is poor, and I found myself thinking a number of times that if I didn't actually know what I was doing, I would have a rough time.
Concepts that are foreign to many first-time Linux users, such as creating swap partitions, are inadequately explained during installation.
Windows 95, on the other hand, did a much better job, in my opinion, of detecting hardware and installing drivers for it, based on the machines I've thrown at it. NT isn't quite as good (at the time there were fewer drivers available for it than for 95), I'll give you that. Aside from hardware detection, the installation procedure has a spiffy, wizard-driven UI in which all of the steps are clearly spelled out for you. And when you're all done and reboot, you have a configured, working desktop from which you can immediately begin working. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with Linux installations. Our redhat install, despite us specifying X parameters, booted up to a text console. So I had to explain to these bewildered people that I had to edit their/etc/inittab file so that it would boot into X by default. By that point, it wasn't even worth TRYING to make it look easy to install.
I must say that I haven't tried the new Caldera OpenLinux; I hear the installation is much improved - if so, that's a good thing.
Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies? All I was trying to say was that based on my experiences, windows installations have been much less error-prone, easier to follow, nicer graphically, and provide better autodetection of hardware than have Linux installations. Flame if you must, and I'm sure others of you have different stories, but you can't tell me I didn't experience what I did. Repeatedly.
I applaud Corel's efforts. I hope they pour considerable resources into installation, because that is one of the few places that Windows has a huge advantage over all Linux distributions currently. Glad to hear they're planning to join the LSB movement. Corel's developers on the Wine project have contributed a huge amount of code to the effort. Looks like Corel is going to be a great Open Source citizen. I'm looking really forward to seeing their apps on Linux, too!
Yes, you're right; these are both compatible with the GPL and would permit use under a broader ranger of circumstances than would a straight GPL license. But let's not start a licensing flame war.:-)
Actually, SGI people on the linux-kernel mailing list have said that all mods to the kernel proper will be under the GPL (obviously), but that the licensing terms for any modules has yet to be decided (their legal department is apparently hashing it out). I hope they release it ALL under the GPL, because the last thing the kernel needs is a smattering of almost-open-source-but-not-quite-so-its-not-includ ed-with-the-kernel modules. That would also encourage other companies to do the same.
I think you're confused; reverse engineering is quite legal and simply means observing something as a black box to try to understand how it works, without actually observing the interior.
I agree, but it's just part of open-source development; everything's open, not just the code, not just the feature discussions, but the bickering on the kernel mailing lists, the open letters from three-letter acronyms, and so on. The only thing I'm afraid of is that the media (read clueless zdnet) will start to get a hold of things like this and distort them, or that MS will use them in their FUD campaign. Actually, it happened before, see Apple's Linux foray prompts squabbles, Internal rift among Linux advocates, and any of a number of other articles that does a poor job of airing our dirty laundry. How should things like this be dealt with?
Why would it ever be open source?? The idea that MS would give away its browser source is almost laughable, especially in any way that would even remotely resemble OS. Microsoft is scared of open source; embracing the model would legitimize the Linux development model they have, so far, gone to great lengths to downplay in front of the media.
If they were ever to 'embrace' the open source model, they would do so in a half-assed way in the form of something that is not even open source, such as restrictive licensing of NT source code that has been mentioned. That way, they can say "we tried it, and people didn't want it, it's a bad idea and it sucks... back to business". That is the ultimate in FUD. They essentially did the same thing when they ported IE to solaris; they bastardized the port - it was bloated, slow, buggy and the most pathetic piece of software I've ever had the misfortune of running. But I'm sure it shut up all the solaris people who had asked for a port, and it sure looks good when they can go to the media and say "look how badly our wonderful software runs on this platform; we tried, but it's just not as good as windows".
The question of whether ie would be open source honestly never even crossed my mind.
Good to hear. However, contrary to popular belief, crypto is not "free" in Canada. For one thing, we have a joint agreement with the U.S. which means American encryption technology may be exported to Canada as long as it remains under the same restrictions once it reaches Canada. (i.e. cannot re-export to the world what we import from the U.S.A.). And there are some other restrictions as well. Click the following links for some more information. http://insight.mcma ster.ca/org/efc/pages/doc/crypto-export.html http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/ECL.html In addition, Canada recently signed on to the multi-national agreement (big word starting with W) which places further restrictions on our freedom with regards to cryptography. What we need is a poster child to challenge the constitutionality of these laws, as you have done in the States.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's true that we are much less fettered by export regulations than our neighbours to the south, we still do have some restrictions on the export of software here in Canada. For more information, see the following web pages:
Canada's Export Controls
Excerpts from the Export Control List of Canada
The Wassenaar Arrangement, which Canada has signed
Crypto Law Survey of Canada
And, more generally,
Electronic Frontier Canada
As someone who has done an undergrad degree in CS and is currently working in the industry for a large company (they don't get much larger), I would say that I strongly endorse Smalltalk as the best language for teaching the fundamentals of OO. If you haven't heard of it, Smalltalk is a language with a very simple english-like syntax; the syntax can be mastered in less than a day. This is very important, because many languages which are touted as great for teaching have such a massively complicated syntax that the only time the entire rules were bound together in one volume, it underwent gravitational collapse and became a black hole (apologies D. Adams). I've seen students get so caught up in the syntax of these languages that they lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be learning how to PROGRAM, not how to PROGRAM IN (insert language of choice for this year).
Many of the "new" features of a language such as Java were in fact borrowed from Smalltalk, which has boasted them for over 20 years. These features include Virtual Machine/Bytecode technology and Garbage Collection. However, Smalltalk has many other features that make it ideal for teaching. For example, EVERYTHING is an object: no base types, no "magic" classes that aren't really objects, etc.; Java sacrificed these critical features in the name of efficiency.
For a time, the university that I attended taught Smalltalk as the first year language (after I had gone through...). Unfortunately, choosing a good language is only half the journey. I saw, much to my dismay, that rather than getting a solid grounding in Object theory, students were learning useless and irrelevant things like how to put pretty buttons on windows. I realize that SOME visible gratification is necessary, but delving right into widgetry before the basis of programming has been drilled in is useless. Such things are implementation dependent, and much more importantly, language dependent. When Java becomes the thing of the past, there will be 200,000 Swing programmers out there who are screwed because the only thing they know how to do is add a component to a panel. They don't understand the deeper issues at hand, and will find it hard to adapt to new technology because they will have to learn it all over again. Given a solid grounding, any new language is simply a variation on principles that you learned in your first year.
Please don't think that I believe that OO is the solution for everything. I've done my share of C, Assembly, and other non-OO languages. I simply think that OO is a great teaching tool because it mirrors real-life interactions, responsibilities and state of objects. I also know that it is relevant in the workplace, otherwise I wouldn't have a job right now. Even procedural languages can be programmed in an object-oriented manner, although the method of doing so usually overrides the simplicity desired of a teaching language.
I don't want this to sound like an advertisement, but you can get gnu-smalltalk for just about any unix-like system. VisualAge for Smalltalk is available from IBM on www.software.ibm.com/ad. VisualWorks is available from ObjectShare, formerly ParcPlace, at www.objectshare.com. Squeak is available from www.create.ucsb.edu/squeak.
And what have you done about it? I don't mean to sound harsh, but Netscape released some code a year and a half ago, and it was very kind of them. They used VC++ for their build environment. And now you bitch because it won't build using your preferred compiler/ide? Please... what have YOU done to make it build with egcs/win32? You said you were looking to contribute a little to the mozilla project; here's your chance.
Read the article. They're releasing the specs for MICROSOFT'S messaging service, NOT AOL's.
Answer to question #1: It doesn't matter if you code from the ground up w/o the ISO code, as long as you are using the algorithm for which they have a patent, you are infringing on their patent.
Answer to question #2: Not sure, but if the ISO code on which his implementation was based has some sort of a BSD (minus the advertising clause) or X-style license, he can release it under the GPL or LGPL.
:-) Laff. Ironic, however, that I suspect esr would be the more likely of the two to take a gun out any time soon...
Rogers @home in Ottawa has the no servers policy but has made it clear that as long as you aren't running mp3/warez/porn or other services that you've advertised or publicly made known, they don't care. They're not out to get people who set up an ftp server to share files with friends or leave telnet going to get in from work. They're leaving themselves a legal way to get rid of people who are a drain on the system for everyone.
I've been a subscriber of @Home in Ottawa (Ontario, Canada) for a year now. The service is TERRIBLE (hold time for customer support ranges from 40 minutes to nearly two hours in the evening), there are technical problems (the mail and news servers are down almost daily - mail is down as I type), and the speed is nowhere near what they advertise.
But I'm still with them, and here's why:
1. Although speed is not what they claim, it's much better than any dialup connection.
2. It's really not that expensive. $40CDN per month == about $27US.
3. Static IP. Yes, they use DHCP, but you always get the same IP. Just register a domain name so you don't resolve to cr836502-b.slnt1.on.wave.home.com (not my real name, btw), and you're cooking.
4. Although you technically aren't allowed to run any servers, they clearly spelled that out for us at a recent meeting: as long as you aren't advertising your site so as to invite high traffic, it's no problem. So run FTP and telnet for some friends, they don't care. It's just to stop the mp3/warez/porn sites that suck up so much bandwidth.
5. Persistence. It's so much more convenient to just sit down and use the net rather than dialing in and tying up the phone line.
(BTW, most of the above points, except for #3, could also be solved with DSL, which is slightly more expensive around here than cable modems).
For me, the bandwidth cap is not a big deal, since I don't run any servers and don't do a lot of uploading of large files.
Dunno about other commonwealth countries, but here in Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found here.
Every once in a while someone brings up this question on the wine mailing list or news group. The concensus seems to be that there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible, it would just be a lot of work. You're welcome to code something up... :-)
Thank you. Actually, that guy did much to prove my point about people attacking people who try gently to point out deficiencies. He's the perfect example of that.
Heehee... that's funny. :-) Thanks for the laugh. I won't even bother intruding on your little fantasy world.
Why does everyone insist on blasting winelib? Here is the basic idea:
winelib is a library of widgets, networking, and other functions. On the top, it looks exactly like the windows API. Underneath, it's really just linux (or bsd, or whatever) native code. How could using winelib widgets be any slower than using, say, GTK widgets? (In principle, anyway; implementations may differ). It's not like it's "emulating" anything except the windows API and the behaviour of those API. Explain to me please how this would be inefficient. A WINELIB APPLICATION IS NATIVE CODE! That's all there is to it.
Having said that, there are a couple of limitations of windows that show through in winelib. The most significant of these, in my point of view, is the dos-like filesystem; wine assigns drive letters to different directories and from the application's point of view, it looks just like a dos/vfat/network drive, with letters and everything. So a winelib application will always "look" like a win app rather than a linux app from this point of view.
Let me clarify some of my points, since I think they were misunderstood.
/etc/inittab file so that it would boot into X by default. By that point, it wasn't even worth TRYING to make it look easy to install.
I hate windows. I've been using Linux for 5 years. I've used Slackware, Debian and RedHat and installed them all for other people on at least 30 occasions. I'm not spreading FUD, I'm basing my opinions on my (not exactly limited) experience. I've also installed and used Win95 and NT 4.0 on multiple machines under a variety of hardware configurations.
Recently I installed RedHat 5.2 for some friends of mine. At the time, we didn't have the CD, so we downloaded the files onto the windows partition, rawrite'd a boot disk and started the install. The installation procedure would only mount the windows partition as msdos, not vfat, so the installation wouldn't proceed. Two hours later, after breaking the install to get a shell, mounting as vfat and making symbolic links to it from the root ramdisk, it finally worked. That is crap you shouldn't have to deal with on an install. It was avoided as soon as I got a hold of a CD, of course. Provided you do things EXACTLY as they expect you to, you run in to fewer problems. Furthermore, the Cirrus video chips we were using were not autodetected, and it took great amounts of tweaking, two trips to dejanews, a random (unmatching) selection in the X setup, and three server parameters in order to get X even working; and it didn't work very well. In the end we ended up swapping video cards with a Mach 64 just to get X to stop crashing. Let's keep in mind, too, that RedHat is much better even than Debian or Slackware in terms of installation. By the end of each of these installations, my friends (all experienced window-using computer-type people) were shaking their head in disbelief and scorn at this operating system I had told them was so much better than windows. I was at a loss to explain to them why the installation was such a nightmare.
I should point out that, on certain hardware configurations AND once I got a redhat CD, installations were slightly smoother. But many options are arcane and online help is poor, and I found myself thinking a number of times that if I didn't actually know what I was doing, I would have a rough time.
Concepts that are foreign to many first-time Linux users, such as creating swap partitions, are inadequately explained during installation.
Windows 95, on the other hand, did a much better job, in my opinion, of detecting hardware and installing drivers for it, based on the machines I've thrown at it. NT isn't quite as good (at the time there were fewer drivers available for it than for 95), I'll give you that. Aside from hardware detection, the installation procedure has a spiffy, wizard-driven UI in which all of the steps are clearly spelled out for you. And when you're all done and reboot, you have a configured, working desktop from which you can immediately begin working. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with Linux installations. Our redhat install, despite us specifying X parameters, booted up to a text console. So I had to explain to these bewildered people that I had to edit their
I must say that I haven't tried the new Caldera OpenLinux; I hear the installation is much improved - if so, that's a good thing.
Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies? All I was trying to say was that based on my experiences, windows installations have been much less error-prone, easier to follow, nicer graphically, and provide better autodetection of hardware than have Linux installations. Flame if you must, and I'm sure others of you have different stories, but you can't tell me I didn't experience what I did. Repeatedly.
I applaud Corel's efforts. I hope they pour considerable resources into installation, because that is one of the few places that Windows has a huge advantage over all Linux distributions currently. Glad to hear they're planning to join the LSB movement. Corel's developers on the Wine project have contributed a huge amount of code to the effort. Looks like Corel is going to be a great Open Source citizen. I'm looking really forward to seeing their apps on Linux, too!
Yes, you're right; these are both compatible with the GPL and would permit use under a broader ranger of circumstances than would a straight GPL license. But let's not start a licensing flame war. :-)
Actually, SGI people on the linux-kernel mailing list have said that all mods to the kernel proper will be under the GPL (obviously), but that the licensing terms for any modules has yet to be decided (their legal department is apparently hashing it out). I hope they release it ALL under the GPL, because the last thing the kernel needs is a smattering of almost-open-source-but-not-quite-so-its-not-includ ed-with-the-kernel modules. That would also encourage other companies to do the same.
I think you're confused; reverse engineering is quite legal and simply means observing something as a black box to try to understand how it works, without actually observing the interior.
Okay, so the second link has expired, but you get the point...
I agree, but it's just part of open-source development; everything's open, not just the code, not just the feature discussions, but the bickering on the kernel mailing lists, the open letters from three-letter acronyms, and so on. The only thing I'm afraid of is that the media (read clueless zdnet) will start to get a hold of things like this and distort them, or that MS will use them in their FUD campaign. Actually, it happened before, see
Apple's Linux foray prompts squabbles, Internal rift among Linux advocates, and any of a number of other articles that does a poor job of airing our dirty laundry. How should things like this be dealt with?
Why would it ever be open source?? The idea that MS would give away its browser source is almost laughable, especially in any way that would even remotely resemble OS. Microsoft is scared of open source; embracing the model would legitimize the Linux development model they have, so far, gone to great lengths to downplay in front of the media.
If they were ever to 'embrace' the open source model, they would do so in a half-assed way in the form of something that is not even open source, such as restrictive licensing of NT source code that has been mentioned. That way, they can say "we tried it, and people didn't want it, it's a bad idea and it sucks... back to business". That is the ultimate in FUD. They essentially did the same thing when they ported IE to solaris; they bastardized the port - it was bloated, slow, buggy and the most pathetic piece of software I've ever had the misfortune of running. But I'm sure it shut up all the solaris people who had asked for a port, and it sure looks good when they can go to the media and say "look how badly our wonderful software runs on this platform; we tried, but it's just not as good as windows".
The question of whether ie would be open source honestly never even crossed my mind.
Good to hear. However, contrary to popular belief, crypto is not "free" in Canada. For one thing, we have a joint agreement with the U.S. which means American encryption technology may be exported to Canada as long as it remains under the same restrictions once it reaches Canada. (i.e. cannot re-export to the world what we import from the U.S.A.). And there are some other restrictions as well. Click the following links for some more information.
http://insight.mcma ster.ca/org/efc/pages/doc/crypto-export.html
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/ECL.html
In addition, Canada recently signed on to the multi-national agreement (big word starting with W) which places further restrictions on our freedom with regards to cryptography. What we need is a poster child to challenge the constitutionality of these laws, as you have done in the States.
Couldn't wait, huh? I think Alan must have heard you. :-)