I'm working on a compiler for a programming language - Modula 3 - which made size (50 pages) a design goal. I don't have the foggest whether many things are legal or not. I understand that Pascal had many problems because the PUMR didn't explain things. Usually a thin book is just "we didn't bother getting into details because (a) we didn't want to or (b) we know all the details and don't realize we're leaving them out of the standard."
The ironically amusing example is the manual for dpkg that says "we assume you are familar with these other two manuals. Unfortunately, no one's written these other two manuals yet."
Noah said the entire world. Saying that's the area between Tigris and the Euphrates is NOT literal.
I didn't say believe in Axelrod, I said read Axelrod, and study the interated Prisoner's dillema. Your opinion is not valid as long as you don't bother studying the facts.
And why should I trust in your words? You obviously have a blatent agenda, and worse, completely refuse to consider anything else.
Electricity has many effects which I can detect. So does wind. God does not.
> 1. Man's Inherent Moral Nature (a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this way. > 2. Prophicies fufilled Is Jesus's name Ishmael? I've heard that section of the Bible quoted frequently as prophecy. When you get a thousand pages of text and you get to chose which parts are poetry and which prophecy, it's not that hard get a nice set of fufilled prophecies. Combined with a nice tendancy to selectively remember details of events to make the fit what you want (which is even for honest people) (especially for recollections written down years after the events) that the apostles probably fell prey, and it doesn't make for great evidence. Asimov's Guide to the Bible is an interesting viewpoint on prophicy in the bible.
> 3. His actions in my life Go talk to some muslims. Or some buddists. or some... You will find they can talk about how their god(s)/belief(s) affected them. I can talk about Lucy (my god's actions) in my life, and I don't even believe in her existance.
> the bible is historically accurate One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis can't be literally interpreted.
Why not? A license that read "Feel free to make as many copies as you want and give them to who ever you want for what ever price you feel like charging, as long as you don't change in any way" would be freely redistributable. GPL gives you those rights.
When the alias issue came up, Linus told the compiler people to use a set of rules to turn aliasing off, instead of immediately correcting the bug in Linux (it is a bug, because it violates ANSI C aliasing rules, and he was shown at least two ways to fix it.)
That's not good engineering, to write buggy code and expect other people to fix the tools to work around your buggy code.
It is not untrue, just because you choose to deny commonly accepted definitions of free. It's not free according to the FSF definition, not free according to the DFSG, not free according to OSI, and definetly not free by the BSD definition. These are all definitions of free that are used in the Linux and BSD worlds.
I think you've missed part of the point. They can distribute the software now, but they choose not to as it's not free. That part seems to be unresolvable without you permitting general for-profit distribution, which you appear not to want to. (While I accept you're decision, I would ask you to extend Linux to include Hurd and BSD - for one thing, Debian would like to include it, and that includes Hurd.)
The X license is compatible. Basically, anything you can say is GPL by sublicensing (X, some BSD) or by changing the licence (LGPL) or because it is (Perl license, GPL & something else) is compatible.
No, it wouldn't. See RMS's comment on Netscape Public License problems on www.gnu.org for a similar situation, where he points out that one of the problems (according to him) of NPL is that it's not GPL-compatible, despite the fact it's free.
That is, not. Even if Linux gets no more userfriendly, it will still be around because it's better for some of us.
Re:NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsof
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft is a unique company in its leader and bloodthirst. Just look at how they started out!
Look how IBM started out... hmm, I guess their start as a small producer of "buisness machines" had little to do with their eventual position as computer monopolist.
If you mean stop at nothing to make more money, dirty deals, contract clauses with OEM's to force BeOS on the computer, etc., then I would have to disagree.
Then I would have to disagree with you. I don't agree with your belief that current situation dictates future actions, and in fact believe that history denies such a view. Too many companies get bought out and/or took over and undergo a massive personality change.
Re:People who believe the lie
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
But it is illegal to distribute parts of KDE, because the author set the license and it didn't include distributing it linked against QT. It's like making a copy of Windows if Microsoft won't know - you may not get prosecuted, but it's still illegal.
I'm not one of those freaks that I've seen all too often in the unix world that likes to put people down for something trivial like an OS choice.
Enough said.
Re:NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsof
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
No, I'm saying IBM was a evil company because "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" (and I understand that IBM literally got people fired for buy non-IBM stuff at corporations they worked with.) What I'm saying is that corporations are by nature untrustworthy. As jwz said in his "I'm leaving AOL" writings, they do things not because they're right (or wrong), but because they're profitable.
I'm not saying that corporations are always evil, merely that you can't trust them to be good. Fortunetly, it doesn't look like Be can be another Apple (total lock-in), but another Microsoft doesn't seem that inprobable, and if the current people won't try there will be new people sooner or later who will.
Re:NEWS ALERT: Not every company is "like Microsof
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
BE == IBM. No matter how they start out, the current people will quit/be fired/die and it will turn into a corporation. A corporation who's goals are to make money no matter what. Frankly, I find Apple to be as potentially scary as Microsoft, it's merely that Apple wasn't as successful. If Be is successful, sooner or later it will join those ranks, like any suffiecently large corporation.
It's also the system for the mainstream computer geek. That is, the people who use a computer for computer's sake will love it. Anyone who gets a kick out of almost every editor offering programming syntax highlighting will love it. Anyone who loves to customize their GUI to fit them will love it. If you're one of those people (I am) then it does everything else you want well enough.
Come on. If Microsoft wanted ESR dead, he would have an "accident" at the shooting range. Or he would get hit in a drive by. It's a little too suspicious if the cook "accidently" put rat poison only in his food.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. And the fact that Jefferson claimed
to write the Virgina Free Religion laws for the infidel and the Jew and the Muslim fits in there how?
I'm working on a compiler for a programming language - Modula 3 - which made size (50 pages) a design goal. I don't have the foggest whether many things are legal or not. I understand that Pascal had many problems because the PUMR didn't explain things. Usually a thin book is just "we didn't bother getting into details because (a) we didn't want to or (b) we know all the details and don't realize we're leaving them out of the standard."
The ironically amusing example is the manual
for dpkg that says "we assume you are familar
with these other two manuals. Unfortunately,
no one's written these other two manuals yet."
> ... Debian/Linux ...
Debian GNU/Linux, please. You've been making a fuss about correct names, so please take care.
Noah said the entire world. Saying that's the area
between Tigris and the Euphrates is NOT literal.
I didn't say believe in Axelrod, I said read Axelrod, and study the interated Prisoner's dillema. Your opinion is not valid as long as you don't bother studying the facts.
And why should I trust in your words? You obviously have a blatent agenda, and worse, completely refuse to consider anything else.
Electricity has many effects which I can detect. So does wind. God does
... You will find
not.
> 1. Man's Inherent Moral Nature
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
> 2. Prophicies fufilled
Is Jesus's name Ishmael? I've heard that section of the Bible quoted
frequently as prophecy. When you get a thousand pages of text and you
get to chose which parts are poetry and which prophecy, it's not that
hard get a nice set of fufilled prophecies. Combined with a nice tendancy
to selectively remember details of events to make the fit what you want
(which is even for honest people) (especially for recollections written
down years after the events) that the apostles probably fell prey, and
it doesn't make for great evidence. Asimov's Guide to the Bible is
an interesting viewpoint on prophicy in the bible.
> 3. His actions in my life
Go talk to some muslims. Or some buddists. or some
they can talk about how their god(s)/belief(s) affected them. I can
talk about Lucy (my god's actions) in my life, and I don't even
believe in her existance.
> the bible is historically accurate
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
--
David Starner
Probably not unless SunOS becomes free. The Debian
project is a free project and wouldn't devote space
on their servers for it.
However, IIRC, there is a port of dpkg to Solaris
and you could recompile Debian for Solaris if you
so wished.
gcc is an awful example, since it's the compiler for FreeBSD too. If FreeBSD has a good man page for gcc, I'd be really interested in using it.
Why not? A license that read "Feel free to make as many copies as you want and give them to who ever you want for what ever price you feel like charging, as long as you don't change in any way" would be freely redistributable. GPL gives you those rights.
The main webpage & what's new on www.gnu.org should be updated too.
When the alias issue came up, Linus told the compiler people to use a set of rules to turn aliasing off, instead of immediately correcting the bug in Linux (it is a bug, because it violates ANSI C aliasing rules, and he was shown at least two ways to fix it.)
That's not good engineering, to write buggy code and expect other people to fix the tools to work around your buggy code.
Why don't the scientists use their skill to produce a line of disease resistant trees?
They're trying as fast as possible. Give them an extra 50 million or so, and maybe they'll be a little faster.
I hope the next bird selected for restoration will be the Passenger Pigeon.
Not likely. Trying to return a bird with flocks that big would be very difficult.
It is not untrue, just because you choose to deny commonly accepted definitions of free. It's not free according to the FSF definition, not free according to the DFSG, not free according to OSI, and definetly not free by the BSD definition. These are all definitions of free that are used in the Linux and BSD worlds.
I think you've missed part of the point. They can distribute the software now, but they choose not to as it's not free. That part seems to be unresolvable without you permitting general for-profit distribution, which you appear not to want to. (While I accept you're decision, I would ask you to extend Linux to include Hurd and BSD - for one thing, Debian would like to include it, and that includes Hurd.)
Computer programmers have lost one of the original coding techniques that they all used to follow; "Use efficient coding methods".
Most good programmers went to "get it right, and then get it fast."
The X license is compatible. Basically, anything you can say is GPL by sublicensing (X, some BSD) or by changing the licence (LGPL) or because it is (Perl license, GPL & something else) is compatible.
No, it wouldn't. See RMS's comment on Netscape Public License problems on www.gnu.org for a similar situation, where he points out that one of the problems (according to him) of NPL is that it's not GPL-compatible, despite the fact it's free.
That is, not. Even if Linux gets no more userfriendly, it will still be around because it's better for some of us.
Microsoft is a unique company in its leader and
... hmm, I guess their start as a small producer of "buisness machines" had little to do with their eventual position as computer monopolist.
bloodthirst. Just look at how they started out!
Look how IBM started out
If you mean stop at nothing to make more money,
dirty deals, contract clauses with OEM's to force
BeOS on the computer, etc., then I would have to
disagree.
Then I would have to disagree with you. I don't agree with your belief that current situation dictates future actions, and in fact believe that history denies such a view. Too many companies get bought out and/or took over and undergo a massive personality change.
But it is illegal to distribute parts of KDE, because the author set the license and it didn't include distributing it linked against QT. It's like making a copy of Windows if Microsoft won't know - you may not get prosecuted, but it's still illegal.
I'm not one of those freaks that I've
seen all too often in the unix world that likes
to put people down for something trivial like an
OS choice.
Enough said.
No, I'm saying IBM was a evil company because "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" (and I understand that IBM literally got people fired for buy non-IBM stuff at corporations they worked with.) What I'm saying is that corporations are by nature untrustworthy. As jwz said in his "I'm leaving AOL" writings, they do things not because they're right (or wrong), but because they're profitable.
I'm not saying that corporations are always evil, merely that you can't trust them to be good. Fortunetly, it doesn't look like Be can be another Apple (total lock-in), but another Microsoft doesn't seem that inprobable, and if the current people won't try there will be new people sooner or later who will.
BE == IBM. No matter how they start out, the current people will quit/be fired/die and it will turn into a corporation. A corporation who's goals are to make money no matter what. Frankly, I find Apple to be as potentially scary as Microsoft, it's merely that Apple wasn't as successful. If Be is successful, sooner or later it will join those ranks, like any suffiecently large corporation.
It's also the system for the mainstream computer geek. That is, the people who use a computer for computer's sake will love it. Anyone who gets a kick out of almost every editor offering programming syntax highlighting will love it. Anyone who loves to customize their GUI to fit them will love it. If you're one of those people (I am) then it does everything else you want well enough.
Come on. If Microsoft wanted ESR dead, he would have an "accident" at the shooting range. Or he would get hit in a drive by. It's a little too suspicious if the cook "accidently" put rat poison only in his food.