Apple's supposed transition to OS-X has low credibility with developers.
That was true for awhile, but not anymore, since they started shipping Carbon, DR4, etc.
And now they're trying to get people to convert to, of all things, Objective-C,
No they aren't. They are trying to get people to use C and C++ and Carbon, not Objective C. The focus on the Objective C stuff was for the Rhapsody marketing scheme, not the Mac OS X marketing scheme.
on top of Mach, a dead variant of UNIX.
Mach is not a variant of Unix. It is a microkernel that can have any number of operating systems sitting on top of it. It just so happens that the one they are using is BSD-Lite / FreeBSD, which is not exactly a "dead" variant of Unix.
I used to develop for the Mac, but gave it up when Copland didn't ship
Well, when you stopped developing, you also apparently stopped paying attention, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Until they actually run a free operating system how can you expect them to believe in free software?
That doesn't make any sense. Some of the best advocates of free software are Mac users. True, it is rare to find a Mac user who is religious about the issue, like RMS is, but that has nothing to do with "believing" in free software.
People who use Mac OS use it because it has the best graphical user interface around. If you offered "use KDE with a Mac OS theme" as a serious suggestion, then you don't understand user interfaces at all. Having widgets that look a certain way are only about 10 percent of what makes a UI. No user who relies on the great Mac OS interface could possibly be satisfied with KDE.
The Apple 'open-source' license isn't free, and as such running Mac OS is out of the question.
That is false AND it doesn't make sense. Perens and the OSI says it is a free license. Maybe RMS doesn't; I personally couldn't care less what RMS says, since he is often wrong.
And even if the APSL were not "free," what would that have to do with Mac OS? Neither Mac OS nor Mac OS X are licensed under the APSL.
No, it isn't. It is designed for people who want the UI to not get in the way of the work. It is designed for novice users to be able to use intuitively, and advanced users to be able to use flawlessly.
Most people don't compile for Linux anyway! They just use dselect or rpm or yup. The availablility of compilers is mostly irrelevant when you are talking about user adoption of software.
They have some OS apps, but the sophisticated ones, the ones that compete with Gimp and Kword, is mostly commercial. I'm not really sure that OSX could change this for Mac.
But Gimp can be made to run on Mac OS X. I think this fact alone makes it so Mac OS X "changes this for the Mac."
What can you NOT do? I use perl to script my environment even more in Mac OS than I do in Linux.
I am doing a talk at the Perl Conference later this month called "How to Be Really Cool Using MacPerl" that will show some of the stuff I use. What do you want done? Lemme know, I'll whip up a script for you.:-)
No, it won't. And please realize WHY it won't. It is because many of us LIKE MPW. It is because many of us cannot fathom being stuck in a "GUI" IDE. People think GUI IDEs make things simpler. I think they make things a lot more complex.
1. It was not simply rejected, it was first accepted and posted, then rejected.
2. The reason they gave for rejecting was that they don't post that kind of story, even though they DID post that kind of story before, for a product owned by them.
True, that story was posted by them almost a year ago, but it is somewhat suspicious. Rarely in my experience do stories get pulled after already being posted just because they don't post that kind of story anymore. But maybe that is what they do.
The process is getting even more confusing when the Web gets involved. Imagine one programmer who creates a tight weather prediction package for the Web that stores the forecast in a GPL-protected database. The programmer links all of the proprietary code together with the database. The result is a new package that extends the database and thus must be shared completely with the world according to the GPL. This is certainly fair. If anything, the GPL-protected database code is doing the bulk of the work. The programmer succeeded by standing on the shoulders of giants.
What's "fair" about it? He is USING the database, he is not changing or extending it. This is the kind of lunacy that gives the GPL a (perhaps deserved) bad name.
There is little question as to what distribution is and isn't. If the code is given to the public, it is distributed. The answer to your MegaSoft question is easy: no, it is not distribution. These supposed problems you bring up aren't problems or questions.
What if the corporation splits in three like AT&T? Do all three get the code? Should only one? It is, like anything else, an asset, and one corporation gets the code.
What if the corporation is aquired by SuperMegaSoft? Is this a distribution? Same as above. No, of course not.
What if the form-enabled Emacs was the only reason that MegaSoft was worth anything because the rest of MegaSoft wasted the rest of their VC money on a plan to sell clothing advice to fashion victims? Well, so what?
But is [the Tivo situation] really fair? If the user can't pry apart the Tivo front end from the Linux kernel, are the programs intertwined enough to become the same program? Yes, and no. It is fair, they are not the same program. Is bash part of the Linux kernel? No.
Using some software to distribute information on the web is not distribution, and should not be treated as such. The web is no different than any other process. If I edit a GPL'd mail program, and use it to send mail to the outside world, must I give away my changes? Of course not. So don't pretend that is any different from using GPL'd software on the web, because it isn't.
Consider your weather database example again. No modified GPL'd code is being distributed. The fact that it uses GPL software is entirely irrelevant. Using a database is not the same as linking a library. And actually, I'd argue that you couldn't legally enforce that linking to a GPL'd library makes your code GPL'd anyway. It is a separate bit of code. It is used as intended. Linking to it does not necessarily constitute derivative work. That makes no more sense than saying that code written with Emacs on Linux compiled with gcc must be GPL'd.
In other words, I think the LGPL is rarely used because few people see it as necessary.
Two piles of code are considered linked if one will crash or cease to provide more than 90% of its functions without the other.
If you want to absolutely kill the GPL and perhaps free software altogether, this is a damn fine way to do it. Basically everything that relies on Linux, Perl, gcc, etc. would now be forced to be GPL'd (except for those users who opt for the AL under Perl). Anything that relies on Postgres or MySQL is GPL'd. This is absolutely nutty and unreasonable. You think Linus would continue to use the new-and-improved GPL if this were the case? Not likely. He wants people to use Linux, not be trapped by it.
Hell, you'd rather have it so that cool innovations like Mac OS X are not possible. Apple, though not a perfect entity, has built a pretty cool thing in Mac OS X, made possible only through open software. And they are giving back all of their changes to the open source stuff they are using, which in turn helps everyone else. Right now, free software and proprietary software are coming together and helping each other. Under your plan, they would be split off and fractured permanently into two different camps, and free software would lose, because many of its sources of funding would dry up.
The GPL has no holes, except those that Stallman intended.
If VA goes down the tubes (which is unlikely, but possible), MySQL continues on. MySQL is not OWNED by VA. It is owned by the same people who have always owned it. And even if it were bought by VA, it is GPL'd, so have fun.
And VA can do the same thing you say with ANY open source project, whether it is on SourceForge or not. So can Microsoft, for that matter. Welcome to Open Source. LWN makes good points about private data being used for recruitment, demographic information, etc. You don't make any good points, though.
The question about best-known radio drama... I've been told I am a gen-x-er, and I didn't know H2G2 was a radio drama. I grew up with Green Hornet and The Shadow. Oh well.
If you see the CVS page for Slash code, you see I have a hell of a lot of commits there, and I have done almost all of it with maccvs. Cross platform, indeed.:-)
The Perl Power Contest (sponsored by ActiveState) requires the use of ActivePerl, rather than encouraging generic Perl solutions
This is incorrect. As reported on use Perl:-) you can use standard perl 5.6.0 if ActivePerl is unavailable for your platform. I guess that means that if you use Linux for x86, you need to use ActivePerl; but who is gonna know if you don't, and just use perl 5.6.0? They are the same thing.
I could not care less about options or startups or Hawaii. My own personal hell would involve owning my own company. I only care about having good friends and family and doing interesting work and making the world around me better. None of those things you mention are meaningful to me at all, so obviously we value entirely different things, and I couldn't tell you what else you need on that front. Maybe a shiny new car or a jet plane?
But what you clearly do need is to realize that people do things differently than you'd do them and that _it doesn't matter_. You identified the code that we all know needs to be fixed. I told you it is being fixed. You think it should be fixed now. We decided to put such changes only into the development branch. You don't like that. Good for you. Whoop de do. Let it go. Take your prozac.
The fact that you care so much that such an insignificant change (i.e., would have little if any immediate benefit) in code you don't use and have nothing to do with is not being done "right now" is pretty sad. That's all I'm saying.
I didn't mark you as a troll, but you are one. Your post was rude and not very interesting. Changes take time in the real world. There are other priorities, there is testing, and there are many other considerations.
In this case, we are changing major portions of the SQL code and schema and decided not to make any changes to the main branch in this area, but only to the development branch, unless they were absolutely necessary. These aren't. They will get changed.
And for the record, no one told you to make a patch that I saw. I don't want you to make a patch for us, because it is already being taken care of. If the timeline does not suit you, well, that's tough.
You picked the code that is actually the oldest code in Slash (significantly older than the MySQL book). It's being changed. Schemas are being changed, code is being changed. You found some obviously crufty code that needs to get changed, that is being changed. Good for you.
Something that meets the goals set for a 1.0.0 release. In this case, it was certain features and bugfixes. We added those features and fixed those bugs, and therefore had a 1.0.0 release.
Slashdot Mirror
That was true for awhile, but not anymore, since they started shipping Carbon, DR4, etc.
And now they're trying to get people to convert to, of all things, Objective-C,
No they aren't. They are trying to get people to use C and C++ and Carbon, not Objective C. The focus on the Objective C stuff was for the Rhapsody marketing scheme, not the Mac OS X marketing scheme.
on top of Mach, a dead variant of UNIX.
Mach is not a variant of Unix. It is a microkernel that can have any number of operating systems sitting on top of it. It just so happens that the one they are using is BSD-Lite / FreeBSD, which is not exactly a "dead" variant of Unix.
I used to develop for the Mac, but gave it up when Copland didn't ship
Well, when you stopped developing, you also apparently stopped paying attention, because you don't know what you're talking about.
That doesn't make any sense. Some of the best advocates of free software are Mac users. True, it is rare to find a Mac user who is religious about the issue, like RMS is, but that has nothing to do with "believing" in free software.
People who use Mac OS use it because it has the best graphical user interface around. If you offered "use KDE with a Mac OS theme" as a serious suggestion, then you don't understand user interfaces at all. Having widgets that look a certain way are only about 10 percent of what makes a UI. No user who relies on the great Mac OS interface could possibly be satisfied with KDE.
The Apple 'open-source' license isn't free, and as such running Mac OS is out of the question.
That is false AND it doesn't make sense. Perens and the OSI says it is a free license. Maybe RMS doesn't; I personally couldn't care less what RMS says, since he is often wrong.
And even if the APSL were not "free," what would that have to do with Mac OS? Neither Mac OS nor Mac OS X are licensed under the APSL.
Same thing happened to me for LinuxPPC 2000. Try Yellow Dog Linux. I am running it on my iMac now.
No, it isn't. It is designed for people who want the UI to not get in the way of the work. It is designed for novice users to be able to use intuitively, and advanced users to be able to use flawlessly.
Most people don't compile for Linux anyway! They just use dselect or rpm or yup. The availablility of compilers is mostly irrelevant when you are talking about user adoption of software.
Occasionally, when I see a silly hack that someone charges money for as shareware, I write a free alternative.
Then stop using a PC and use a crash-proof embedded system.
But Gimp can be made to run on Mac OS X. I think this fact alone makes it so Mac OS X "changes this for the Mac."
I am doing a talk at the Perl Conference later this month called "How to Be Really Cool Using MacPerl" that will show some of the stuff I use. What do you want done? Lemme know, I'll whip up a script for you. :-)
No, it won't. And please realize WHY it won't. It is because many of us LIKE MPW. It is because many of us cannot fathom being stuck in a "GUI" IDE. People think GUI IDEs make things simpler. I think they make things a lot more complex.
I actually don't understand anything about this topic. Open Source is Open Source. I don't see what platform has to do with it at all.
1. It was not simply rejected, it was first accepted and posted, then rejected.
2. The reason they gave for rejecting was that they don't post that kind of story, even though they DID post that kind of story before, for a product owned by them.
True, that story was posted by them almost a year ago, but it is somewhat suspicious. Rarely in my experience do stories get pulled after already being posted just because they don't post that kind of story anymore. But maybe that is what they do.
What's "fair" about it? He is USING the database, he is not changing or extending it. This is the kind of lunacy that gives the GPL a (perhaps deserved) bad name.
There is little question as to what distribution is and isn't. If the code is given to the public, it is distributed. The answer to your MegaSoft question is easy: no, it is not distribution. These supposed problems you bring up aren't problems or questions.
Using some software to distribute information on the web is not distribution, and should not be treated as such. The web is no different than any other process. If I edit a GPL'd mail program, and use it to send mail to the outside world, must I give away my changes? Of course not. So don't pretend that is any different from using GPL'd software on the web, because it isn't.
Consider your weather database example again. No modified GPL'd code is being distributed. The fact that it uses GPL software is entirely irrelevant. Using a database is not the same as linking a library. And actually, I'd argue that you couldn't legally enforce that linking to a GPL'd library makes your code GPL'd anyway. It is a separate bit of code. It is used as intended. Linking to it does not necessarily constitute derivative work. That makes no more sense than saying that code written with Emacs on Linux compiled with gcc must be GPL'd.
In other words, I think the LGPL is rarely used because few people see it as necessary.
Two piles of code are considered linked if one will crash or cease to provide more than 90% of its functions without the other.
If you want to absolutely kill the GPL and perhaps free software altogether, this is a damn fine way to do it. Basically everything that relies on Linux, Perl, gcc, etc. would now be forced to be GPL'd (except for those users who opt for the AL under Perl). Anything that relies on Postgres or MySQL is GPL'd. This is absolutely nutty and unreasonable. You think Linus would continue to use the new-and-improved GPL if this were the case? Not likely. He wants people to use Linux, not be trapped by it.
Hell, you'd rather have it so that cool innovations like Mac OS X are not possible. Apple, though not a perfect entity, has built a pretty cool thing in Mac OS X, made possible only through open software. And they are giving back all of their changes to the open source stuff they are using, which in turn helps everyone else. Right now, free software and proprietary software are coming together and helping each other. Under your plan, they would be split off and fractured permanently into two different camps, and free software would lose, because many of its sources of funding would dry up.
The GPL has no holes, except those that Stallman intended.
If VA goes down the tubes (which is unlikely, but possible), MySQL continues on. MySQL is not OWNED by VA. It is owned by the same people who have always owned it. And even if it were bought by VA, it is GPL'd, so have fun.
And VA can do the same thing you say with ANY open source project, whether it is on SourceForge or not. So can Microsoft, for that matter. Welcome to Open Source. LWN makes good points about private data being used for recruitment, demographic information, etc. You don't make any good points, though.
The question about best-known radio drama ... I've been told I am a gen-x-er, and I didn't know H2G2 was a radio drama. I grew up with Green Hornet and The Shadow. Oh well.
If you see the CVS page for Slash code, you see I have a hell of a lot of commits there, and I have done almost all of it with maccvs. Cross platform, indeed. :-)
Yeah, it sucks to buy books that are, you know, useful and intelligent and well-written.
This is incorrect. As reported on use Perl :-) you can use standard perl 5.6.0 if ActivePerl is unavailable for your platform. I guess that means that if you use Linux for x86, you need to use ActivePerl; but who is gonna know if you don't, and just use perl 5.6.0? They are the same thing.
Yeah, but use Perl had this story before Slashdot did!
I could not care less about options or startups or Hawaii. My own personal hell would involve owning my own company. I only care about having good friends and family and doing interesting work and making the world around me better. None of those things you mention are meaningful to me at all, so obviously we value entirely different things, and I couldn't tell you what else you need on that front. Maybe a shiny new car or a jet plane?
But what you clearly do need is to realize that people do things differently than you'd do them and that _it doesn't matter_. You identified the code that we all know needs to be fixed. I told you it is being fixed. You think it should be fixed now. We decided to put such changes only into the development branch. You don't like that. Good for you. Whoop de do. Let it go. Take your prozac.
The fact that you care so much that such an insignificant change (i.e., would have little if any immediate benefit) in code you don't use and have nothing to do with is not being done "right now" is pretty sad. That's all I'm saying.
Dude, you need to get a life.
I didn't mark you as a troll, but you are one. Your post was rude and not very interesting. Changes take time in the real world. There are other priorities, there is testing, and there are many other considerations.
In this case, we are changing major portions of the SQL code and schema and decided not to make any changes to the main branch in this area, but only to the development branch, unless they were absolutely necessary. These aren't. They will get changed.
And for the record, no one told you to make a patch that I saw. I don't want you to make a patch for us, because it is already being taken care of. If the timeline does not suit you, well, that's tough.
No.
You picked the code that is actually the oldest code in Slash (significantly older than the MySQL book). It's being changed. Schemas are being changed, code is being changed. You found some obviously crufty code that needs to get changed, that is being changed. Good for you.
Something that meets the goals set for a 1.0.0 release. In this case, it was certain features and bugfixes. We added those features and fixed those bugs, and therefore had a 1.0.0 release.