As someone else pointed out already, try running strip on the binary, or compile with -s which does the same thing.
Also, I think that a lot of Windows code is shared DLL's no matter how you link it, so there might be an apples to oranges comparison here depending on what type of application you're building.
Re:Why should cable get a monopoly that phones don
on
Internet Freedom Act
·
· Score: 4
I outline some of the differences between cable and telephone in another post in this topic, so I won't repeat myself here. But I will add some addtional explanation.
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
2). The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services. This is a huge multi-billion gamble. It could be that DSL or satellite or wireless or whatever makes their investment not worth much. A lot of the technology they are counting on is relatively young and untested. It would not be fair to let AOL hop on the cable bandwagon if cable broadband is a huge hit, but be able to sit on the sidelines and leave AT&T holding the bad if it bombs. If AOL is so convinced this is important, let them forge a joint venture with AT&T and invest a few bil of their own in rebuilding the infrastructure. Microsoft put $5 billion of their money where they mouth was. Let's see AOL do the same.
3). Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts. They can take care of themselves.
I'm specifically referring to cable TV lines. AOL attempted to force AT&T to resell unbundled network elements from the cable TV facilities as a condition of the TCI takeover. The phone company situation is quite different and I outline some of the differences between phone and cable in another reply on this topic.
There is a difference between telephone and cable. Telephone lines are used to connect to private parties. You can dial anybody. That's the service that is provided. So when you dial an ISP you are making use of the service in the way it was intended and sold to be used. Cable TV was never about connecting to anyone but the cable company.
As for DSL, there are two different scenarios. One is where a company like Covad or Rythmns leases an unbundled loop to your house. This is the pair of copper wires running from the CO to the demarc at your house. These companies are colocated at the CO and after the unbundled loop is cross-connected to their equipment, they are responsible for all aspects of service provision. Thus the major cost of service provision is borne by the DSL provider, not the local phone monopoly. The phone monopoly is only reselling the local loop (which is probably already fully depreciated on their books) and some space in the CO. This rental is mandated by the Telecom Act. However, there is a quid pro quo involved. The local phone monopolies are being allowed into the long distance business and other businesses from which they were barred under the 1984 consent decree in return for opening their markets in this way. It might not be the best way to go about opening markets, but at least the phone companies are getting something for something. AOL wants the cable TV companies to resell services without getting anything back in return.
The second part of DSL is where someone is doing a straight resale arrangement of the DSL service provided by the local phone company itself. Interestingly, the local phone companies, like the cable companies, are seeking regulatory relief from being forced to resell this service. They also claim it is unfair for others to piggyback on their investment. The FCC has broad authority under the Telecom Act to promote the deployment of high speed data services could easily allow the local phone companies to also be exempt from a "pure resale" requirement on DSL, perhaps so long as it was part of a separate subsidiary.
Maybe the government should force you to rent out space in your garage and basement to all comers. After all, you'll still be able to get the full value of out your house. People should have the choice of where they store their stuff after all. The fact that you bought and paid for your house is meaningless. At least that's what you seem to think about broadband networks.
If you don't like the cable company, but a satellite dish. You've got choices.
Rural subsidy programs are a sham. I live in the city and nobody subsidizes my supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. People make a choice to live in rural areas. As with any choice, there are tradeoffs to be made. In the country you get wide open spaces, no traffic congestion, cleaner air, etc. But you also have a hour school bus rides. People in rural areas want to pocket the benefits for themselves and get people in the city to pick up the tab to reduce the costs. And yes, I lived in the country for 18 years, so I know what I'm talking about.
The bill is a major giveaway to AOL, which is already America's biggest and most powerful ISP. The entire purpose of the bill is to force the cable companies to sell AOL bandwidth at cut rate prices.
AOL's market value is tens of billions. If they want broadband access so bad, let them build their own networks. They could easily raise the money to do it.
Here in Chicago Cineplex Odeon runs their own ticket line (312) 553-CINE. I was able to get through to that and buy tickets for the second showing of the day! I tried MovieFone by phone and web and was completely screwed every time. I wonder how the phone network held up under the load?
Re:Best of both worlds?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 3
Gordon Matzigkeit is working on something he calls the FIG license which is an attempt to strike a different balance between the author and the user than the GPL while still maintaining freedom. You might want to check it out.
Re:Malda has lost all integrity
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 2
Well, I won't go so far to question Rob's integrity, but to call that a "good article" is a bit unbelievable. He must've been in a real hurry or short on sleep when he reviewed it. Even some BSD users have repudiated it. At least one of them did so on slashdot not too long ago.
Re:Sigh... No perfect solution.
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 2
I hope you were joking about agreeing with every point made. That article has several factual inaccuracies. I point a couple of them out in my main thread post below.
It's very ironic that Stallman is often accused of being a communist and anti-commerical, yet is also often bashed for refusing to call software that cannot be sold free. (The Qt Free Edition comes to mind). He goes to bat for business a lot more than people give him credit for.
Re:Is there a licence that does:
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 2
Well, your terms are inadequate to make software truly free. Getting the source code on request and documenting modifications is not the same as the ability to distribute modifications to your friends or to charge money for them.
Unfortunately, software licensing is an almost inherently complex process if you intend to protect freedom for all of your users. I think you'd be surprised how long a license that did everything you wanted would be.
Some people in the BSD camp must have a serious chip on their shoulder. There was a great deconstruction of this article by someone on gnu.misc.discuss a few days ago, but unfortunately I cannot locate it on the new and "improved" DejaNews. Some of what I am going to say is taken from that.
First, the article is wrong in some basic facts. Flex is not under the GPL, so it's output is not GPL. The output of Bison was only covered by the GPL because the "output" of bison included a very large chunk of Bison parser code written by Stallman into the output, not just because the the Bison parser spits out code. Additionally, it has been quite some time since this code was GPL'd. It is now under a license that allows proprietary use. These are just a couple of examples.
Second, his explanation of the "meat" of the BSD license leaves out the advertising clause. Whoops. I wonder how he could have overlooked such a wonderful feature.....
Third, this guy's legal analysis of the GPL is pretty flawed. If you have concerns about the license, I suggest hiring a real lawyer to look it over.
But most importantly, this article is simply an anti-GPL screed full of abuse for the GPL, the FSF, etc. I wonder if Michael Maxwell is a pseudonym for John Dyson? Listen to a few of these things:
-- "the GPL is more concerned with political extremism rather promoting free software"
-- "This clause reeks of political extremism"
-- "If this is the case, then you are not the real owner of your code, the Free Software Foundation is!"
-- "This just states that the FSF couldn't find a way to take control of programs that just happen to be stored on the same media as a GPL'ed program!"
-- "This sounds much like a Microsoft-style license"
-- "Not sure of the legality of this, and could be up for debate"
-- "the General Public License is not so much about ``keeping free software free'' as it is about forcing us to accept the extreme Communistic political philosophy of Richard Stallman"
-- "The GPL is not about freedom."
As you can see, lots of FUD and anger. And aside from its obvious biases, it is full of so many inaccuracies that I urge everyone to completely discount anything it says. I suggest contacting Jordan Hubbard of the FreeBSD project for more clear, accurate, and reasoned information on the BSD community's thoughts on this issue if this article caused you any major concerns.
Pareto optimal only means there is no way to make someone better off without making someone else worse off. 100% to me and 0% to you is pareto optimal.
It's not my intention to present the definitive argument against absolute property rights in land. What I will say is that property is a bundle of rights and that those rights can be unbundled. Someone can have exclusive possession of land without having absolute ownership rights (as we currently definte them) over it.
While the current system might put land in the hands of people who are willing to pay the most money for it, that does not actually mean society is better off as a result. Many people desire to hold land for speculative purposes rather than putting it to productive use. Many very valuable (and potentially useful) pieces of land in vacant for this very reason.
The leading quote by Hayek points out one of the problems with people like Rand. Namely, she made her money via royalties on copyright and so has a vested interest in the current system.
BTW: I'd like to point out that there are people (including libertarians) who object to the current scheme of private property in land as well. (I'm one of them, though not a libertarian). Libertarian notions of property are based on people have the rights to the fruits of their own labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor. Nobody created the land. It is the free gift of nature. In practice, virtually all land title derive from conquest and arbitrary territorial claims resting on no clear legal or ethical principle.
Ah, yes. Scientists never shared information before patents. All those mathematics journals and mathematics conferences dealing with non-patentable material are an illusion. Prior to the introduction of copyright law during the Enlightenment, no scientific progress occurred. Obviously the great Greek literature and scientific writings must have been forged.
Your blanket assertion that "no one is going to want to share" without intellectual property is ludicrous. What are you a scientist of?
The problem here is that copyright holders already use contracts to attempt to strengthen their stranglehold on a product. You are correct that one could view copyright as simply a "standard contract". However, software companies routinely enclose license agreements that go far beyond the rights they would have under copyright. For example, prohibiting bechmarks or disclaiming warranties. The copyright holders seem to want the best of both worlds. They want to use contract to bind their "legitimate" users and copyright to bind everyone else. In fact, in the case of software the author can have various powers over the users via contract, patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets! It's a wonder there's anything left over for the poor user.
Donald Knuth has been paying people to find bugs in his software and books for a long time now. As the software matures and most bugs are fixed, the bounty goes up! Economics in action.
The release notes say you can't add to or edit your bookmarks. This alone would keep me from trying it out. Can anyone verify this, or is it just old data? I would figure bookmarks would be trivial to implement.
Linus doesn't explicitly state that we'll all have so much free time in the future that we'll be bored. And that's a good thing too because it's not true. If we look back at the labor saving devices invented in the last 200 years, it boggles the mind. Yet today we still mostly work for a living. Many people work longer hours than ever as companies shed as many employees as the possibly can. The fact is that labor saving devices don't exist in a vacuum. They are part of the fabric of our society. Computerization both changes society and is moulded by society.
I highly recommend the essay Speeding Towards Meaninglessness: Why Labor Saving Devices Don't Save Time. It's part of Steve Talbott's NETFUTURE site, which I've recommended on this forum before. Steve is a pseudo-luddite and an enviro-weenie who worships primitive cultures, but he and his contributors do have a lot to add to our understanding of the affect of technology on human existencs.
TCI doesn't force customers to buy it's cable modem service, but if you do, it has to be through the TCI @Home venture. There is only one choice of ISP for the line. If you want AOL's content on top of it, then you have to pay extra to AOL. TCI says it paid for the cables and shouldn't have to share them with other people who are only interested in piggybacking on TCI's investment. AOL wanted to force TCI to unbundle their wires from their ISP business and allow any ISP to offer service over the wires (with the payment of some fee to TCI surely). They wanted this to be a condition of the TCI/AT&T merger. The FCC did not agree to this however.
Now if AOL were to buy MediaOne, the shoe would be on the other foot. They could lock anyone who wanted cable modems into buying them from AOL. That's why I'm saying they would quickly change their tune on open access to the cable lines.
BTW: Phone companies are required to unbundle their network elements such as the copper loop to a customer's house and sell them to all comers at a discount. AOL wanted the same provisions to apply to cable.
I think both Kaffe and Japhar+Classpath are committed to providing a fully compatible Java implementation. This will not extend to replicating JDK bugs possibly, but I think all of those projects are committed to the Java wora concept.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone else pointed out already, try running strip on the binary, or compile with -s which does the same thing.
Also, I think that a lot of Windows code is shared DLL's no matter how you link it, so there might be an apples to oranges comparison here depending on what type of application you're building.
I outline some of the differences between cable and telephone in another post in this topic, so I won't repeat myself here. But I will add some addtional explanation.
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
2). The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services. This is a huge multi-billion gamble. It could be that DSL or satellite or wireless or whatever makes their investment not worth much. A lot of the technology they are counting on is relatively young and untested. It would not be fair to let AOL hop on the cable bandwagon if cable broadband is a huge hit, but be able to sit on the sidelines and leave AT&T holding the bad if it bombs. If AOL is so convinced this is important, let them forge a joint venture with AT&T and invest a few bil of their own in rebuilding the infrastructure. Microsoft put $5 billion of their money where they mouth was. Let's see AOL do the same.
3). Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts. They can take care of themselves.
I'm specifically referring to cable TV lines. AOL attempted to force AT&T to resell unbundled network elements from the cable TV facilities as a condition of the TCI takeover. The phone company situation is quite different and I outline some of the differences between phone and cable in another reply on this topic.
There is a difference between telephone and cable. Telephone lines are used to connect to private parties. You can dial anybody. That's the service that is provided. So when you dial an ISP you are making use of the service in the way it was intended and sold to be used. Cable TV was never about connecting to anyone but the cable company.
As for DSL, there are two different scenarios. One is where a company like Covad or Rythmns leases an unbundled loop to your house. This is the pair of copper wires running from the CO to the demarc at your house. These companies are colocated at the CO and after the unbundled loop is cross-connected to their equipment, they are responsible for all aspects of service provision. Thus the major cost of service provision is borne by the DSL provider, not the local phone monopoly. The phone monopoly is only reselling the local loop (which is probably already fully depreciated on their books) and some space in the CO. This rental is mandated by the Telecom Act. However, there is a quid pro quo involved. The local phone monopolies are being allowed into the long distance business and other businesses from which they were barred under the 1984 consent decree in return for opening their markets in this way. It might not be the best way to go about opening markets, but at least the phone companies are getting something for something. AOL wants the cable TV companies to resell services without getting anything back in return.
The second part of DSL is where someone is doing a straight resale arrangement of the DSL service provided by the local phone company itself. Interestingly, the local phone companies, like the cable companies, are seeking regulatory relief from being forced to resell this service. They also claim it is unfair for others to piggyback on their investment. The FCC has broad authority under the Telecom Act to promote the deployment of high speed data services could easily allow the local phone companies to also be exempt from a "pure resale" requirement on DSL, perhaps so long as it was part of a separate subsidiary.
Maybe the government should force you to rent out space in your garage and basement to all comers. After all, you'll still be able to get the full value of out your house. People should have the choice of where they store their stuff after all. The fact that you bought and paid for your house is meaningless. At least that's what you seem to think about broadband networks.
If you don't like the cable company, but a satellite dish. You've got choices.
Rural subsidy programs are a sham. I live in the city and nobody subsidizes my supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. People make a choice to live in rural areas. As with any choice, there are tradeoffs to be made. In the country you get wide open spaces, no traffic congestion, cleaner air, etc. But you also have a hour school bus rides. People in rural areas want to pocket the benefits for themselves and get people in the city to pick up the tab to reduce the costs. And yes, I lived in the country for 18 years, so I know what I'm talking about.
The bill is a major giveaway to AOL, which is already America's biggest and most powerful ISP. The entire purpose of the bill is to force the cable companies to sell AOL bandwidth at cut rate prices.
AOL's market value is tens of billions. If they want broadband access so bad, let them build their own networks. They could easily raise the money to do it.
Except the rights of the people who invested billions to build broadband fiber networks.
Here in Chicago Cineplex Odeon runs their own ticket line (312) 553-CINE. I was able to get through to that and buy tickets for the second showing of the day! I tried MovieFone by phone and web and was completely screwed every time. I wonder how the phone network held up under the load?
Gordon Matzigkeit is working on something he calls the FIG license which is an attempt to strike a different balance between the author and the user than the GPL while still maintaining freedom. You might want to check it out.
Well, I won't go so far to question Rob's integrity, but to call that a "good article" is a bit unbelievable. He must've been in a real hurry or short on sleep when he reviewed it. Even some BSD users have repudiated it. At least one of them did so on slashdot not too long ago.
I hope you were joking about agreeing with every point made. That article has several factual inaccuracies. I point a couple of them out in my main thread post below.
It's very ironic that Stallman is often accused of being a communist and anti-commerical, yet is also often bashed for refusing to call software that cannot be sold free. (The Qt Free Edition comes to mind). He goes to bat for business a lot more than people give him credit for.
Well, your terms are inadequate to make software truly free. Getting the source code on request and documenting modifications is not the same as the ability to distribute modifications to your friends or to charge money for them.
Unfortunately, software licensing is an almost inherently complex process if you intend to protect freedom for all of your users. I think you'd be surprised how long a license that did everything you wanted would be.
Some people in the BSD camp must have a serious chip on their shoulder. There was a great deconstruction of this article by someone on gnu.misc.discuss a few days ago, but unfortunately I cannot locate it on the new and "improved" DejaNews. Some of what I am going to say is taken from that.
.....
First, the article is wrong in some basic facts. Flex is not under the GPL, so it's output is not GPL. The output of Bison was only covered by the GPL because the "output" of bison included a very large chunk of Bison parser code written by Stallman into the output, not just because the the Bison parser spits out code. Additionally, it has been quite some time since this code was GPL'd. It is now under a license that allows proprietary use. These are just a couple of examples.
Second, his explanation of the "meat" of the BSD license leaves out the advertising clause. Whoops. I wonder how he could have overlooked such a wonderful feature
Third, this guy's legal analysis of the GPL is pretty flawed. If you have concerns about the license, I suggest hiring a real lawyer to look it over.
But most importantly, this article is simply an anti-GPL screed full of abuse for the GPL, the FSF, etc. I wonder if Michael Maxwell is a pseudonym for John Dyson? Listen to a few of these things:
-- "the GPL is more concerned with political extremism rather promoting free software"
-- "This clause reeks of political extremism"
-- "If this is the case, then you are not the real owner of your code, the Free Software Foundation is!"
-- "This just states that the FSF couldn't find a way to take control of programs that just happen to be stored on the same media as a GPL'ed program!"
-- "This sounds much like a Microsoft-style license"
-- "Not sure of the legality of this, and could be up for debate"
-- "the General Public License is not so much about ``keeping free software free'' as it is about forcing us to accept the extreme Communistic political philosophy of Richard Stallman"
-- "The GPL is not about freedom."
As you can see, lots of FUD and anger. And aside from its obvious biases, it is full of so many inaccuracies that I urge everyone to completely discount anything it says. I suggest contacting Jordan Hubbard of the FreeBSD project for more clear, accurate, and reasoned information on the BSD community's thoughts on this issue if this article caused you any major concerns.
Pareto optimal only means there is no way to make someone better off without making someone else worse off. 100% to me and 0% to you is pareto optimal.
It's not my intention to present the definitive argument against absolute property rights in land. What I will say is that property is a bundle of rights and that those rights can be unbundled. Someone can have exclusive possession of land without having absolute ownership rights (as we currently definte them) over it.
While the current system might put land in the hands of people who are willing to pay the most money for it, that does not actually mean society is better off as a result. Many people desire to hold land for speculative purposes rather than putting it to productive use. Many very valuable (and potentially useful) pieces of land in vacant for this very reason.
The leading quote by Hayek points out one of the problems with people like Rand. Namely, she made her money via royalties on copyright and so has a vested interest in the current system.
BTW: I'd like to point out that there are people (including libertarians) who object to the current scheme of private property in land as well. (I'm one of them, though not a libertarian). Libertarian notions of property are based on people have the rights to the fruits of their own labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor. Nobody created the land. It is the free gift of nature. In practice, virtually all land title derive from conquest and arbitrary territorial claims resting on no clear legal or ethical principle.
Ah, yes. Scientists never shared information before patents. All those mathematics journals and mathematics conferences dealing with non-patentable material are an illusion. Prior to the introduction of copyright law during the Enlightenment, no scientific progress occurred. Obviously the great Greek literature and scientific writings must have been forged.
Your blanket assertion that "no one is going to want to share" without intellectual property is ludicrous. What are you a scientist of?
The problem here is that copyright holders already use contracts to attempt to strengthen their stranglehold on a product. You are correct that one could view copyright as simply a "standard contract". However, software companies routinely enclose license agreements that go far beyond the rights they would have under copyright. For example, prohibiting bechmarks or disclaiming warranties. The copyright holders seem to want the best of both worlds. They want to use contract to bind their "legitimate" users and copyright to bind everyone else. In fact, in the case of software the author can have various powers over the users via contract, patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets! It's a wonder there's anything left over for the poor user.
Donald Knuth has been paying people to find bugs in his software and books for a long time now. As the software matures and most bugs are fixed, the bounty goes up! Economics in action.
The release notes say you can't add to or edit your bookmarks. This alone would keep me from trying it out. Can anyone verify this, or is it just old data? I would figure bookmarks would be trivial to implement.
You are right. The RCA brand is now owned by Thomson Multimedia of France.
Linus doesn't explicitly state that we'll all have so much free time in the future that we'll be bored. And that's a good thing too because it's not true. If we look back at the labor saving devices invented in the last 200 years, it boggles the mind. Yet today we still mostly work for a living. Many people work longer hours than ever as companies shed as many employees as the possibly can. The fact is that labor saving devices don't exist in a vacuum. They are part of the fabric of our society. Computerization both changes society and is moulded by society.
I highly recommend the essay Speeding Towards Meaninglessness: Why Labor Saving Devices Don't Save Time. It's part of Steve Talbott's NETFUTURE site, which I've recommended on this forum before. Steve is a pseudo-luddite and an enviro-weenie who worships primitive cultures, but he and his contributors do have a lot to add to our understanding of the affect of technology on human existencs.
TCI doesn't force customers to buy it's cable modem service, but if you do, it has to be through the TCI @Home venture. There is only one choice of ISP for the line. If you want AOL's content on top of it, then you have to pay extra to AOL. TCI says it paid for the cables and shouldn't have to share them with other people who are only interested in piggybacking on TCI's investment. AOL wanted to force TCI to unbundle their wires from their ISP business and allow any ISP to offer service over the wires (with the payment of some fee to TCI surely). They wanted this to be a condition of the TCI/AT&T merger. The FCC did not agree to this however.
Now if AOL were to buy MediaOne, the shoe would be on the other foot. They could lock anyone who wanted cable modems into buying them from AOL. That's why I'm saying they would quickly change their tune on open access to the cable lines.
BTW: Phone companies are required to unbundle their network elements such as the copper loop to a customer's house and sell them to all comers at a discount. AOL wanted the same provisions to apply to cable.
I think both Kaffe and Japhar+Classpath are committed to providing a fully compatible Java implementation. This will not extend to replicating JDK bugs possibly, but I think all of those projects are committed to the Java wora concept.