I think it is the GPL that should be fixed. There are several Open Source licenses out there that include some sort of `give credit!` clause (e.g. libjpeg) and the implied GPL incompatibility is silently ignored.
Clause 6 of the GPL should be modified in a way that advertising clauses and other credit clauses are allowed.
BTW: the wording of the new X11 license should probably be fixed/clarified too. There are several what-ifs that are not answered by the license text.
That's SCOs twisted logic. They use a weired/extreme/rediculous interpretation of the term 'derived work'. SCO claims that everything that IBM coded that is somehow related to UNIX is a derivative of UNIX, and due to a funny clause in their contract dervative works are claimed to be under the control of SCO. Lawyers are strange people....
CJ
Tony says that the only useful part is the 80 pages HTTP definition? Why not just download the relevant RFCs -- everything you need is in there! (And you can grep through the text...)
I don't think you can go completely without using a low level language like C. Most high level language runtime systems are written in... C, guess why!
The real answer is: ``Stop using C as a high level programming language.'' C is basically a partially platform independent macro assembler language. People should keep this in mind.
Some of the memory allocation problems mentioned in the FAQ can be solved using standard ISO C features: variable size arrays and mixed code/declarations. The problem with this is that:
Very few C programmers have started looking at what's new in ISO C.
Compilers are only starting to implement the new features.
While compiler support is not complete, compilers (including GCC and ICC) provide a powerful subset of ISO C already.
Basically, now you can do things like:
size = compute_size();
char buffer[size];
use_buffer(buffer, sizeof buffer);
You can even do this in a loop, having the stack space reused (reallocated from the stack) in each iteration.
ISO C even allows passing these beasts as arguments to functions (with the sizeof operator working in the function):
void some_function(char buffer[*])
{ use_buffer(buffer, sizeof buffer); }
(Unfortunately, GCC does not support this yet.)
It's probably not developers versus non-developers. If you use a certain piece of software day by day, you're more willing to learn a complicated user inteface -- the benefit: you gain a very effective tool to get your job done. I'm a developer, but for rarely performed tasks, I prefer a tool with an easy UI.
Your camera example is excellent! If you are a photographer, you'll learn how to use a professional camara to get the best results. But if you don't take a lot of photos, then you'll probably be happy with a cheap idiot-proof camera.
The problem with some of the usability evangelists is that they want every piece of software to be intended for the casual user. Any piece of software that does not meet their ``standards'' is considered crap. I'd never dare to say that a high-end Leica camera is crap because I don't know how to handle it.
I'm not sure this is really the problem. If a software is well designed (technically), there should be no (technical) problem in changing/improving the user interface.
IMO there's a different problem: Most OSS software starts with an adhoc UI -- and people (users) get used to it and don't want to change habits later.
Even the most terrible UI can be effecive once you're used to it. Good examples are VI or XFig. Imagine the author of VIM coming up with a completely revised UI, ready for newbies -- can you hear the VIM users scream? Or Xfig, the UI is a horror for beginners, but I would not want it to change.
Slashdot Mirror
CJ
BTW: the wording of the new X11 license should probably be fixed/clarified too. There are several what-ifs that are not answered by the license text.
regards,
CJ
That's SCOs twisted logic. They use a weired/extreme/rediculous interpretation of the term 'derived work'. SCO claims that everything that IBM coded that is somehow related to UNIX is a derivative of UNIX, and due to a funny clause in their contract dervative works are claimed to be under the control of SCO. Lawyers are strange people.... CJ
regards.
The real answer is: ``Stop using C as a high level programming language.'' C is basically a partially platform independent macro assembler language. People should keep this in mind.
CJ
While compiler support is not complete, compilers (including GCC and ICC) provide a powerful subset of ISO C already.
Basically, now you can do things like:
size = compute_size();
char buffer[size];
use_buffer(buffer, sizeof buffer);
You can even do this in a loop, having the stack space reused (reallocated from the stack) in each iteration.
ISO C even allows passing these beasts as arguments to functions (with the sizeof operator working in the function):
void some_function(char buffer[*])
{ use_buffer(buffer, sizeof buffer); }
(Unfortunately, GCC does not support this yet.)
I recommend taking a look at ISO C!
regards, CJ
Your camera example is excellent! If you are a photographer, you'll learn how to use a professional camara to get the best results. But if you don't take a lot of photos, then you'll probably be happy with a cheap idiot-proof camera.
The problem with some of the usability evangelists is that they want every piece of software to be intended for the casual user. Any piece of software that does not meet their ``standards'' is considered crap. I'd never dare to say that a high-end Leica camera is crap because I don't know how to handle it.
cj
IMO there's a different problem: Most OSS software starts with an adhoc UI -- and people (users) get used to it and don't want to change habits later.
Even the most terrible UI can be effecive once you're used to it. Good examples are VI or XFig. Imagine the author of VIM coming up with a completely revised UI, ready for newbies -- can you hear the VIM users scream? Or Xfig, the UI is a horror for beginners, but I would not want it to change.
cj