I'm quite certain that if NT had had even a limited Unix-like base (similar to Xenix and using the Gnu and BSD tools that existed at that time) then there would be NO Linux, and BSD would be a tiny hobby, Apple would be running NT, and Microsoft would have absolute control over every computer in the world and probably most people here would grudginly accept it or even be unaware that there could be an alternative, and literally 100% of all software development would be done on and for NT.
Microsoft's own arrogance has hurt them. I think most of the problem is that they hired geeks who never got laid in college, who suddenly found themselves in a position of power over something and then took out all their frustration and anger on the world by being purposely incompatable and refusing to read any references.
But Microsoft management did strange things, it is obvious that there was a push for Unix compatability in MSDOS 2.0 but all that evaporated and was even removed (one of the few times they have been incompatable with previous versions and it broke software I was working on) in 4.0. Not sure what caused this, but there seems to be anger and hostility toward Unix which is not helping them at all.
Thats the "middle mouse button" for those few left who speak english.
The fact that they made the wheel also be the middle mouse button is clever, but in no way required. There are mice available that seperate the functions.
Hint: acronyms contain the letters that start the words that it stands for.
A "recursive acronym" uses itself as one of the words.
RMS is well known for using recursive acronyms. He is also known for using the words "GNU" and "Free" but that has NOTHING to do with this.
I do love how posters all say "those recursive acronyms are so childish, why doesn't OSS grow up?", and then the moment MicroSoft does it they say "oh MicroSoft has a sense of humor!"
I'm assumming the entire list of voterID/vote is published and anybody can look at it. Somebody trying to fix the election MUST change this list in order to change the tally, because anybody who wants to can sum up all the votes on the list and see if they match the tally. If they don't then something is wrong.
If you change votes or remove votes, it is true that the chance that you change a specific ("your") vote is very small, so it is unlikely one person will catch it. But the chances of changing *somebody's* vote who checks is extremely high, almost a certainty. If the vote fixer changed 10% of the votes, the chances that N checkers will all find their votes correct is.9^N, which gets small very quickly (for 100 checkers it is 2.6e-5).
Anyway the whole argument is pointless, as your first two points about vote coercion are certainly correct, which is why such a system could never be implemented.
If somebody wanted to fix the election by changing the recorded votes, though they might not change *your* vote, the odds that they select only votes that nobody checks is astronomically low thus making undetectable fixing impossible. Though nobody could prove their vote was wrong, large numbers of people complaining should indicate that something is wrong and the election investigated or re-run.
The only method of fixing the election is to add extra fake votes, but this would result in a larger total number of voters and should be detectable. They would have to invent fake voter id numbers as well, it may also help to try to keep the algorithim used to produce these as secret and one-way as possible.
Any such scheme means voter anoniminity is impossible, which is why it cannot be used. If it were not for this one huge problem, it would be a solution.
Though the vote buying/intimidation problems are true, your third point is wrong. If the website actually lists *all* the votes, then you can add them up and confirm whether they match the reported tally or not.
I think I see what happened. You probably should have replied to the moderated-down item.
However I have to also ask about your reading comprehension, though I also made the same mistake. The first article, if you skip the italicized quote, seems to be making a joke about MicroSoft Research inventing the Zune. You then pointed out that that was not the Research department, but marketing.
However the italicized quote says "FTA:"There are virtually no products Microsoft produces today that have not either taken technology from research...". Since Zune is a major product, this statement does mean that the Zune contains something made by the Research department, unless it is "virtually no product". Thus the initial post is questioning the accuracy of this statement.
Slashdot does have problems. Things I'd like fixed:
Plenty of people (myself and you) hit the wrong "reply" button, making replies look like they are to the opposite opinion than expected, making them sound like idiots. Change the layout so that there is [reply to parent] next to [reply to this].
Moderated-up replies to stuff that is moderated down appears to migrate up to be a response to the above. Again this can make the responder look like an idiot by reversing what they are replying to. In addition it hides exactly what they are responding to. I feel that if a reply is moderated up, the parent should be moderated up as well, so the whole hierarchy is visible. So if somebody blasts Linux with a good enough reason to respond to, that reason will be visible. If this idea could be abused (it would be possible to remove down-moderation by replying) I would instead make down-moderation completely remove all responses. Anybody who wants to show an intelligent response would be forced to up-moderate the thing being responded to.
If is very hard to identify if two things are from the same author as the text is very tiny. I would put the name in the comment title.
The above comment (moderated to +5) is hardly "disparaging of MSR", it is listing three interesting-sounding inventions and the number of papers and uses of those inventions. Maybe you thought it was insulting them in some way, but the wording sounded pretty positive to me. I think the problem is that people like you skim this so fast and are so set on proving the "slashdot bias" that you read the second word, "not", and decided this was a negative comment?
Nonsense. It would be trivial for Microsoft to design the "update" so that Word can read it but other programs cannot.
Now I'm not really sure they do this. A lot of the "evil" of Microsoft can be equally well explained by incompetent or rushed programmers, for instance if they only test it against Word they will achieve the same "evil" results naturally, possibly even evolving a much more insidious incompatability than if they purposely tried to do it.
FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Unfortunatly, even here, everybody seems to think it is a synonym for "lies", leading to the loss of this term as a descriptive one. "FUD" very well might not contain any lies at all, just exaggerated predictions of bad things to happen in the future, based on real things that are, at least somewhat, true right now. FUD in global warming is predicting floods and other catastrophic results, or predicting economic doom if we try to stop global warming. Both may very well be true. Saying "it's caused by man" (or vise-versa) is *NOT* FUD, it is instead a statement that may be true or a lie. Despite the fact that both lies and FUD can be used at the same time, they are not the same thing.
I agree that vote buying probably can't throw any modern election, for the reasons you say. However I think there is concern about the threat to individuals who disobey or the guilt of those who obey, even if the result did not effect the election. You could say that store robberies probably don't effect the national economy much, but they do greatly effect the person who is robbed.
As far as I can tell, "Cleartype" actually is two things. The patented "innovation" is their use of subpixel rendering, which treats the rgb of an lcd as three pixels rather than one. There is also antialiasing. It is pretty obvious that Cleartype does antialiasing when filling in those rgb pixels (ie it does not turn the red 100% on or off, but actually sets it to a gray level depending on the coverage of the red portion of the pixel).
Experimenting with a Windows machine reveals that there are really 4 settings:
1. Aliased. This is like old versions of Windows or X11 or Mac. Each letter consists of 100% on and 100% off pixels.
2. "Font smoothing". This is a crude form of antialiasing that Microsoft wrote. It's primary advantage is that it is fast enough to work on machines of that vintage. I think it mostly relies on pattern recognition?
3. "Cleartype" with "LCD" turned off. This is true antialiasing and looks the same as X11 Xft and OS/X rendering (since it is exactly the same algorithim).
4. "Cleartype" with a type of LCD chosen. This is antialiasing but rendered on 3x as many horizontal pixels, squashed down by encoding each pixel as a color. Commonly called "subpixel rendering".
So it appears from the controls that to get antialiasing you must turn on something called "cleartype". However Microsoft has also published documentation saying that subpixel rendering is cleartype. Thus about half the people arguing about this think cleartype means subpixel rendering, and the other half think it means antialiasing. This leads to all kinds of confusion when they argue.
how many people could there possible be who import text files from Unix systems
Answer: EVERY SINGLE F**KING ONE OF THE WINDOWS USERS HERE. It may be an unknown mystery to you but we have something called a network here and our Windows machines are able to see and read/write the contents of our Unix disks.
I'd like to know how they managed to add utf-8 support to Notepad, remove that 64K barrier you mentioned, and still not fix the linefeed problem. And why Word and wordpad and VC++ IDE and every single other program I try on Windows has no problem handling bare linefeeds (they may write cr+lf, but I consider failure to read that a Unix problem that should be fixed there).
Also the "standard textbox" displays linefeeds as newlines. It has to, considering you can give it a constant string from in-memory in a C program. What you are talking about is a specialized widget that edits file contents only.
If you double-click a text file on a standard Windows install you will get Notepad. Otherwise the problems with Notepad would not matter.
I am quite convinced Microsoft does this on purpose so that files imported from Unix will look like crap, and if you save the file it will break on Unix. Wordpad, Word, the IDEs, and almost any other program they write does not have this behavior, but the default one you get for text files does. What other explanation is there?
Yes, I agree. They should just have made the symlink api manipulate aliases. I feel it would have worked. The only real difficulty is that readlink() would probably be somewhat more complex and the result is not constant.
Currently they are a bit screwed up. They have three types of links (hard, symbolic, and aliases). And aliases, though they might be nice, have an API even worse than what Microsoft is coughing up. At least on Windows I can peek into a "desktop link" file and read the symbolic link. There does not appear to be any api for aliases!
You are confusing Unix hard and soft links. The behavior you specified is what Unix hard links do, which is why they are a pain and useless (except for low level stuff like atomic file rename/move). Everybody uses softlinks. Microsoft refuses to make a working softlink because it will make it too easy to make Windows compatable with Unix.
Hardlinks are what Unix had *originally*, so they are even older. Symlinks were added later, as in fact hard links were very hard to manage. Permanent hard links are almost never used on Unix today (they are used for short-term things such as renaming files atomically).
There are "semi hard" links that Mac OS (but not OS/X?) do that may be better than both symbolic and hard links. They act like hard links as long as the linked-to file exists. If it is deleted they then act like a soft link (not sure if they revert to the original name or to some name computed from the most recent location). If a file is created at the soft link location they then go back to acting like a hard link.
Oddly enough, even though people pretty much admit that hardlinks are not as useful as symbolic links, Microsoft has done *more* to emulate hard links than symbolic ones. They are actually copying one of the more useless and harder to emulate Unix features, and not what is needed, which are symbolic links which are trivial to emulate. They are of course desperately afraid of making it too easy to emulate a Unix environment on Windows, and will do anything, including make up bogus excuses about the difficulty, to avoid it. This is also why Notepad still craps out if there are bare LF in the file and inserts a "utf-8 bom" at the start to break any Unix utilities that look at the first bytes.
In this case it is believed the screen layout made it very hard to see the question. I saw a picture and it took a long time to see what was wrong, as I really could not see the race. Apparently it was on the second screen, near the top, with two lines, followed by a large title in color that says "STATE" and followed by a much larger race of 6 contestents. Your eye is immediately drawn to the larger block. Don't know where the picture is.
In any case I think the belief is that the machines are reporting exactly what people voted. I'm unsure if a paper trail would fix it, but if it printed the blank entries maybe a few more voters would notice that they did not vote in that race and fix it.
Don't be a moron. Oil companies do *not* want people to think oil will run out or get more expensive, becasue that will *reduce* consumption of oil as the consumers will start to replace it in anticipation.
I kind of doubt the peak-oil stuff, mostly because they keep moving the peak so it is always five years in the future, but the motives of the oil companies arguing against it is are pretty blatently obvious.
Redistributing GPL software without source is a copyright violation, because you are not doing something the GPL allows. Thus it is exactly the same as though the GPL was not there, your actions are exactly as legal/illegal whether or not the GPL is on the software because it is outside the scope of actions the GPL has any effect on. The GPL is really a license that says "you are allowed to violate the copyright on this code if you do the following things...". It has absolutely no say in what you are allowed to do if you don't do those things.
Thus not following the rules is explicitly a copyright violation. Unless what you are doing does not violate copyright laws (such as fair use). Whether what you are doing is legal or not has absoltely NOTHING to do with the GPL and it is irrelevant whether the GPL is there, thus in no way are you "violating the GPL".
You could do a legal argument that you *are* following the GPL's rules, but that does not appear to be what is being tried here.
In my opinion the end user can *use* the source, in that they can use the source to make their *own* programs that use the library. The fact that some closed-source program is using the library is helpful in that they know they are compatable, and because of the source they know what that program is doing at a low level, even if they can't compile their own version.
I don't think people are really that interested in relinking with a new version of the library. In fact I would say 100% of the interesting modifications to libraries like mine are enhancements which require the calling program to be changed to take advantage of, thus the end user gets nothing by being able to relink. I also strongly suspect that somebody wanting to keep their source code secret is not going to want to release object files with external references intact, as that would make reverse-engineering much easier.
In any case that is what I and many other people who try to use the LGPL for our software want, because it is our interest that our libraries be used by as many programs as possible, and we are only interested in maintaining the freedom of the library itself. That is why there is such a huge number of these "exceptions". Even if some want the LGPL the way it is, I still feel it would be tremendously benificial if the FSF or some other trusted organization would write an official license with a clever name that everybody knows that does what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite certain that if NT had had even a limited Unix-like base (similar to Xenix and using the Gnu and BSD tools that existed at that time) then there would be NO Linux, and BSD would be a tiny hobby, Apple would be running NT, and Microsoft would have absolute control over every computer in the world and probably most people here would grudginly accept it or even be unaware that there could be an alternative, and literally 100% of all software development would be done on and for NT.
Microsoft's own arrogance has hurt them. I think most of the problem is that they hired geeks who never got laid in college, who suddenly found themselves in a position of power over something and then took out all their frustration and anger on the world by being purposely incompatable and refusing to read any references.
But Microsoft management did strange things, it is obvious that there was a push for Unix compatability in MSDOS 2.0 but all that evaporated and was even removed (one of the few times they have been incompatable with previous versions and it broke software I was working on) in 4.0. Not sure what caused this, but there seems to be anger and hostility toward Unix which is not helping them at all.
Thats the "middle mouse button" for those few left who speak english.
The fact that they made the wheel also be the middle mouse button is clever, but in no way required. There are mice available that seperate the functions.
My god you are stupid!
Hint: acronyms contain the letters that start the words that it stands for.
A "recursive acronym" uses itself as one of the words.
RMS is well known for using recursive acronyms. He is also known for using the words "GNU" and "Free" but that has NOTHING to do with this.
I do love how posters all say "those recursive acronyms are so childish, why doesn't OSS grow up?", and then the moment MicroSoft does it they say "oh MicroSoft has a sense of humor!"
A gun that could kill more than one person might be considered a WMD. It gets kind of hard to define the boundaries.
I'm assumming the entire list of voterID/vote is published and anybody can look at it. Somebody trying to fix the election MUST change this list in order to change the tally, because anybody who wants to can sum up all the votes on the list and see if they match the tally. If they don't then something is wrong.
.9^N, which gets small very quickly (for 100 checkers it is 2.6e-5).
If you change votes or remove votes, it is true that the chance that you change a specific ("your") vote is very small, so it is unlikely one person will catch it. But the chances of changing *somebody's* vote who checks is extremely high, almost a certainty. If the vote fixer changed 10% of the votes, the chances that N checkers will all find their votes correct is
Anyway the whole argument is pointless, as your first two points about vote coercion are certainly correct, which is why such a system could never be implemented.
If somebody wanted to fix the election by changing the recorded votes, though they might not change *your* vote, the odds that they select only votes that nobody checks is astronomically low thus making undetectable fixing impossible. Though nobody could prove their vote was wrong, large numbers of people complaining should indicate that something is wrong and the election investigated or re-run.
The only method of fixing the election is to add extra fake votes, but this would result in a larger total number of voters and should be detectable. They would have to invent fake voter id numbers as well, it may also help to try to keep the algorithim used to produce these as secret and one-way as possible.
Any such scheme means voter anoniminity is impossible, which is why it cannot be used. If it were not for this one huge problem, it would be a solution.
Though the vote buying/intimidation problems are true, your third point is wrong. If the website actually lists *all* the votes, then you can add them up and confirm whether they match the reported tally or not.
I think I see what happened. You probably should have replied to the moderated-down item.
However I have to also ask about your reading comprehension, though I also made the same mistake. The first article, if you skip the italicized quote, seems to be making a joke about MicroSoft Research inventing the Zune. You then pointed out that that was not the Research department, but marketing.
However the italicized quote says "FTA:"There are virtually no products Microsoft produces today that have not either taken technology from research...". Since Zune is a major product, this statement does mean that the Zune contains something made by the Research department, unless it is "virtually no product". Thus the initial post is questioning the accuracy of this statement.
Slashdot does have problems. Things I'd like fixed:
Plenty of people (myself and you) hit the wrong "reply" button, making replies look like they are to the opposite opinion than expected, making them sound like idiots. Change the layout so that there is [reply to parent] next to [reply to this].
Moderated-up replies to stuff that is moderated down appears to migrate up to be a response to the above. Again this can make the responder look like an idiot by reversing what they are replying to. In addition it hides exactly what they are responding to. I feel that if a reply is moderated up, the parent should be moderated up as well, so the whole hierarchy is visible. So if somebody blasts Linux with a good enough reason to respond to, that reason will be visible. If this idea could be abused (it would be possible to remove down-moderation by replying) I would instead make down-moderation completely remove all responses. Anybody who wants to show an intelligent response would be forced to up-moderate the thing being responded to.
If is very hard to identify if two things are from the same author as the text is very tiny. I would put the name in the comment title.
The above comment (moderated to +5) is hardly "disparaging of MSR", it is listing three interesting-sounding inventions and the number of papers and uses of those inventions. Maybe you thought it was insulting them in some way, but the wording sounded pretty positive to me. I think the problem is that people like you skim this so fast and are so set on proving the "slashdot bias" that you read the second word, "not", and decided this was a negative comment?
Nonsense. It would be trivial for Microsoft to design the "update" so that Word can read it but other programs cannot.
Now I'm not really sure they do this. A lot of the "evil" of Microsoft can be equally well explained by incompetent or rushed programmers, for instance if they only test it against Word they will achieve the same "evil" results naturally, possibly even evolving a much more insidious incompatability than if they purposely tried to do it.
FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Unfortunatly, even here, everybody seems to think it is a synonym for "lies", leading to the loss of this term as a descriptive one. "FUD" very well might not contain any lies at all, just exaggerated predictions of bad things to happen in the future, based on real things that are, at least somewhat, true right now. FUD in global warming is predicting floods and other catastrophic results, or predicting economic doom if we try to stop global warming. Both may very well be true. Saying "it's caused by man" (or vise-versa) is *NOT* FUD, it is instead a statement that may be true or a lie. Despite the fact that both lies and FUD can be used at the same time, they are not the same thing.
No, because you cannot be certain the code running on that machine is actually the same as the open source code you saw.
I agree that vote buying probably can't throw any modern election, for the reasons you say. However I think there is concern about the threat to individuals who disobey or the guilt of those who obey, even if the result did not effect the election. You could say that store robberies probably don't effect the national economy much, but they do greatly effect the person who is robbed.
As far as I can tell, "Cleartype" actually is two things. The patented "innovation" is their use of subpixel rendering, which treats the rgb of an lcd as three pixels rather than one. There is also antialiasing. It is pretty obvious that Cleartype does antialiasing when filling in those rgb pixels (ie it does not turn the red 100% on or off, but actually sets it to a gray level depending on the coverage of the red portion of the pixel).
Experimenting with a Windows machine reveals that there are really 4 settings:
1. Aliased. This is like old versions of Windows or X11 or Mac. Each letter consists of 100% on and 100% off pixels.
2. "Font smoothing". This is a crude form of antialiasing that Microsoft wrote. It's primary advantage is that it is fast enough to work on machines of that vintage. I think it mostly relies on pattern recognition?
3. "Cleartype" with "LCD" turned off. This is true antialiasing and looks the same as X11 Xft and OS/X rendering (since it is exactly the same algorithim).
4. "Cleartype" with a type of LCD chosen. This is antialiasing but rendered on 3x as many horizontal pixels, squashed down by encoding each pixel as a color. Commonly called "subpixel rendering".
So it appears from the controls that to get antialiasing you must turn on something called "cleartype". However Microsoft has also published documentation saying that subpixel rendering is cleartype. Thus about half the people arguing about this think cleartype means subpixel rendering, and the other half think it means antialiasing. This leads to all kinds of confusion when they argue.
Seems like that could be done with symbolic links as well, though.
how many people could there possible be who import text files from Unix systems
Answer: EVERY SINGLE F**KING ONE OF THE WINDOWS USERS HERE. It may be an unknown mystery to you but we have something called a network here and our Windows machines are able to see and read/write the contents of our Unix disks.
I'd like to know how they managed to add utf-8 support to Notepad, remove that 64K barrier you mentioned, and still not fix the linefeed problem. And why Word and wordpad and VC++ IDE and every single other program I try on Windows has no problem handling bare linefeeds (they may write cr+lf, but I consider failure to read that a Unix problem that should be fixed there).
Also the "standard textbox" displays linefeeds as newlines. It has to, considering you can give it a constant string from in-memory in a C program. What you are talking about is a specialized widget that edits file contents only.
If you double-click a text file on a standard Windows install you will get Notepad. Otherwise the problems with Notepad would not matter.
I am quite convinced Microsoft does this on purpose so that files imported from Unix will look like crap, and if you save the file it will break on Unix. Wordpad, Word, the IDEs, and almost any other program they write does not have this behavior, but the default one you get for text files does. What other explanation is there?
Yes, I agree. They should just have made the symlink api manipulate aliases. I feel it would have worked. The only real difficulty is that readlink() would probably be somewhat more complex and the result is not constant.
Currently they are a bit screwed up. They have three types of links (hard, symbolic, and aliases). And aliases, though they might be nice, have an API even worse than what Microsoft is coughing up. At least on Windows I can peek into a "desktop link" file and read the symbolic link. There does not appear to be any api for aliases!
You are confusing Unix hard and soft links. The behavior you specified is what Unix hard links do, which is why they are a pain and useless (except for low level stuff like atomic file rename/move). Everybody uses softlinks. Microsoft refuses to make a working softlink because it will make it too easy to make Windows compatable with Unix.
Hardlinks are what Unix had *originally*, so they are even older. Symlinks were added later, as in fact hard links were very hard to manage. Permanent hard links are almost never used on Unix today (they are used for short-term things such as renaming files atomically).
There are "semi hard" links that Mac OS (but not OS/X?) do that may be better than both symbolic and hard links. They act like hard links as long as the linked-to file exists. If it is deleted they then act like a soft link (not sure if they revert to the original name or to some name computed from the most recent location). If a file is created at the soft link location they then go back to acting like a hard link.
Oddly enough, even though people pretty much admit that hardlinks are not as useful as symbolic links, Microsoft has done *more* to emulate hard links than symbolic ones. They are actually copying one of the more useless and harder to emulate Unix features, and not what is needed, which are symbolic links which are trivial to emulate. They are of course desperately afraid of making it too easy to emulate a Unix environment on Windows, and will do anything, including make up bogus excuses about the difficulty, to avoid it. This is also why Notepad still craps out if there are bare LF in the file and inserts a "utf-8 bom" at the start to break any Unix utilities that look at the first bytes.
In this case it is believed the screen layout made it very hard to see the question. I saw a picture and it took a long time to see what was wrong, as I really could not see the race. Apparently it was on the second screen, near the top, with two lines, followed by a large title in color that says "STATE" and followed by a much larger race of 6 contestents. Your eye is immediately drawn to the larger block. Don't know where the picture is.
In any case I think the belief is that the machines are reporting exactly what people voted. I'm unsure if a paper trail would fix it, but if it printed the blank entries maybe a few more voters would notice that they did not vote in that race and fix it.
Don't be a moron. Oil companies do *not* want people to think oil will run out or get more expensive, becasue that will *reduce* consumption of oil as the consumers will start to replace it in anticipation.
I kind of doubt the peak-oil stuff, mostly because they keep moving the peak so it is always five years in the future, but the motives of the oil companies arguing against it is are pretty blatently obvious.
Google maps link: http://www.google.com/maps?q=41.66870852724252,-86 .49160929064662
Redistributing GPL software without source is a copyright violation, because you are not doing something the GPL allows. Thus it is exactly the same as though the GPL was not there, your actions are exactly as legal/illegal whether or not the GPL is on the software because it is outside the scope of actions the GPL has any effect on. The GPL is really a license that says "you are allowed to violate the copyright on this code if you do the following things...". It has absolutely no say in what you are allowed to do if you don't do those things.
Thus not following the rules is explicitly a copyright violation. Unless what you are doing does not violate copyright laws (such as fair use). Whether what you are doing is legal or not has absoltely NOTHING to do with the GPL and it is irrelevant whether the GPL is there, thus in no way are you "violating the GPL".
You could do a legal argument that you *are* following the GPL's rules, but that does not appear to be what is being tried here.
In my opinion the end user can *use* the source, in that they can use the source to make their *own* programs that use the library. The fact that some closed-source program is using the library is helpful in that they know they are compatable, and because of the source they know what that program is doing at a low level, even if they can't compile their own version.
I don't think people are really that interested in relinking with a new version of the library. In fact I would say 100% of the interesting modifications to libraries like mine are enhancements which require the calling program to be changed to take advantage of, thus the end user gets nothing by being able to relink. I also strongly suspect that somebody wanting to keep their source code secret is not going to want to release object files with external references intact, as that would make reverse-engineering much easier.
In any case that is what I and many other people who try to use the LGPL for our software want, because it is our interest that our libraries be used by as many programs as possible, and we are only interested in maintaining the freedom of the library itself. That is why there is such a huge number of these "exceptions". Even if some want the LGPL the way it is, I still feel it would be tremendously benificial if the FSF or some other trusted organization would write an official license with a clever name that everybody knows that does what we want.