Attempting to show him how to program, just for the sake of learning to program won't work. He'll get bored.
What he needs is something that he can 'DO' that requires him to program, then he will be motivated to learn the programming end of it.
My suggestions include: * Game programming - You can use something like Garage Games' game builder suite. It's relatively inexpensive and it works on Linux if thats the way you want him to go, or you can use their XNA version and you son can make his own games for an XBOX 360.
* LEGOs - Get him a LEGO NXT set and help fund experiments into building robots. The NXT has it's own visual language, but there's also C, Java, C#, python, LUA and other alternative development environments for it.
* For web programming, look at his other hobbies and see if there's some kind of website that he could create to support or promote that hobby that he could use a LAMP system to develop
Actually, all packages sent with these new machines use USPS's new barcode stamps -- which are probably trackable back to the purchase.
And traditionally, all mail gets a postage stamp at the place of origin. And if a package does contain a bomb, chemicals, or other illegal substance -- investigators will go to the Post Office branch of the stamp and questions employees, and review security cameras.
This is really nothing new -- and is similiar to why you've had to give all packages weighing 1lb or more to a "Postal Worker" to be shipped since 9/11 (hint: to get you into a post office with security cameras, or for there to be a chance that the postal carrier you hand it to will remember when/where/who gave it to them.)
Actually in the short term it'll be worse. At least while we're using the resources planet side, there is hope that it'll be recycled.
Any offsite expansion in the near future (couple of decades at least) would require nearly all supplies be provided from Earth. Now those resources will likely leave and never return, reducing the total amount of resources planet side for the rest of us.
But I agree with other posters, we need someone other then NASA working with manned space missions -- even private space ventures in the U.S. are showing that development can be done on the cheap.
The U.S. public/politicians need to remember, that 99.9999% safety factors are not required - this is a frontier, one of the last, and people will die. Keep as safe as we can, within reasonable limits and you'll never have a shortage of volunteers. And once we've got equipment working, and private space flight happening -- the safety margins will improve. But as long as it's a one man (or two counting Rusia) show, the technologies involved will stagnate and costs will just continue to rise.
Seriously, the cats searched around the house until they found "sand" -- pawed at it for a few minutes, then were good to go.
No accidents yet -- although I keep hearing about the accidents that my "dog person" friends have with their dogs every other day from (being in the house a measly 8hrs.)
Because you are free to do whatever you want with the code.
This is a common misconception.
The only thing you are loosing is FUTURE access to things you don't currently have. The GPL only applies to the items that have already been given to you -- "copies of the Program's source code as you receive it" (from the GPL, Section 1.)
You can read through the GPL yourself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
You will never see it mention anything about you being granted the right to be provided the source code to future/different releases of the sourcecode (from the company that provided you with the binary.) It only states that you will be given the sourcecode for the specific binary that was provided to you [already.]
So, in theory, Sveasoft or any other company could produce a work based off of a GPLed firmware. They could then sell a CD with that firmware on it for $1,000. If that CD contains the sourcecode for that version of the firmware -- they have complied with the GPL.
Sveasoft is under no obligation (from the GPL) to then provide you with the binary for, or the sourcecode to, the next version of that firmware.
Now this gets a little complicated, because Sveasoft decided to provide subscription access to the releases and to the support forums -- rather then selling individual release copies.
Which places a restriction on the use of the sourcecode or binary, how?
It doesn't.
The subscription access to early releases and support is a seperate license that in no way restricts what you can do with the source once you have it.
Find a lawyer, talk to them -- this is a seperate agreement that does not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted by the GPL to the sourcecode and/or binary.
If you don't want to agree to this seperate license for early access and support, you are free to wait for the code to be released to the general public without purchasing a Early Access and Support subscription.
This is not any different from working for a company under a NDA to develop software derived from Open Source software which will eventually be made available to the public.
If the subscription is for support and distribution, what about an option for folks who don't care about support?
These people are free to download and redistribute the stable production releases.
The lockdown is only for the beta pre-releases. Would you really want a million and one copies of your beta software with your name on it floating around the internet. Possibly modified by third parties to brick or otherwise damage people's hardware?
I've paid my $20 for the binary releases, and I'm happy to have them. I'd probably be willing to pay more.
* The last stable release, Satori 4.0 was not more then 4 weeks ago. I know this because I signed up specifically to get the new Alchemy pre-releases, which started the week after I signed up. I signed up June 28th 2004.
* I am their customer. I am free to do as I want with the code I download. I've seen much worse EULAs that what Sveasoft is requiring.
* The subscription is not for "distribution" -- the subscription is for early access to buggy, beta software that could potentially brick or otherwise destroy your Linksys WRT. Would you really want other people to be redistributing code with your name on it, that has been modified to destroy people's routers on purpose? I doubt it. So limiting the distribution of the pre-release BETA software is a good idea, IMHO
> Okay, so here is the Sveasoft business model, as I understand it: > > 1. Sveasoft produces GPL'ed code which runs on a GNU/Linux based > router. > > 2. Sveasoft distributes pre-releases of their software on a > subscription > basis and provides priority support to the subscribers. > > 3. The pre-releases are offered under the GPL and subscribers are > entitled > to distribute them publicly if desired. > > 4. If a subscriber *does* redistribute the pre-release code > publicly, > before it becomes a production release, they are considered to > have > "forked" the code and do not receive future pre-releases under > the > subscription program. > > 5. Once a pre-release works its way through the testing program > and > becomes a production release, it is made available under the > GPL for > public download, both "free-as-in-speech" and "free-as-in- > beer". > > James, please step in here if I've missed anything, or if I haven't > accurately characterized some piece of the above. > > I look forward to getting the FSF compliance lab's feedback on > Sveasoft's > business model. Thanks for your help!
> Hi Rob, > > I would just underscore that whenever we distribute binaries they are > *always* accompanied by the source code. > > Subscribers are free to do whatever they like with the pre-releases > with the proviso that if they distribute it publicly we are not > responsible for support and they need to develop the code further > themselves from that point forward.
I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to supply future releases to anyone.
Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and distribution and not for a license.
So if a butterfly flaps it's wings and causes a tornado on the other side of the planet -- what do millions of little huricanes in our showers every day do?
The TINI Microcontroller is manufactured by Dallas Semiconductor and unlike other "embedded Javas" it has nearly full support of Java 1.1.8 no Java MicroEdition limitations.
The controller runs a mere $50-67 and motherboards run anywere from $20 to $200.
Slashdot Mirror
Attempting to show him how to program, just for the sake of learning to program won't work. He'll get bored.
What he needs is something that he can 'DO' that requires him to program, then he will be motivated to learn the programming end of it.
My suggestions include:
* Game programming - You can use something like Garage Games' game builder suite. It's relatively inexpensive and it works on Linux if thats the way you want him to go, or you can use their XNA version and you son can make his own games for an XBOX 360.
* LEGOs - Get him a LEGO NXT set and help fund experiments into building robots. The NXT has it's own visual language, but there's also C, Java, C#, python, LUA and other alternative development environments for it.
* For web programming, look at his other hobbies and see if there's some kind of website that he could create to support or promote that hobby that he could use a LAMP system to develop
It's not how many companies you acquire, but what you do with them!
Actually, all packages sent with these new machines use USPS's new barcode stamps -- which are probably trackable back to the purchase.
And traditionally, all mail gets a postage stamp at the place of origin. And if a package does contain a bomb, chemicals, or other illegal substance -- investigators will go to the Post Office branch of the stamp and questions employees, and review security cameras.
This is really nothing new -- and is similiar to why you've had to give all packages weighing 1lb or more to a "Postal Worker" to be shipped since 9/11 (hint: to get you into a post office with security cameras, or for there to be a chance that the postal carrier you hand it to will remember when/where/who gave it to them.)
Actually in the short term it'll be worse. At least while we're using the resources planet side, there is hope that it'll be recycled.
Any offsite expansion in the near future (couple of decades at least) would require nearly all supplies be provided from Earth. Now those resources will likely leave and never return, reducing the total amount of resources planet side for the rest of us.
But I agree with other posters, we need someone other then NASA working with manned space missions -- even private space ventures in the U.S. are showing that development can be done on the cheap.
The U.S. public/politicians need to remember, that 99.9999% safety factors are not required - this is a frontier, one of the last, and people will die. Keep as safe as we can, within reasonable limits and you'll never have a shortage of volunteers. And once we've got equipment working, and private space flight happening -- the safety margins will improve. But as long as it's a one man (or two counting Rusia) show, the technologies involved will stagnate and costs will just continue to rise.
Mine did, and that was nearly 5 years ago.
Seriously, the cats searched around the house until they found "sand" -- pawed at it for a few minutes, then were good to go.
No accidents yet -- although I keep hearing about the accidents that my "dog person" friends have with their dogs every other day from (being in the house a measly 8hrs.)
No.
Because you are free to do whatever you want with the code.
This is a common misconception.
The only thing you are loosing is FUTURE access to things you don't currently have. The GPL only applies to the items that have already been given to you -- "copies of the Program's source code as you receive it" (from the GPL, Section 1.)
You can read through the GPL yourself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
You will never see it mention anything about you being granted the right to be provided the source code to future/different releases of the sourcecode (from the company that provided you with the binary.) It only states that you will be given the sourcecode for the specific binary that was provided to you [already.]
So, in theory, Sveasoft or any other company could produce a work based off of a GPLed firmware. They could then sell a CD with that firmware on it for $1,000. If that CD contains the sourcecode for that version of the firmware -- they have complied with the GPL.
Sveasoft is under no obligation (from the GPL) to then provide you with the binary for, or the sourcecode to, the next version of that firmware.
Now this gets a little complicated, because Sveasoft decided to provide subscription access to the releases and to the support forums -- rather then selling individual release copies.
Hope that helps,
--
Mike C.
Which places a restriction on the use of the sourcecode or binary, how?
It doesn't.
The subscription access to early releases and support is a seperate license that in no way restricts what you can do with the source once you have it.
Find a lawyer, talk to them -- this is a seperate agreement that does not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted by the GPL to the sourcecode and/or binary.
If you don't want to agree to this seperate license for early access and support, you are free to wait for the code to be released to the general public without purchasing a Early Access and Support subscription.
This is not any different from working for a company under a NDA to develop software derived from Open Source software which will eventually be made available to the public.
--
Mike C.
You mean the latest BETA, no guarentee what so'ever of working, sveasoft has no obligation what'so'ever to make available to you version?
Incorrect. The latest stable build that was released, Satori 4 is less then five weeks old.
--
Mike C. {a happy sveasoft subscriber}
Exactly my sentiments. I just couldn't find the right words for it.
--
Mike C.
If the subscription is for support and distribution, what about an option for folks who don't care about support?
These people are free to download and redistribute the stable production releases.
The lockdown is only for the beta pre-releases. Would you really want a million and one copies of your beta software with your name on it floating around the internet. Possibly modified by third parties to brick or otherwise damage people's hardware?
I've paid my $20 for the binary releases, and I'm happy to have them. I'd probably be willing to pay more.
--
Mike C.
A couple of points:
* The last stable release, Satori 4.0 was not more then 4 weeks ago. I know this because I signed up specifically to get the new Alchemy pre-releases, which started the week after I signed up. I signed up June 28th 2004.
* I am their customer. I am free to do as I want with the code I download. I've seen much worse EULAs that what Sveasoft is requiring.
* The subscription is not for "distribution" -- the subscription is for early access to buggy, beta software that could potentially brick or otherwise destroy your Linksys WRT. Would you really want other people to be redistributing code with your name on it, that has been modified to destroy people's routers on purpose? I doubt it. So limiting the distribution of the pre-release BETA software is a good idea, IMHO
--
Mike C.
This is quoted directly from the Sveasoft Forums.
> Okay, so here is the Sveasoft business model, as I understand it:
>
> 1. Sveasoft produces GPL'ed code which runs on a GNU/Linux based
> router.
>
> 2. Sveasoft distributes pre-releases of their software on a
> subscription
> basis and provides priority support to the subscribers.
>
> 3. The pre-releases are offered under the GPL and subscribers are
> entitled
> to distribute them publicly if desired.
>
> 4. If a subscriber *does* redistribute the pre-release code
> publicly,
> before it becomes a production release, they are considered to
> have
> "forked" the code and do not receive future pre-releases under
> the
> subscription program.
>
> 5. Once a pre-release works its way through the testing program
> and
> becomes a production release, it is made available under the
> GPL for
> public download, both "free-as-in-speech" and "free-as-in-
> beer".
>
> James, please step in here if I've missed anything, or if I haven't
> accurately characterized some piece of the above.
>
> I look forward to getting the FSF compliance lab's feedback on
> Sveasoft's
> business model. Thanks for your help!
> Hi Rob,
>
> I would just underscore that whenever we distribute binaries they are
> *always* accompanied by the source code.
>
> Subscribers are free to do whatever they like with the pre-releases
> with the proviso that if they distribute it publicly we are not
> responsible for support and they need to develop the code further
> themselves from that point forward.
I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to supply future releases to anyone.
Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and distribution and not for a license.
Peter Brown
GPL Compliance Manager
So if a butterfly flaps it's wings and causes a tornado on the other side of the planet -- what do millions of little huricanes in our showers every day do?
For the best site on TINI information visit http://www.TiniResources.com
The TINI Microcontroller is manufactured by Dallas Semiconductor and unlike other "embedded Javas" it has nearly full support of Java 1.1.8 no Java MicroEdition limitations.
The controller runs a mere $50-67 and motherboards run anywere from $20 to $200.