>Whatever GPL says, if I want to use the code >in a commercial product, I have as much right >to do it as the person who will pirate my >product after that.
I find your reasoning dangerous; It's like saying "it can be done, so it shall be done"
Sort of like how "stealing" music has become so commonplace that people use the "everyone is doing it" rationalization.
Think about it: Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO is actually trying to use that very defense to strike down the GPL.
"Everyone steals code and stealing code is OK, so the GPL is unconstitutional, and everything should be public-domain"
It's not a big step after that to legalize outright theft of literally anything, really.
"I stole the person's belongings because I could and since everyone else is stealing, I don't have to be honest."
I suppose then that the small will become the most oppressed, having no means to defend themselves or fight back, bystanders will say "why should I try to stop this? It's the law of the mighty and the swift.", and we shall have one world, as a hell under evil.
Damn, I wish I could have shaken Teddy Roosevelt's hand when he organized the Rough-Riders (no, not the sports team).
>So, I guess 'those that can' are on the bottom rung, huh?
Yes, but at least those that can are those located FAR away from management, like in INDIA and therefore exempt from attending pathetic, useless meetings with their managers...
So it all balances out. Hindus in general appreciate the concept of Karma, so avoiding the meetings must be a reward.
It's true; how can free-will be proven? I can't be proven definitively, so ultimately it`s a question of faith, which is also something that can't be calulated...
So I suppose it's just my choice, if there is such a thing;-)
Yeah, I know; it IS circular reasoning. I just feel that it's right.
Bah! It's just as well; I didn't really want to be a dictator anyway;-)
The credible-sounding version I've heard is that he might have meant that 640KB of TPA (transient program area) was enough for anybody.
I suppose, in DOS mode. There was all the crazy segment overlay stuff that would track which code segment was needed and load and discard pages appropriately.
But there wasn't really any way of avoiding running out of quick, read/writable memory for your program data.
Now we have virtual-memory managers, but you know what? Windows STILL (unintentional oxymoron here) runs slowly!
I suppose with Windows, NO computer will ever be fast enough!
Hey! Maybe that's the Most CORRECT Assumption in Computers!
Does this apply if you develop your own FAT-formatting software?
Or does it just apply if you sell media that is formatted with FAT?
I'm guessing here, but I expect that if you sell your media unformatted, you'll be OK of course, but what MS is trying to do is prevent anyone from selling MEDIA that is FAT-formatted, but they can't stop you from using something like let's say FreeDOS or Linux to format the media once you've bought it?
That sounds right. I do remember hearing how NT was C2 certified or something like that.
So that's what the POSIX layer was for?... LOL
I suppose the whole zero-memset thing they added (and touted!), that was designed to make sure another application COULDN'T read a terminated app's memory was for that too, but it's a good thing that that (probably?) stayed in even after they dumped the POSIX layer.
If the Windows 9x line are not operating systems, but they do run or emulate a Win32 subset, then what is running Win32?
DOS?
I suppose so.
There is ONE thing to understand about Wine: It is in part a LOADER.
It loads x86 code segments directly from the executable's disk image into memory, and after dynamically linking (patching) the exports and exports tables, the x86 code runs DIRECTLY. Not in an "emulated" way, but just like it does in Windows...
So in theory, we can look to the day when after enough open-sourcing of Wine and React-Os will have happened, that it'll lead to an even-more-optimized implementation of Win32!
Without the MS-added cruft!
It has been shown (more than once) that Microsoft adds "special checks" in its operating systems so that when applications from competing vendors run on them, they either crash or are disabled.
Without that crufty, old, useless, and downright EVIL code in there, imagine how much better a Windows on *nix could be...
And with something like WineLib,
http://www.winehq.com/site/winelib
Someday you'll run on other chips AND OSes...
So in effect, as Microsoft continues to try to close it's net around developers and users, they'll simply class themselves into extinction.
Hmmm.... Maybe I should have titled this "Windows is Dead"
Hee hee hee!:-) I have to hand it to you Tiger, you certainly cut through the bullshiat of this discussion and bared the truth!
You're ABSOLUTELY right with what you said about the 9x Windows line NOT being true operating systems, but before we get modded out of existence at offtopic and whatever, let's just leave that other can 'o worms alone and be thankful those "OSes" are dying out.
OK, so therefore, Windows 95, 98, ME, 2K and XP are emulators.
They all "imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system."
Wine is actually fast because it ISN'T an emulator, it's an implementation of Win32 on Linux, and ReactOS isn't an emulator either, so in both cases, you'd get pretty close (if not actual) native-speed performance.
You WOULD get a hit on memory consumption though, those modules need RAM, certainly.
Yup; sort of explains why they dropped it. I mean MS has enough problems getting Win32 to work like it should.
To pursue other frameworks at the same time was a good idea; after all, WindowsNT was designed to be "The Mother Of All OSes" by incorporating an OS/2 subsystem, a POSIX subsystem, and all that, but in the end it just never materialized.
Now if they'd have open-sourced it! Everyone would have tried to make a go of it, but instead they alienated most developers.
No surprise then that these days home and commercial users are starting to think of Windows more and more as a "legacy" system that they have to move away from.
It's a really poor UNIX integration toolkit, that permits (among other things) to share/connect NFS.
It also has a few command-line tools you'd normally associate with *nix.
We were using that to "integrate" with some Solaris machines in 2000.
It's not really a POSIX layer replacement by a longshot though: Windows (NT & 2000) used to have an actual POSIX API layer, and it seemed to be there to entice UNIX programmers to port their apps, but even though the programming tools for Windows were usually easier to use, the server platform (Windows) was never stable enough for us to really consider running any mission-critical systems on it.
I did not know that! What the heck is this Interix thingie? I ran a search on the MS Windows internet site for Interix, and the one hit that seemed relevant
"Catalog Description of Microsoft Interix 2.2" was error 404 (not found)...
That's standard: MS Vaporware hype long enough to kill the competition and then drop the project.
We can only wonder the leader of this project will be bumped-off by the other cadre, who are actively working on making Pirates of the Carribean the ONLY attraction in the theme park...
The very first computer virus I faced was the Stoned Virus.
Mind you, it wasn't the very first virus I heard of, no, the first one I heard about was the Jerusalem virus.
Anyhow, when I discovered that nearly ALL the machines in our office and just about ALL the diskettes we had were infected with Stoned and reported it to my boss, he actually found it funny!
Even when I explained the damage and data loss that Stoned could cause.
What a dumbass.
Actually, it wasn't HIM that spent hours disinfecting everything.
No, that was MY job, so maybe he was right to laugh...
Slashdot Mirror
>Whatever GPL says, if I want to use the code
>in a commercial product, I have as much right
>to do it as the person who will pirate my
>product after that.
I find your reasoning dangerous;
It's like saying "it can be done, so it shall be done"
Sort of like how "stealing" music has become so commonplace that people use the "everyone is doing it" rationalization.
Think about it: Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO is actually trying to use that very defense to strike down the GPL.
"Everyone steals code and stealing code is OK, so the GPL is unconstitutional, and everything should be public-domain"
It's not a big step after that to legalize outright theft of literally anything, really.
"I stole the person's belongings because I could and since everyone else is stealing, I don't have to be honest."
I suppose then that the small will become the most oppressed, having no means to defend themselves or fight back, bystanders will say "why should I try to stop this? It's the law of the mighty and the swift.", and we shall have one world, as a hell under evil.
Damn, I wish I could have shaken Teddy Roosevelt's hand when he organized the Rough-Riders (no, not the sports team).
Show FirBee some love.
>If you are doing it and it feels wrong
>then you are an asshole for doing it
>in the first place.
>So, I guess 'those that can' are on the bottom rung, huh?
Yes, but at least those that can are those located FAR away from management, like in INDIA and therefore exempt from attending pathetic, useless meetings with their managers...
So it all balances out.
Hindus in general appreciate the concept of Karma, so avoiding the meetings must be a reward.
It's true; how can free-will be proven?
;-)
I can't be proven definitively, so ultimately it`s a question of faith, which is also something that can't be calulated...
So I suppose it's just my choice, if there is such a thing
Yeah, I know; it IS circular reasoning. I just feel that it's right.
>it ends (apparently when he's asked to shut his camera off
>sumarize the remainder of the 'spoof'?
Don't worry; this is the company that brought you the "Holloween Documents"
It'll be leaked by someone at MS any day now.
> a separate program for everything?
'Course!
It's object-oriented!
You wouldn't lump all the code for a tree, a dog and the wind into one jumble, would you? It'd be way too hard to upgrade those entities.
You'd describe objects, and give them characteristics, behaviours.
That's what I think was driving Smith crazy; his programming didn't let him understand free-will, only programmed purpose.
Programming is as its name states; wholly deterministic.
Humans choose.
Machines are unable to choose.
Bah! It's just as well; I didn't really want to be a dictator anyway ;-)
The credible-sounding version I've heard is that he might have meant that 640KB of TPA (transient program area) was enough for anybody.
I suppose, in DOS mode. There was all the crazy segment overlay stuff that would track which code segment was needed and load and discard pages appropriately.
But there wasn't really any way of avoiding running out of quick, read/writable memory for your program data.
Now we have virtual-memory managers, but you know what? Windows STILL (unintentional oxymoron here) runs slowly!
I suppose with Windows, NO computer will ever be fast enough!
Hey! Maybe that's the Most CORRECT Assumption in Computers!
Come on, THAT has GOT to be the best one!
And to think that he's the richest man in the world.
I mean I've said some pretty stupid things... Couldn't I at least be a dictator in a banana-republic?
Yes, but what if they cloned it BEFORE it was patented?
Supposedly, MS patented FAT in '96, so if someone had cloned it before that, wouldn't that be OK?
Does this apply if you develop your own FAT-formatting software?
Or does it just apply if you sell media that is formatted with FAT?
I'm guessing here, but I expect that if you sell your media unformatted, you'll be OK of course, but what MS is trying to do is prevent anyone from selling MEDIA that is FAT-formatted, but they can't stop you from using something like let's say FreeDOS or Linux to format the media once you've bought it?
Is that right?
That sounds right.
... LOL
I do remember hearing how NT was C2 certified or something like that.
So that's what the POSIX layer was for?
I suppose the whole zero-memset thing they added (and touted!), that was designed to make sure another application COULDN'T read a terminated app's memory was for that too, but it's a good thing that that (probably?) stayed in even after they dumped the POSIX layer.
If the Windows 9x line are not operating systems, but they do run or emulate a Win32 subset, then what is running Win32?
DOS?
I suppose so.
There is ONE thing to understand about Wine: It is in part a LOADER.
It loads x86 code segments directly from the executable's disk image into memory, and after dynamically linking (patching) the exports and exports tables, the x86 code runs DIRECTLY. Not in an "emulated" way, but just like it does in Windows...
So in theory, we can look to the day when after enough open-sourcing of Wine and React-Os will have happened, that it'll lead to an even-more-optimized implementation of Win32!
Without the MS-added cruft!
It has been shown (more than once) that Microsoft adds "special checks" in its operating systems so that when applications from competing vendors run on them, they either crash or are disabled.
Without that crufty, old, useless, and downright EVIL code in there, imagine how much better a Windows on *nix could be...
And with something like WineLib,
http://www.winehq.com/site/winelib
Someday you'll run on other chips AND OSes...
So in effect, as Microsoft continues to try to close it's net around developers and users, they'll simply class themselves into extinction.
Hmmm.... Maybe I should have titled this
"Windows is Dead"
Hee hee hee! :-) I have to hand it to you Tiger, you certainly cut through the bullshiat of this discussion and bared the truth!
You're ABSOLUTELY right with what you said about the 9x Windows line NOT being true operating systems, but before we get modded out of existence at offtopic and whatever, let's just leave that other can 'o worms alone and be thankful those "OSes" are dying out.
OK, so therefore, Windows 95, 98, ME, 2K and XP are emulators.
They all "imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system."
They are all Win32 emulators.
Just like Wine.
IANAE (I'm not an expert) BUT,
Wine is actually fast because it ISN'T an emulator, it's an implementation of Win32 on Linux, and ReactOS isn't an emulator either, so in both cases, you'd get pretty close (if not actual) native-speed performance.
You WOULD get a hit on memory consumption though, those modules need RAM, certainly.
Yup; sort of explains why they dropped it.
I mean MS has enough problems getting Win32 to work like it should.
To pursue other frameworks at the same time was a good idea; after all, WindowsNT was designed to be "The Mother Of All OSes" by incorporating an OS/2 subsystem, a POSIX subsystem, and all that, but in the end it just never materialized.
Now if they'd have open-sourced it! Everyone would have tried to make a go of it, but instead they alienated most developers.
No surprise then that these days home and commercial users are starting to think of Windows more and more as a "legacy" system that they have to move away from.
Now THAT, I DO know;
It's a really poor UNIX integration toolkit, that permits (among other things) to share/connect NFS.
It also has a few command-line tools you'd normally associate with *nix.
We were using that to "integrate" with some Solaris machines in 2000.
It's not really a POSIX layer replacement by a longshot though: Windows (NT & 2000) used to have an actual POSIX API layer, and it seemed to be there to entice UNIX programmers to port their apps, but even though the programming tools for Windows were usually easier to use, the server platform (Windows) was never stable enough for us to really consider running any mission-critical systems on it.
What's REALLY sad is that soon, the Disney corporation will be sending out assasins to kill anyone even USING the word "pirates"
I did not know that!
What the heck is this Interix thingie?
I ran a search on the MS Windows internet site for Interix, and the one hit that seemed relevant
"Catalog Description of Microsoft Interix 2.2"
was error 404 (not found)...
That's standard: MS Vaporware hype long enough to kill the competition and then drop the project.
You're forgetting Windows!
The 32 bit versions of Windows in the NT line all have a POSIX layer.
We can only wonder the leader of this project will be bumped-off by the other cadre, who are actively working on making Pirates of the Carribean the ONLY attraction in the theme park...
Backup early! Backup often!
Of course virii is a word just "google" for it, you'll see. ;-)
The very first computer virus I faced was the Stoned Virus.
Mind you, it wasn't the very first virus I heard of, no, the first one I heard about was the Jerusalem virus.
Anyhow, when I discovered that nearly ALL the machines in our office and just about ALL the diskettes we had were infected with Stoned and reported it to my boss, he actually found it funny!
Even when I explained the damage and data loss that Stoned could cause.
What a dumbass.
Actually, it wasn't HIM that spent hours disinfecting everything.
No, that was MY job, so maybe he was right to laugh...
The plural of virus IS virii
5 19 437
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86514&cid=7
>substantive discussion of how best to
>tally the votes and ensure it is done
>accurately and impartially.
>open public discussions
The process you're talking about sounds like democracy.