Apache is covered by the Apache Software License not the GPL. It seems to be a X/MITish sort of license. Item 5 relates to your post:
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I suppose the case could be made that "Mapache" contains "apache". "LindowsOS" on the other hand is plausibly derived from "Microsoft Windows" and is intended in it's short form (Lindows) to sound like MS Windows short form (Windows). The whole thing is going to hinge on whether MS can convince a judge of that.
2600 Pacman & Space Invaders could've been bet
on
Top Ten Shameful Games
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Some 2600 Roms have been hacked by people who I suppose wanted to expunge some bad memories. Ms. Pacman for the 2600 wasn't at all bad and somebody hacked it into a fairly arcade-faithful Pacman. Since Ms. Pacman was decent to start with, the hacker limited it to one maze that is a good approximation of arcade Pacman's maze. The prizes were fixed in place below the ghosthouse and edited to match arcade Pacman's prizes. Go to Atari Age and check it out.
Several credible jobs were done on reforming space invaders. There is no reason why 2600 Space Invaders couldn't have been more accurate as
this proves.
Oh well, anyone who played games in the early eighties knew that crap was rushed out the door. Most of us bought it anyway. Me too. Suckers....
One reason may be that they are trying create that thing that Americans used to call "know-how".
Scary example: Igor Kurchatov did not just splatter the results of bomb espionage on his design team. What is said to have often happened is that researcher would come into Kurchatov's office with his new brilliant idea on paper. Kurchatov would take some papers out of his safe then look at his researcher's paper and then send the young man back out to work on it some more. Russia would have never learned to engineer weapons to their requirements by blindly copying the Americans.
Less earth shattering example: In the mid-nineties Ford was designing the new body style for the Taurus/Sable. Japanese cars were on the market with new complex-reflector headlights. These are the transparent lights with the faceted mirrors around the bulb. Ford wanted that "jewelry-like" appearance for their new Taurus and tried to just copy the lights. It turned out that engineering such a light into an arbitrary body shape is not trivial. It took them awhile to "get it".
Processors have many industrial and military uses in addition to being the engine of a PC. It is understandable that China might want home-grown knowledge so they can precisely tailor parts to their requirements. This is in addition to not wanting to depend on foreign powers for what has become essential technology.
"Any price that you'd like" includes free of charge. If you don't wish to partake of free offerings then don't. You most certainly don't have the right to tell anyone else who made something what terms they can distribute it under. This bears some expansion. You've been all irritated by the fact GPL distribution terms are inconvienient for some downstream developers. You favor relicensing under any terms you choose....even proprietary terms under which downstream users and developers have essentially no rights. Yet you don't seem to agree that an initial developer of a project can't choose any license he wants...even that nasty GPL.
You can even resort to name calling and use words like "socialist", "commie", or even "cancer" but those developers are only exercising their rights to choose the license. Linus Torvalds said it best: "He who writes the code chooses the license."
But in some of your posts to this topic, you argue that the GPL isn't truly free because one can't relicense a derivitive work and the BSD license truly is free. So which is it? You favor usage restrictions on end users (how else would one disallow glibc being used to control a baby threshing machine) yet are offended by restrictions on developers. Incidentally, if free/OS software can be used for nefarious purposes then so can proprietary software. Any remotely effective way of making that untrue would cut the ground from under your feet even more. Not that you have much to stand on as it is.
Yeah but being a puritannical American movie, they'll just have one side profile shot where all of the interesting bits are covered by arms and legs. After that, there'll be a bunch of neck up shots while she's walking around looking for somebody to mug to clothing and a vehicle. Finally, when she finds her victim we'll see some cheek...very briefly...if we're lucky. After that, the best we'll be able to hope for is a little cleavage and a tiny bit of skin when her clothes get ripped up by all the ordnance that gets poured at her.
This is not an emulator. Those old Sierra games were developed with a system called AGI. Pretty much the same data files were used on all supported systems with an AGI interpreter tweaked to run the data files. Sarien is a GENERAL AGI interpreter and works quite well. As a matter of fact, I finished Leisure Suit Larry on my Debian box last week. I also tried out but haven't seriously played Kings Quest I and Space Quest with it as well. If you still have some old IBM PC versions of these games laying around (or aren't above some abandonware digging...) then Sarien will take care of you.
One pisser is that it only has one save game slot but there is a workaround. The saved games can be copied and renamed elsewhere allowing arbitrarily many games to be saved albeit in a PITA fashion.
Oh yeah, If you try this be sure to get the ID database file. It is a separate download for some reason and Sarien won't correctly run most games without it.
The C64 was a CONSUMER item. When the CSIRAC was built there was no such thing as a computer for consumers. It would be more appropriate to compare the CSIRAC to the so-called supercomputers that were availiable in 1982. Machines like the Cray X-MP and Cyber 205 were availiable in 1982. The costs to own and operate them are comparable to what it took to operate the CSIRAC in it's day.
The UK's weather bureau give specs on the Cyber 205 they were using in '82:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/nwp/numeri ca l/computers/history.html
CDC Cyber 205
200Mhz Clock 1 MegaWord of memory The Cyber had a 64 bit word size so that amounted to 8 MB of ram. So clockspeed has increased over 600 times and memory has increased over 4000 times in that time frame. This is just confining myself to the 205. I didn't look for the specs on other large machines like the Crays that were availiable then.
Computers as something just anyone could play with were pretty much nonexistant prior to 77 (true you could build something ENIAC-like anytime in the seventies if you were REALLY good with electronics). It's more instructive to see what the kind of money they had to spend on the CSIRAC will get you as time moves forward. Power comparable to the C64 was availiabe in the early sixties for that kind of money.
I already tend to distrust Office because I cannot be assured that I will have a way to open documents made with it in the future. 5,10,20 years or more go by and one day I realize that if I ever need to get at some old data I'm going to have a hell of a time with it. You see, the format my data is stored in is a secret. That makes Office next to useless as an archival format. Unless I'm constantly trasformatting as well as transcopying my data to new media, I may as well XOR it with a one time pad and throw away the pad.
Since I already mistrust the tools in the world's most used office suite, why should I trust yours? What is so wonderful about Surfwriter that I essentially encrypt my life and business with it?
Yes, Microsoft can make the business decision to make their formats a secret. Because they are secret, I make the business decision not to entrust anything to them. Incidentally if just about every program on Windows can open Word files it is because Office dlls function as an engine to let them be opened. No third party program can be counted on to open all Office files perfectly. Not even Office can be counted on to open all files made five years ago with earlier versions.
Print to a file and open it in gv. This is much less awkward if gv is running and minimized already. It may even be possible to make a fake printer and have things open in gv that way. If you like the way they look then print from gv.
I write some code and think other people might like it so I put it up for download. Just how the hell am I supposed to stop the Party Congress from downloading a copy to complete their Baby Threshing machine? After all, they're serious about this one child thing. If I fix it so the the Party Congress can't have it then pretty much no one else can either. Open Source grinds to a halt and MS and Cisco continue laughing all the way to the bank.
What's being objected to here is profit from oppressing others. Now when Red Hat removed the Taiwanese flag at Beijing's behest, THAT was something appropriate to get on their case about.
There are hard drive slots that fit in a 5 1/4" drive bay. The slot has a removable tray that will accept desktop hard drives as well as laptop form factor hard drives. Once the drive is bolted into the tray it just slides into the drive bay.
Our hypothetical multisystem vendor could just equip their PCs with these bays with various flavors of preloaded hard drives mounted in the pullout trays. It's literally plug-n-play that way.
The MS Tax was the natural result of Microsofts old OEM agreements. Basically an OEM could not sell the same hardware model numbers or SKUs with both Windows and non-MS OSes. An OEM would have to actually change the hardware config slightly to sell non-Windows versions of it's PCs. Since non-Windows represent small potential sales, this condition sufficed to keep them from bothering. OEMs were probably also reluctant to offend MS since a raise in their privately negotiated price for Windows could be fatal. Microsoft is now legally prohibited from imposing that condition on OEMs but their 90s+ desktop marketshare largely works to accomplish the same thing. Most OEMs still won't offer non-MS or bare PCs, especially laptops. Their are some cracks in this like the Wal-Mart Microtels but their success is not assured.
Slashbot? Who's the one making personal attacks here? I won't even bother analyzing your idea that critics of Gates need to make big donations before they are allowed to have an opinion. Pot meet kettle.
Anyway, current happenings in India do suggest that the charity is being abused. We hear that the Indian govt. is considering increased use of Open Source source and the next thing we know Gates is on the plane. That pattern is getting a little hard to miss. And would you know it? India's enthusiasm for Open Source is dimmed now. Gates doesn't even have to explicitly make it a condition of receiving the donations. India will naturally not want to offend him. If noticing these things makes me a Slashbot than so be it.
Speaking of Carnegie, in his day he made Gates look like a fluffy kitten. Those he ruined didn't think too highly of him yet nobody remembers that. The reason we have antitrust law in the first place is because men like Carnegie and Rockefeller. I doubt that is lost on Gates. Excuse me for thinking that massive charitable donations don't excuse unethical behaivor. Deciding Microsoft and Gates behave unethically can be come by honestly and rationally. Are you only going to concede rationality only to those who agree with you or would you like to insult me some more?
So we are supposed to ignore Gates attacks on our commmunity because he gives money to fight AIDS. Even if he ties the AIDS money to adopting Microsoft software, we're still supposed to ignore it? I don't think so.
We are not obligated to make matching contributions if Gates abuses his charity to promote Microsoft's interests. So yes, the Gates Foundation WILL be criticized and rightfully so. Such donations have nothing to do with real charity and it is more than proper to point it out.
"Given the fidelity limitations of MP3, an FM stereo or stereo TV broadcast is more than the equal of most CD rips."
As far as the 128kb MP3s that are typically shared around on p2p networks go, I agree with you. However, cd audio ripped on a Plextor with cdparanoia and then encoded with a LAME preset like --r3mix is another kettle of fish altogether. I doubt most people could tell difference between those and the original. That is as long as things aren't the way so-called Golden Ears like them. They don't things that contribute to objectivity like double blinded testing. They have to absolutely see the hand built tube amp to KNOW they have quality.
NewtonsLaw is right, most mp3s that are traded around sound like FM radio taped onto a cassette. I did it when I teenager. What are they getting excited about? Oh yeah, that's right. They tried to kill cassettes too.
Perhaps, but that doesn't help you if the firmware on the drive insists on reading a TOC and then spitting the disk back out before the low level drivers take over. Now, if that behaivor can be disabled with a command......
This libertarian shit doesn't work when big corporations can just buy politicians. As soon as the free market moves to solve the problems, they'll buy legislation outlawing the solution.
What we need are utterly stupid CD data drives. The board on the drive will do nothing more than spin the cd, move the heads, and read and write data at the lowest possible level. Absolutely all functions of the drive should be implemented in software. If cdparanoia can control the every tiny thing that goes on in the drive then this sort of scheme is done. It will only take a few days for a new driver to be written every time another one of these schemes comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if EE students don't start hacking existing drives to behave in just this way. Saaaay, that's even better. Hack in an "utterly stupid" mode for direct ripper control.
It won't be a problem for 64-bit and up UNIX systems. It also won't be a problem for 32 bit Unices that do something different about time_t. That's not to say there won't be a brief bonanza of highly paid work for crusty Linux, BSD and Solaris hackers right about then.
This would be a matter of correct design of the client and format. Sure, such viruses may be possible but if the format is designed correctly then only some clients will be vulnerable. We're talking about a document interchange format. It shouldn't have to be a turing-complete language.
Existing life forms could be adjusted to target particular groups. That would be much easier to do than whipping up an organism from scratch to do it. I agree that there are serious concerns with this type of research but I don't think this is one of the major ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Apache is covered by the Apache Software License not the GPL. It seems to be a X/MITish sort of license. Item 5 relates to your post:
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I suppose the case could be made that "Mapache" contains "apache". "LindowsOS" on the other hand is plausibly derived from "Microsoft Windows" and is intended in it's short form (Lindows) to sound like MS Windows short form (Windows). The whole thing is going to hinge on whether MS can convince a judge of that.
Some 2600 Roms have been hacked by people who I suppose wanted to expunge some bad memories. Ms. Pacman for the 2600 wasn't at all bad and somebody hacked it into a fairly arcade-faithful Pacman. Since Ms. Pacman was decent to start with, the hacker limited it to one maze that is a good approximation of arcade Pacman's maze. The prizes were fixed in place below the ghosthouse and edited to match arcade Pacman's prizes. Go to Atari Age and check it out.
Several credible jobs were done on reforming space invaders. There is no reason why 2600 Space Invaders couldn't have been more accurate as this proves.
Oh well, anyone who played games in the early eighties knew that crap was rushed out the door. Most of us bought it anyway. Me too. Suckers....
It would be much more fun to pour LO2 on the paper and toss a few Blue Devils on it.
One reason may be that they are trying create that thing that Americans used to call "know-how".
Scary example: Igor Kurchatov did not just splatter the results of bomb espionage on his design team. What is said to have often happened is that researcher would come into Kurchatov's office with his new brilliant idea on paper. Kurchatov would take some papers out of his safe then look at his researcher's paper and then send the young man back out to work on it some more. Russia would have never learned to engineer weapons to their requirements by blindly copying the Americans.
Less earth shattering example: In the mid-nineties Ford was designing the new body style for the Taurus/Sable. Japanese cars were on the market with new complex-reflector headlights. These are the transparent lights with the faceted mirrors around the bulb. Ford wanted that "jewelry-like" appearance for their new Taurus and tried to just copy the lights. It turned out that engineering such a light into an arbitrary body shape is not trivial. It took them awhile to "get it".
Processors have many industrial and military uses in addition to being the engine of a PC. It is understandable that China might want home-grown knowledge so they can precisely tailor parts to their requirements. This is in addition to not wanting to depend on foreign powers for what has become essential technology.
"Any price that you'd like" includes free of charge. If you don't wish to partake of free offerings then don't. You most certainly don't have the right to tell anyone else who made something what terms they can distribute it under. This bears some expansion. You've been all irritated by the fact GPL distribution terms are inconvienient for some downstream developers. You favor relicensing under any terms you choose....even proprietary terms under which downstream users and developers have essentially no rights. Yet you don't seem to agree that an initial developer of a project can't choose any license he wants...even that nasty GPL. You can even resort to name calling and use words like "socialist", "commie", or even "cancer" but those developers are only exercising their rights to choose the license. Linus Torvalds said it best: "He who writes the code chooses the license."
I also think your arguments are extremely disingenous. A few weeks ago, you were offended by the possibility that free software could be incorporated into a nefarious technology of some kind. You were arguing that free and open source software developers are responsible for what end users do with their products.
But in some of your posts to this topic, you argue that the GPL isn't truly free because one can't relicense a derivitive work and the BSD license truly is free. So which is it? You favor usage restrictions on end users (how else would one disallow glibc being used to control a baby threshing machine) yet are offended by restrictions on developers. Incidentally, if free/OS software can be used for nefarious purposes then so can proprietary software. Any remotely effective way of making that untrue would cut the ground from under your feet even more. Not that you have much to stand on as it is.C1everNickName versus CleverNickName.
This is an imposter.
Maybe Wil needs to end his posts with:
"The real CleverNickName has a uid of 129189."
Yeah but being a puritannical American movie, they'll just have one side profile shot where all of the interesting bits are covered by arms and legs. After that, there'll be a bunch of neck up shots while she's walking around looking for somebody to mug to clothing and a vehicle. Finally, when she finds her victim we'll see some cheek...very briefly...if we're lucky. After that, the best we'll be able to hope for is a little cleavage and a tiny bit of skin when her clothes get ripped up by all the ordnance that gets poured at her.
My wife bought me one of those a couple of years ago. Isn't she a sweetie?!
http://sarien.sourceforge.net/
This is not an emulator. Those old Sierra games were developed with a system called AGI. Pretty much the same data files were used on all supported systems with an AGI interpreter tweaked to run the data files. Sarien is a GENERAL AGI interpreter and works quite well. As a matter of fact, I finished Leisure Suit Larry on my Debian box last week. I also tried out but haven't seriously played Kings Quest I and Space Quest with it as well. If you still have some old IBM PC versions of these games laying around (or aren't above some abandonware digging...) then Sarien will take care of you.
One pisser is that it only has one save game slot but there is a workaround. The saved games can be copied and renamed elsewhere allowing arbitrarily many games to be saved albeit in a PITA fashion.
Oh yeah, If you try this be sure to get the ID database file. It is a separate download for some reason and Sarien won't correctly run most games without it.
Cheers!
The C64 was a CONSUMER item. When the CSIRAC was built there was no such thing as a computer for consumers. It would be more appropriate to compare the CSIRAC to the so-called supercomputers that were availiable in 1982. Machines like the Cray X-MP and Cyber 205 were availiable in 1982. The costs to own and operate them are comparable to what it took to operate the CSIRAC in it's day.
i ca l/computers/history.html
The UK's weather bureau give specs on the Cyber 205 they were using in '82:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/nwp/numer
CDC Cyber 205
200Mhz Clock
1 MegaWord of memory
The Cyber had a 64 bit word size so that amounted to 8 MB of ram. So clockspeed has increased over 600 times and memory has increased over 4000 times in that time frame. This is just confining myself to the 205. I didn't look for the specs on other large machines like the Crays that were availiable then.
Computers as something just anyone could play with were pretty much nonexistant prior to 77 (true you could build something ENIAC-like anytime in the seventies if you were REALLY good with electronics). It's more instructive to see what the kind of money they had to spend on the CSIRAC will get you as time moves forward. Power comparable to the C64 was availiabe in the early sixties for that kind of money.
I already tend to distrust Office because I cannot be assured that I will have a way to open documents made with it in the future. 5,10,20 years or more go by and one day I realize that if I ever need to get at some old data I'm going to have a hell of a time with it. You see, the format my data is stored in is a secret. That makes Office next to useless as an archival format. Unless I'm constantly trasformatting as well as transcopying my data to new media, I may as well XOR it with a one time pad and throw away the pad.
Since I already mistrust the tools in the world's most used office suite, why should I trust yours? What is so wonderful about Surfwriter that I essentially encrypt my life and business with it?
Yes, Microsoft can make the business decision to make their formats a secret. Because they are secret, I make the business decision not to entrust anything to them. Incidentally if just about every program on Windows can open Word files it is because Office dlls function as an engine to let them be opened. No third party program can be counted on to open all Office files perfectly. Not even Office can be counted on to open all files made five years ago with earlier versions.
Print to a file and open it in gv. This is much less awkward if gv is running and minimized already. It may even be possible to make a fake printer and have things open in gv that way. If you like the way they look then print from gv.
He's trying to get a promotion by causing more freezes than General Protection Fault.
I write some code and think other people might like it so I put it up for download. Just how the hell am I supposed to stop the Party Congress from downloading a copy to complete their Baby Threshing machine? After all, they're serious about this one child thing. If I fix it so the the Party Congress can't have it then pretty much no one else can either. Open Source grinds to a halt and MS and Cisco continue laughing all the way to the bank.
What's being objected to here is profit from oppressing others. Now when Red Hat removed the Taiwanese flag at Beijing's behest, THAT was something appropriate to get on their case about.
There are hard drive slots that fit in a 5 1/4" drive bay. The slot has a removable tray that will accept desktop hard drives as well as laptop form factor hard drives. Once the drive is bolted into the tray it just slides into the drive bay.
Our hypothetical multisystem vendor could just equip their PCs with these bays with various flavors of preloaded hard drives mounted in the pullout trays. It's literally plug-n-play that way.
The MS Tax was the natural result of Microsofts old OEM agreements. Basically an OEM could not sell the same hardware model numbers or SKUs with both Windows and non-MS OSes. An OEM would have to actually change the hardware config slightly to sell non-Windows versions of it's PCs. Since non-Windows represent small potential sales, this condition sufficed to keep them from bothering. OEMs were probably also reluctant to offend MS since a raise in their privately negotiated price for Windows could be fatal. Microsoft is now legally prohibited from imposing that condition on OEMs but their 90s+ desktop marketshare largely works to accomplish the same thing. Most OEMs still won't offer non-MS or bare PCs, especially laptops. Their are some cracks in this like the Wal-Mart Microtels but their success is not assured.
Slashbot? Who's the one making personal attacks here? I won't even bother analyzing your idea that critics of Gates need to make big donations before they are allowed to have an opinion. Pot meet kettle.
Anyway, current happenings in India do suggest that the charity is being abused. We hear that the Indian govt. is considering increased use of Open Source source and the next thing we know Gates is on the plane. That pattern is getting a little hard to miss. And would you know it? India's enthusiasm for Open Source is dimmed now. Gates doesn't even have to explicitly make it a condition of receiving the donations. India will naturally not want to offend him. If noticing these things makes me a Slashbot than so be it.
Speaking of Carnegie, in his day he made Gates look like a fluffy kitten. Those he ruined didn't think too highly of him yet nobody remembers that. The reason we have antitrust law in the first place is because men like Carnegie and Rockefeller. I doubt that is lost on Gates. Excuse me for thinking that massive charitable donations don't excuse unethical behaivor. Deciding Microsoft and Gates behave unethically can be come by honestly and rationally. Are you only going to concede rationality only to those who agree with you or would you like to insult me some more?
So we are supposed to ignore Gates attacks on our commmunity because he gives money to fight AIDS. Even if he ties the AIDS money to adopting Microsoft software, we're still supposed to ignore it? I don't think so.
We are not obligated to make matching contributions if Gates abuses his charity to promote Microsoft's interests. So yes, the Gates Foundation WILL be criticized and rightfully so. Such donations have nothing to do with real charity and it is more than proper to point it out.
"Given the fidelity limitations of MP3, an FM stereo or stereo TV broadcast is more than the equal of most CD rips."
As far as the 128kb MP3s that are typically shared around on p2p networks go, I agree with you. However, cd audio ripped on a Plextor with cdparanoia and then encoded with a LAME preset like --r3mix is another kettle of fish altogether. I doubt most people could tell difference between those and the original. That is as long as things aren't the way so-called Golden Ears like them. They don't things that contribute to objectivity like double blinded testing. They have to absolutely see the hand built tube amp to KNOW they have quality.
NewtonsLaw is right, most mp3s that are traded around sound like FM radio taped onto a cassette. I did it when I teenager. What are they getting excited about? Oh yeah, that's right. They tried to kill cassettes too.
Perhaps, but that doesn't help you if the firmware on the drive insists on reading a TOC and then spitting the disk back out before the low level drivers take over. Now, if that behaivor can be disabled with a command......
This libertarian shit doesn't work when big corporations can just buy politicians. As soon as the free market moves to solve the problems, they'll buy legislation outlawing the solution.
What we need are utterly stupid CD data drives. The board on the drive will do nothing more than spin the cd, move the heads, and read and write data at the lowest possible level. Absolutely all functions of the drive should be implemented in software. If cdparanoia can control the every tiny thing that goes on in the drive then this sort of scheme is done. It will only take a few days for a new driver to be written every time another one of these schemes comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if EE students don't start hacking existing drives to behave in just this way. Saaaay, that's even better. Hack in an "utterly stupid" mode for direct ripper control.
It won't be a problem for 64-bit and up UNIX systems. It also won't be a problem for 32 bit Unices that do something different about time_t. That's not to say there won't be a brief bonanza of highly paid work for crusty Linux, BSD and Solaris hackers right about then.
This would be a matter of correct design of the client and format. Sure, such viruses may be possible but if the format is designed correctly then only some clients will be vulnerable. We're talking about a document interchange format. It shouldn't have to be a turing-complete language.
Maybe but I think what they have in mind is any MICROSOFT application that wants to process data rather than just ANY application.
Existing life forms could be adjusted to target particular groups. That would be much easier to do than whipping up an organism from scratch to do it. I agree that there are serious concerns with this type of research but I don't think this is one of the major ones.