The thing is that a mainstream user (and most Linux users nowadays) do not upgrade the kernel by themselves. They use RedHats Up2date or similar tools which is the equivalent of "Windows Update".
Wohoo, Sweden at least one the CounterStrike competition. It was even on mentioned on swedish national news. (I guess we don't win that much, so we are happy with what we get)
You are comparing apple and oranges here. autoconf is a build system to support building on different platforms. And I like autoconf very much, since development libraries, includes etc lives in very different places even on different Linux systems.
setup.exe is a way of installing software to your system. Actually, it would be better to compare with Debian 'deb' files or RedHat 'rpm' files. Using apt-get should be equal to running setup.exe, assuming you have access to all deb files a certain application is dependent on.
Unfortunately, a lot of developers (like me) must use Windows to earn their living. I find Cygwin essential for my work. Bison, flex, bash, gawk, sed and perl is some of the tools I use daily.
Well my guess is that they have the civilizations where they have more buyers. For some odd reason, they have both Americans and Iroquois. But they removed my favourite, the Vikings (being a Scandinavian). And where are the Mongols, they once ruled Asia with Djingis Khan?
Anyway, I'll wait until it is ported to Linux. That probably means never.:(
Well, people probably assumed that it was a normal hijacking. This mostly ends up in some airport in a third-world country and some demands of releasing other terrorists from prison. So you can't blame people from not risking their lives.
This news was originally in Swedish (blame my poor english):
"Palestinian groups are celebrating. The news agency AP reports that palestinian groups in Nablos on Westbank are celebrating the attack."
I love Debian and it is my preferred distro. But it takes forever to get out a stable version. By the time it is released I must move to the unstable branch to be able to run it on my computer. Is something done to address this problem?
Actually Corel and Debian had a dispute with dpkg (the package tool in Debian). One of the authors had the opinion that the proprietary command-line interface of dpkg couldn't be used from a non-GPL GUI application. But RMS and others didn't have any complaints against it.
The command 'ls' is part of the POSIX standard, so there's nothing unique about that command.
Just one note about a GPL Qt. TT would have trouble incorporating patches from users since they will fall under GPL. They must have the patch authors permission to include it in their proprietary version of Qt. The code that TT has written is of course no problem. TT could add a clause to their GPL which says that they can use it in their proprietary version. But I am not sure if that makes the license non-GPL compatible.
He compares Qt with Motif: "When we first released Qt there was already de-facto acceptance in the community that one could make GPLed programs using Motif, even before Lesstiff came along. Motif was a proprietary and non-free library with a much stricter license than Qt."
GPL allows linking (dynamic and static) to libraries that are not GPL compliant if they are considered a part of the OS. Hence, an application in windows that uses WIN32 API has no problems. Qt is not part of the OS on any system, not even Corel Linux.
He also seems to confuse GPL with LGPL: "If the GPL effectively protected a GPLed library from being used to develop proprietary software, we would allow relicensing Qt under the GPL. But, as I have said, it is not our belief that using a library is making a derivative work. "
The LGPL license was developed to give non GPL compatible software access to GPL libraries. If a library is GPL:ed there is no way of linking (dynamic or static) with that library. E.g. the cygwin library is GPL:ed in Windows, so you can only create GPL:ed software with Cygwin.
Having said all this, Debian could include KDE if they added a clause in KDE that allowed linking to Qt.
This at least is my interpretation of how GPL works.
Do you have some examples of this? And if you have, are you certain that they don't have modified their GPL license to allow linking or using MPL code?
The fuss is about that KDE is GPL software and Qt is not. There would be no problem if KDE changed their license to allow linking with QPL-software. Or even better, if QPL was GPL compatible.
You need to read the GPL license again, dude. You can't link to non-GPL compatible software unless it is part of the OS. Hence, GPL Motif applications are fine on Solaris but not on Linux.
I don't understand your argument about Netscape Communicator. Communicator code most likely doesn't include kernel headers. However, it includes GNU libc headers, which is a LGPL library. (Note: You can write kernel modules that are not GPLed due to the fact that the GPL license in Linux kernel has an exception for kernel modules)
Using a Qt GPL version, it would of course still be a commercial version of Qt available. The QPL only says that your application must be an Open Source compatible license.
A LGPL Qt would kill Troll Tech business immediately since then anyone can link to Qt with any license, even a shrink wrapped license.
You obviously don't understand what Free Software stands for. Free Software gives everybody the equal right to change the software. So be it that only one percent of the population have the knowledge and will to fix things.
- But the power is on your side. You can pay somebody to fix it or learn how to fix it. You don't have to wait until MS or any other company thinks that your bug or feature is important enough.
- Believe me when I say that those 1% are probably better and more dedicated programmers than most payed closed source programmers. Everything they do is clearly visible for everybody. I rather have Linus and Alan than some disgruntled Microsoft employee (disgruntled since his stocks have fallen 40%).
- Even if you don't ever are going to fix a bug or add a feature. There are others out there who uses the software the same way you are doing. And maybe they find the exact same bug and decides that they want to fix it.
- And finally, if the maintainers are doing a very lousy job, anyone with the right dedication can take over and led the application development in another direction.
1. Your friends/customers/clients don't use Outlook. 2. Your friends have Outlook but don't have you in their Addressbook. 3. Your friends are not as stupid as most of Outlook users. 4. You don't have any friends.
Do your homework, glibc-2.1.3 is already in there. Regarding XFree86, RedHat 6.2 doesn't include it either. And I think that it will take half a year or so before any of the large distributions will include it (Mandrake will of course use it within a month). I can't say anything about apache, but you can use debs from woody if it's so important. Or compile it yourself of course. Linux 2.4 seems very unstable to me. Remember 2.2.x, it wasn't stable until 2.2.10 or something.
So should they release now or wait for another half year, I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that a mainstream user (and most Linux users nowadays) do not upgrade the kernel by themselves. They use RedHats Up2date or similar tools which is the equivalent of "Windows Update".
Wohoo, Sweden at least one the CounterStrike competition. It was even on mentioned on swedish national news. (I guess we don't win that much, so we are happy with what we get)
Congratulation guys!
Let me see, participating players 2 and bronze gives $2000. Talk about easy earned money if I have known this earlier. :)
You are comparing apple and oranges here. autoconf is a build system to support building on different platforms. And I like autoconf very much, since development libraries, includes etc lives in very different places even on different Linux systems.
setup.exe is a way of installing software to your system. Actually, it would be better to compare with Debian 'deb' files or RedHat 'rpm' files. Using apt-get should be equal to running setup.exe, assuming you have access to all deb files a certain application is dependent on.
/Jonas U
Unfortunately, a lot of developers (like me) must use Windows to earn their living. I find Cygwin essential for my work. Bison, flex, bash, gawk, sed and perl is some of the tools I use daily.
/Jonas U
gawk is included with Cygwin. If you are running bash instead of cmd.exe you also get tab-completion.
/Jonas U
Well my guess is that they have the civilizations where they have more buyers. For some odd reason, they have both Americans and Iroquois. But they removed my favourite, the Vikings (being a Scandinavian). And where are the Mongols, they once ruled Asia with Djingis Khan?
:(
Anyway, I'll wait until it is ported to Linux. That probably means never.
Well, people probably assumed that it was a normal hijacking. This mostly ends up in some airport in a third-world country and some demands of releasing other terrorists from prison. So you can't blame people from not risking their lives.
Iraq television has commented (but not condemned) to the act against the U.S:
"The fruit of the american crimes against humanity"
This news was originally in Swedish (blame my poor english):
"Palestinian groups are celebrating. The news agency AP reports that palestinian groups in Nablos on Westbank are celebrating the attack."
Hi,
Is this code in the Mozilla CVS repository or somewhere at Corel? I haven't been following Mozilla development lately, but this sounds exciting.
/Jonas U
You can check out this page:
http://www.debian.org/~branden/
But beware, this is not for general consumption. The deb-packages should only be used by people that otherwise would compile XFree-4 by themselves.
I love Debian and it is my preferred distro. But it takes forever to get out a stable version. By the time it is released I must move to the unstable branch to be able to run it on my computer. Is something done to address this problem?
Actually Corel and Debian had a dispute with dpkg (the package tool in Debian). One of the authors had the opinion that the proprietary command-line interface of dpkg couldn't be used from a non-GPL GUI application. But RMS and others didn't have any complaints against it.
The command 'ls' is part of the POSIX standard, so there's nothing unique about that command.
Motif in Linux have the same problem as Qt (at least before lesstif). It was one of the reasons why lesstif was developed.
I can't tell exactly if Motif is considered a part of the OS in e.g. Solaris. I would consider it a part of Solaris, but that's just me.
Just one note about a GPL Qt. TT would have trouble incorporating patches from users since they will fall under GPL. They must have the patch authors permission to include it in their proprietary version of Qt. The code that TT has written is of course no problem. TT could add a clause to their GPL which says that they can use it in their proprietary version. But I am not sure if that makes the license non-GPL compatible.
He compares Qt with Motif:
"When we first released Qt there was already de-facto acceptance in the community that one could make GPLed programs using Motif, even before Lesstiff came along. Motif was a proprietary and non-free library with a much stricter license than Qt."
GPL allows linking (dynamic and static) to libraries that are not GPL compliant if they are considered a part of the OS. Hence, an application in windows that uses WIN32 API has no problems. Qt is not part of the OS on any system, not even Corel Linux.
He also seems to confuse GPL with LGPL:
"If the GPL effectively protected a GPLed library from being used to develop proprietary software, we would allow relicensing Qt under the GPL. But, as I have said, it is not our belief that using a library is making a derivative work. "
The LGPL license was developed to give non GPL compatible software access to GPL libraries. If a library is GPL:ed there is no way of linking (dynamic or static) with that library. E.g. the cygwin library is GPL:ed in Windows, so you can only create GPL:ed software with Cygwin.
Having said all this, Debian could include KDE if they added a clause in KDE that allowed linking to Qt.
This at least is my interpretation of how GPL works.
Do you have some examples of this? And if you have, are you certain that they don't have modified their GPL license to allow linking or using MPL code?
The fuss is about that KDE is GPL software and Qt is not. There would be no problem if KDE changed their license to allow linking with QPL-software. Or even better, if QPL was GPL compatible.
You need to read the GPL license again, dude. You can't link to non-GPL compatible software unless it is part of the OS. Hence, GPL Motif applications are fine on Solaris but not on Linux.
I don't understand your argument about Netscape Communicator. Communicator code most likely doesn't include kernel headers. However, it includes GNU libc headers, which is a LGPL library.
(Note: You can write kernel modules that are not GPLed due to the fact that the GPL license in Linux kernel has an exception for kernel modules)
Using a Qt GPL version, it would of course still be a commercial version of Qt available. The QPL only says that your application must be an Open Source compatible license.
A LGPL Qt would kill Troll Tech business immediately since then anyone can link to Qt with any license, even a shrink wrapped license.
Athlon 800
ASUS K7V
PC133 256 MB
GeForce DDR
This works as a charm with Debian Potato. Just remember to disable PnP OS in BIOS before you install.
You obviously don't understand what Free Software stands for. Free Software gives everybody the equal right to change the software. So be it that only one percent of the population have the knowledge and will to fix things.
- But the power is on your side. You can pay somebody to fix it or learn how to fix it. You don't have to wait until MS or any other company thinks that your bug or feature is important enough.
- Believe me when I say that those 1% are probably better and more dedicated programmers than most payed closed source programmers. Everything they do is clearly visible for everybody. I rather have Linus and Alan than some disgruntled Microsoft employee (disgruntled since his stocks have fallen 40%).
- Even if you don't ever are going to fix a bug or add a feature. There are others out there who uses the software the same way you are doing. And maybe they find the exact same bug and decides that they want to fix it.
- And finally, if the maintainers are doing a very lousy job, anyone with the right dedication can take over and led the application development in another direction.
1. Your friends/customers/clients don't use Outlook.
2. Your friends have Outlook but don't have
you in their Addressbook.
3. Your friends are not as stupid as most of Outlook users.
4. You don't have any friends.
Heh, Windows Media Player doesn't run on Linux. Linux is used by the majority of /. reader (at least I hope it is).
Do your homework, glibc-2.1.3 is already in there. Regarding XFree86, RedHat 6.2 doesn't include it either. And I think that it will take half a year or so before any of the large distributions will include it (Mandrake will of course use it within a month). I can't say anything about apache, but you can use debs from woody if it's so important. Or compile it yourself of course.
Linux 2.4 seems very unstable to me. Remember 2.2.x, it wasn't stable until 2.2.10 or something.
So should they release now or wait for another half year, I think not.