i saw a thread about something like that on comp.unix.programmer: this guy seemed to have trouble with I/O streams. in among the replies is links to several comparisons of all the major compilers (Borland, MS, GCC, DM, etc.) wrt their I/O stream implementation.
it's not exactly a comparison of the compilers, but it's quite an interesting thread onetheless.
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement (“EULA”) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials including best practices, white papers, templates, “online” or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services (“Software”). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
MICROSOFT Software LICENSE 1. GRANTS OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the rights described in this EULA provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA. 1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Software (i) for your internal use; (ii) for designing, developing, testing and demonstrating your software product(s); and (iii) for evaluation of the Software. 1.2 Documentation. You may make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal internal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond your premises except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE RIGHTS -- REDISTRIBUTABLES. In addition to the rights granted in Section 1, certain portions of the Software, as described in this Section 2, are provided to you with additional license rights. These additional license rights are conditioned upon your compliance with the distribution requirements and license restrictions described in Section 3. 2.1 Sample Code. Microsoft grants you the right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the Software identified as “Samples” in REDIST.TXT or elsewhere in the Software (“Sample Code”) for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), and to reproduce and distribute the Sample Code along with any modifications thereof, in object and/or source code form. For applicable redistribution requirements for Sample Code, see Section 3.1 below. 2.2 Redistributable Code-General. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code form of any portion of the Software listed in REDIST.TXT (“Redistributable Code”). For general redistribution requirements for Redistributable Code, see Section 3.1, below.
3. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS -- DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. If you choose to exercise your rights under Section 2, any redistribution by you is subject to your compliance with the following terms. 3.1 If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code or Redistributable Code (collectively, the “Redistributables”) as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code) to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables (“Licensee Software”); (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms; (iii) to distribute the Licensee Software containing the Redistributables pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”, “click-wrap” or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA; (iv) not to use Microsoft’s name, logo, or trademarks to market the Licensee S
i'm personally having a bit of trouble understanding section 3 of the EULA.
section 3.1 requires that software made with this compiler be distributed under (and i quote) "pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA" (emphasis mine)
section 3.2 is less clear. part (b) requires that the "Redistributables" (which, by that, I assume means the standard library and the API libraries) must not be distributed "in any manner that would cause the Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License." it then defines "Excluded License" with a description that sounds suspiciously like the GPL and related licenses. (i.e., no Open Source licensing.)
section 3.1(ii) is an odd requirement: "(ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms;" it sounds to me that it is explicitly excluding ReactOS and Winelib. (please correct me. i want to be wrong here.)
under those restrictions, doesn't this unduly limit us as programmers? shouldn't we be the ones who decide how our software is distributed? Microsoft is requiring us to guard our code as closely as they guard theirs. isn't this a bit extreme?
again, someone please correct me where i'm wrong. i want to be wrong.
in fact, the TOS explicitly states that no one reads the emails:
# We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology. No human reads your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent.
# We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology. No human reads your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent.
i personally don't think the question here is the what-ifs and whos and whats that Gmail might mean. i think the core issue here is whether we are willing to entrust Google with that information.
Hotmail, Netscape Mail, @ddress, et. al., all provide a service similar to Gmail. the only real difference i can see (looking specifically at the privacy policies) is that Gmail is more open about their policies and is more willing to state openly that there is redundancy in their storage system. i'm sure Hotmail, et. al., have redundant storage for their email services, and that there are concerns similar to if not identical to the concerns addressed by the Gmail privacy policy.
i commend Google for being open about this, and because they specifically address it, i'm fully willing to open a Gmail account and use it for my personal email. hell, i'd use it for business email without a single worry.
why? i trust Google. they are opening up and telling me what they do with my emails and what happens to them. that's important to me. that's why i'm willing to trust them.
i also own Uru, and i've spent a fairly small amount of time on those machines and what-not, wandering around, exploring, etc. compared to the time i spend tweaking, fixing, upgrading, patching, and otherwise trying to fix a fucked up peice of software.
IMHO, Uru was far more worth that $50 than my free copy of windows 2000 server.
sorry, i simply don't see what got American Greetings all up in arms about this. i mean, looking at the "offending" strip, i can't make any kind of connection with "American Greetings" - only "American McGee".
regarding the PA strip - i missed the train and didn't see the earlier strip (or can't find it) and never saw IL's reply to either. do you have links? it'd save me a great deal of time.
Slashdot Mirror
ABOUT DAMN TIME.
MY EYES!
then r# maybe?
then email DM and tell him where the comparison is wrong and show him why.
didn't you see the email button at the bottom fo the page?
i have an i960. is it good for anything other than useless historcal reference?
you mean like this?
or just continue to use Cygwin but add the -mno-cygwin switch to every call to GCC. but you knew that.... right?
i saw a thread about something like that on comp.unix.programmer: this guy seemed to have trouble with I/O streams. in among the replies is links to several comparisons of all the major compilers (Borland, MS, GCC, DM, etc.) wrt their I/O stream implementation.
it's not exactly a comparison of the compilers, but it's quite an interesting thread onetheless.
that's what i want to know. it reads as if it applies to anything linked to the redistributables.
last i checked, Intel's non-commercial license is explicitly linux-only. the only download for the Windows compilers are 30-day evaluations only.
that is, after 30 days, every executable in the Intel directory becomes useless after 30 days.
if i read the EULA correctly, section 3.1(ii) explicitly excludes it:
i'm personally having a bit of trouble understanding section 3 of the EULA.
section 3.1 requires that software made with this compiler be distributed under (and i quote) "pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA" (emphasis mine)
section 3.2 is less clear. part (b) requires that the "Redistributables" (which, by that, I assume means the standard library and the API libraries) must not be distributed "in any manner that would cause the Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License." it then defines "Excluded License" with a description that sounds suspiciously like the GPL and related licenses. (i.e., no Open Source licensing.)
section 3.1(ii) is an odd requirement: "(ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms;" it sounds to me that it is explicitly excluding ReactOS and Winelib. (please correct me. i want to be wrong here.)
under those restrictions, doesn't this unduly limit us as programmers? shouldn't we be the ones who decide how our software is distributed? Microsoft is requiring us to guard our code as closely as they guard theirs. isn't this a bit extreme?
again, someone please correct me where i'm wrong. i want to be wrong.
in fact, the TOS explicitly states that no one reads the emails:
missed an important line there:
TRUST.
i personally don't think the question here is the what-ifs and whos and whats that Gmail might mean. i think the core issue here is whether we are willing to entrust Google with that information.
Hotmail, Netscape Mail, @ddress, et. al., all provide a service similar to Gmail. the only real difference i can see (looking specifically at the privacy policies) is that Gmail is more open about their policies and is more willing to state openly that there is redundancy in their storage system. i'm sure Hotmail, et. al., have redundant storage for their email services, and that there are concerns similar to if not identical to the concerns addressed by the Gmail privacy policy.
i commend Google for being open about this, and because they specifically address it, i'm fully willing to open a Gmail account and use it for my personal email. hell, i'd use it for business email without a single worry.
why? i trust Google. they are opening up and telling me what they do with my emails and what happens to them. that's important to me. that's why i'm willing to trust them.
i, for one, welcome our new email overlords.
i'm stretching myself with the subject, so bear with me.
not only did Marconi not invent the radio (though i'll admit he did help make it useful), but he was an assistant of Tesla's at the time.
can you imagine how you would feel if one of YOUR assistants patented one of YOUR new inventions right under your knose?
and not only that, but after Marconi emigrated to South America, he took with him another one of Tesla's inventions and used it to fly to Mars!
(no, i'm not really serious.)
Gambling may not be legal, but you can openly carry a loaded gun.
i'd disagree.
i also own Uru, and i've spent a fairly small amount of time on those machines and what-not, wandering around, exploring, etc. compared to the time i spend tweaking, fixing, upgrading, patching, and otherwise trying to fix a fucked up peice of software.
IMHO, Uru was far more worth that $50 than my free copy of windows 2000 server.
i run windows 2000 Server on my home system. it even came with 10 client licenses. and i got it free. how?
a friend of a friend at microsoft bought it for us at the "Microsoft Employee Store". supposedly, he paid $10 for it and shipped us 2 copies.
makes me wish i had more friends.
sorry, i simply don't see what got American Greetings all up in arms about this. i mean, looking at the "offending" strip, i can't make any kind of connection with "American Greetings" - only "American McGee".
i just don't see where the problem was.
for me, it's moving about e^(i*pi)-1 furlongs per fortnight just to make the damned menu change color.
and not to mention the way the visual design in Firefox breaks. it looks like a three-toed sloth came up with the design.
regarding the PA strip - i missed the train and didn't see the earlier strip (or can't find it) and never saw IL's reply to either. do you have links? it'd save me a great deal of time.
ewww
page breaks in Firefox. or is it just me?
i just finished installing release 1.4 last night!
...
wait... i did a stage 1 using emerge -u...
never mind.