Perhaps you didn't read the entire paragraph. If you need to be spoon-fed the point, principles of human decency are more important than principles of licensing. For all you or I know, we'd have a Free specification in our hands if certain people were able to be civil.
Along comes a new client Shareaza, and they try to hijack the Gnutella name and call it "Gnutella 2".
I really fail to see what the big deal is. As far as I'm concerned, the only people with any right to complain are those who wrote the 0.4 protocol. The GDF situation is no different than Nutella shutting down gnutella.de and newtella.de.
'Hijacked', as the opposition likes to put it, can easily be read as 'inspired by'.
I hope Mike comes to his senses. Shareaza is a decent p2p client, and has been a positive thing for Gnutella
I agree completely. I will not promote G2 or add support to my client until I have an open specification in my hand, though I am quite eager. I'll be emailing Mike to conditionally pledge my support after I post this message, I advise everyone else to do so (while remembering to be courteous!) as well so that we can perhaps end this debacle on a positive, friendly, and mutually beneficial note.
Noone is suggesting to block Shareaza in particular. That would be against my own ethics.
I saw two different people advocating this as I looked over the GDF archives for the last few days.
It's only a proposal for now...
That it is even considered is more than enough.
Instead, I'm advocating for the ombilical between the Gnutella network and Mike's network to be cut. That is, I don't want to discriminate against a particular servent but against a feature that is not necessarily welcome, i.e. ones that support Mike's Protocol.
You want to disallow support for the 'feature' that is the G2 protocol in your client? Am I stupid, or is that achieved simply by not adding G2 support to your client? Or do you mean the feature of relaying hits from the G2 network to the G1 network? Aside from G2 providing that as an option to G1 clients, I don't see how its possible without ignoring all G2 clients, which you ethically oppose.:-) Am I just missing something?
Unconditionally blocking Shareaza will also limit (perhaps severely, depending on the G2 nets) the amount of data your client can see. You're making a decision for your users that I'm not sure is yours to make. Perhaps your users don't believe G2 is evil or that Mike is our pimp? I know I wouldn't use any client that involuntarily imposed such restrictions, or would hack them away first thing.
...and it makes me sick beyond words that the GDF would actually advocate blocking or lower the service priority of Shareaza clients. Are you taking lessons from the Evil Empire or what? How many of you hypocrites would be crying louder than a fog horn if Microsoft decided to, say, rig IIS to refuse to service non-I.E. browsers?
The anti-G2 lot isn't just lacking reason, they're contradicting it. They would cut off their nose to spite their face (or Mike Stokes). This is the mentality we're dealing with:
"...as long as gnutella2.com exists in its current form, you are all fifty cent whores that got pimped by Slimy Mike."
Childish and spiteful. This is not the attitude with which to reach compromise and solve problems. Name calling? Are we freakin' twelve?
In the end, the G2 opponents are being obstinately selfish, and the heated, illogical emotion they're injecting into this discussion is hurting far more than helping the community by delaying the widespread implementation and deployment of a superior protocol that has already been tested and used effectively in public hands.
I don't care what anyone personally thinks of Mike, his opinions, or how he's handled the unleashing of Shareaza on the world. The only working reason in this argument is the Gnutella2 mark, and the G2 opponents seem to be desperately clinging to it, as if this is the only way they can oppose G2 without showing their true feelings, which I suspect have to do either with personal conflicts such as Shareaza stepping on the feet of other Gnutella players. Surely its a sign that the Loud Voices complain that G2 will only cause a schism, but then turn around and talk about Gnutella3 as a way of battling G2. Would I be wrong to construe this as an indicator of where certain peoples' intentions really lie?
The G2 opponents are so busy thinking of creative ways to sanction Shareaza and Mike Stokes that they've not given a single thought to what course of action would most benefit the community of users in this situation. As a Gnutella user and developer, I say this spurious, wasteful behaviour must stop now before it gets any worse. I suggest they regain their emotional composure and grow the hell up.
For me, this is an awkward situation. I'm a proponent of all things open and Free, and I should support the GDF in this conflict else violate my principles. But my principles also encompass the proper behavior of a rationally thinking human being who wants to successfully communicate with others of his kind. In this regard, I find the behaviour of some GDF key players to be so repulsive that I like myself less when I support a protocol backed by propaganda-spewing, egotistical drama queens than when I support a protocol that's only quasi-open, or less, as is currently the case. (I _really_ hope Mike opens up G2. It would be such a graceful way of pulling the rug out from under these fools, and beyond that I don't know how long I can endure taking sides here without having an ethical melt-down.)
Niko
PS
Replace the phrase 'G2 opponents' with the name 'Vinnie', who seems to think calling people 'slimey' and 'imbicile' demonstrate one's argumentative superiority. His contradictions of logic, hypocrisy, personal attacks on the character of those making neutral observations or expressing neutral opinions, all serve as wonderful examples of how not to effectively influence people or raise support for a cause. He's like a politician who's election campaign consists of insulting the mothers of his constituents.
> All of this is a moot point. Mike wont change the name, no one here > can make him. Get over it. This is so rediculously unimportant in > the scheme of things I hate to see so much list traffic dedicated to > it.
Amen.
Re:Some additional debian specific font info...
on
Font HOWTO For Linux
·
· Score: 1
Also, sarge's freetype comes with the byte-code interpreter enabled, but the maintainer may be "seriously deciding to turn it off in the near future."
The IDisposable pattern provides nice emulation of deterministic object deletion. We also try to keep track of situations where Qt deletes objects for you, and make sure the C# representation is properly disposed. So far, its not been a big deal, but we'll see how it grows.
No one's insinuating that there's a great initiative within the KDE core ranks to adopt C#, except maybe the Slashdot headline (and really, you should take headlines for what they're worth). Read the article. What is suggested is how Qt# and KDE# can impact those wishing to develop interoperable software.
Also note that Qt# is in KDE's CVS repository, in kdebindings.
I believe you're talking about assembly (DLL) versioning; the 'new' method attribute in C# is also a part of this system. I don't know of any source code versioning tools that ship with any of the (free or commercial).NET implementations.
> On the other hand, have you noticed how hard it is to find Debian ISO images?
http://www.linuxiso.org - I can't believe you've never heard of this place. They've had Debian ISOs since I first learned of them.
I admit, debian.org's ISO download wizard is garbage, but I think they're trying to save bandwidth by having you download what you need instead of the entire ISO (there's no reason you need to install every package in the ISO).
> Um...because that's the way nearly every package that uses zlib links it?
This is most assuredly NOT true. There is no reason to link at compile time when you can at runtime, so no one does, with the exception of executables in/bin and/sbin.
The idea of adopting a single platform or programming language for all programming needs isn't just naive, its dangerous and stupid. Do languages not simply expose the features of the platform they operate on? Isn't it a bit superficial to choose the language that you like to program in over the language that would best solve the engineering problem at hand?
Its okay to be superficial about language when you're writing end-user applications, but when you've got real engineering problems to solve, language is about the last thing you care about. Performance, portability, and planning should make the decisions, not the ease with which you can program in a particular language.
For example, it doesn't really matter which language I write a word processor, IM client, or file-sharing client in, but a high-performance web server, 3D rendering engine, statistical analysis engine, or RDMS have specific needs that modern RAD languages don't accomodate.
Programmers and software engineers are turning out to be two very different breeds.
I've recently started progamming in Java. The experience has been a very good one so far; the core libraries are complete and mature, and there are many, many third party libraries and utilities available, placing Java among the most well-engineered and supported development platforms I've ever used.
As far as Mike's multiplayer game goes, Java's Bean architecture, combined with RMI (or maybe CORBA), sounds perfect for the event propogation needed to sync clients with a server. Although I've never tried using Beans with either, I'm pretty sure RMI would work fine, though I'm not too sure about CORBA.
Java run-time performance is the only question. It would be a cinch to develop the app in a language like Java, but it might not be much fun for the people playing it unless you used JIT compilation or pre-compiled the byte code to native code. Either of these could cause problems using RMI (object serialization breaks with byte-code native code translations), however, and as far as I know, there aren't any free x86 JIT compilers that support AWT and SWING, though I found one commercial Win32 JITter that offers a free personal edition. See this article, recently linked from Slashdot, at IBM Developer Works:
Maybe you could write critical sections of code in a language that produce native code, then wrap that code in Java using 'native' calls.
...or search google, there are LOTS of commercial solutions.
Your choice to use C# may solve some of the problems described above if you don't care about cross-platform compatability (and even then, Mono aims to solve that problem completely). There's also cross-language integration, which can make management code easier to write (Python, Perl, and VB are certainly easier to use than Managed C++). The platform also provides JIT and native compilation for all supported languages. Personally, I've avoided.NET for a few reasons, the most important being maturity of the platform compared to Java; there are also the standard political reasons.
Interestingly,.NET is becoming more alluring in that Mono is building a free CLR, while we're still waiting for a complete and free implementation of the seven-year-old, and in my own opinion, superior Java platform. Kaffe seems to be coming along nicely. Anyone know of any other solutions, besides writing one myself?
Slashdot Mirror
Just put your blog on the Freenet...
Nick
I use Konqueror, as it can import from and export to Mozilla's bookmark format. But I don't ever have to worry about IE, so...
-Nick
> and since I'm new to the technology (isn't everyone?)
;-)
Used Java?
Bash.
Keiner macht fur dich mehr! :-)
niko
RAM develops his client as he sees fit. If you don't like the changes he makes, use another one. If you like the changes, great!
If I used his software regularly and such an unfortunate decision were made, I'd remove or rewrite the offending code.
Niko
I can't see how...
Perhaps you didn't read the entire paragraph. If you need to be spoon-fed the point, principles of human decency are more important than principles of licensing. For all you or I know, we'd have a Free specification in our hands if certain people were able to be civil.
Niko
Along comes a new client Shareaza, and they try to hijack the Gnutella name and call it "Gnutella 2".
I really fail to see what the big deal is. As far as I'm concerned, the only people with any right to complain are those who wrote the 0.4 protocol. The GDF situation is no different than Nutella shutting down gnutella.de and newtella.de.
'Hijacked', as the opposition likes to put it, can easily be read as 'inspired by'.
I hope Mike comes to his senses. Shareaza is a decent p2p client, and has been a positive thing for Gnutella
I agree completely. I will not promote G2 or add support to my client until I have an open specification in my hand, though I am quite eager. I'll be emailing Mike to conditionally pledge my support after I post this message, I advise everyone else to do so (while remembering to be courteous!) as well so that we can perhaps end this debacle on a positive, friendly, and mutually beneficial note.
Niko
Noone is suggesting to block Shareaza in particular. That would be against my own ethics.
I saw two different people advocating this as I looked over the GDF archives for the last few days.
It's only a proposal for now...
That it is even considered is more than enough.
Instead, I'm advocating for the ombilical between the Gnutella network and Mike's network to be cut. That is, I don't want to discriminate against a particular servent but against a feature that is not necessarily welcome, i.e. ones that support Mike's Protocol.
You want to disallow support for the 'feature' that is the G2 protocol in your client? Am I stupid, or is that achieved simply by not adding G2 support to your client? Or do you mean the feature of relaying hits from the G2 network to the G1 network? Aside from G2 providing that as an option to G1 clients, I don't see how its possible without ignoring all G2 clients, which you ethically oppose. :-) Am I just missing something?
Unconditionally blocking Shareaza will also limit (perhaps severely, depending on the G2 nets) the amount of data your client can see. You're making a decision for your users that I'm not sure is yours to make. Perhaps your users don't believe G2 is evil or that Mike is our pimp? I know I wouldn't use any client that involuntarily imposed such restrictions, or would hack them away first thing.
Niko
Niko
The anti-G2 lot isn't just lacking reason, they're contradicting it. They would cut off their nose to spite their face (or Mike Stokes). This is the mentality we're dealing with:
"...as long as gnutella2.com exists in its current form, you are all fifty cent whores that got pimped by Slimy Mike."
Childish and spiteful. This is not the attitude with which to reach compromise and solve problems. Name calling? Are we freakin' twelve?
In the end, the G2 opponents are being obstinately selfish, and the heated, illogical emotion they're injecting into this discussion is hurting far more than helping the community by delaying the widespread implementation and deployment of a superior protocol that has already been tested and used effectively in public hands.
I don't care what anyone personally thinks of Mike, his opinions, or how he's handled the unleashing of Shareaza on the world. The only working reason in this argument is the Gnutella2 mark, and the G2 opponents seem to be desperately clinging to it, as if this is the only way they can oppose G2 without showing their true feelings, which I suspect have to do either with personal conflicts such as Shareaza stepping on the feet of other Gnutella players. Surely its a sign that the Loud Voices complain that G2 will only cause a schism, but then turn around and talk about Gnutella3 as a way of battling G2. Would I be wrong to construe this as an indicator of where certain peoples' intentions really lie?
The G2 opponents are so busy thinking of creative ways to sanction Shareaza and Mike Stokes that they've not given a single thought to what course of action would most benefit the community of users in this situation. As a Gnutella user and developer, I say this spurious, wasteful behaviour must stop now before it gets any worse. I suggest they regain their emotional composure and grow the hell up.
For me, this is an awkward situation. I'm a proponent of all things open and Free, and I should support the GDF in this conflict else violate my principles. But my principles also encompass the proper behavior of a rationally thinking human being who wants to successfully communicate with others of his kind. In this regard, I find the behaviour of some GDF key players to be so repulsive that I like myself less when I support a protocol backed by propaganda-spewing, egotistical drama queens than when I support a protocol that's only quasi-open, or less, as is currently the case. (I _really_ hope Mike opens up G2. It would be such a graceful way of pulling the rug out from under these fools, and beyond that I don't know how long I can endure taking sides here without having an ethical melt-down.)
Niko
PS
Replace the phrase 'G2 opponents' with the name 'Vinnie', who seems to think calling people 'slimey' and 'imbicile' demonstrate one's argumentative superiority. His contradictions of logic, hypocrisy, personal attacks on the character of those making neutral observations or expressing neutral opinions, all serve as wonderful examples of how not to effectively influence people or raise support for a cause. He's like a politician who's election campaign consists of insulting the mothers of his constituents.
> All of this is a moot point. Mike wont change the name, no one here
> can make him. Get over it. This is so rediculously unimportant in
> the scheme of things I hate to see so much list traffic dedicated to
> it.
Amen.
Also, sarge's freetype comes with the byte-code interpreter enabled, but the maintainer may be "seriously deciding to turn it off in the near future."
Nick
The IDisposable pattern provides nice emulation of deterministic object deletion. We also try to keep track of situations where Qt deletes objects for you, and make sure the C# representation is properly disposed. So far, its not been a big deal, but we'll see how it grows.
niko
Gtk# and Qt# are both tentatively planning System.Windows.Forms implementations. niko
I agree, bad headline. But Qt# is in KDE CVS.
No one's insinuating that there's a great initiative within the KDE core ranks to adopt C#, except maybe the Slashdot headline (and really, you should take headlines for what they're worth). Read the article. What is suggested is how Qt# and KDE# can impact those wishing to develop interoperable software.
Also note that Qt# is in KDE's CVS repository, in kdebindings.
niko
I feel your pain, brother. I'm still running KDE2 'cause I don't want to burden my telephone line for eight hours. :-)
Add these to your sources.list and be thankful for all the good things Debian _has_ that other distributions _don't_. ;)
deb http://kde3.geniussystems.net/debian ./ ./
deb-src http://kde3.geniussystems.net/debian
niko
Yes, it runs on Linux: 1, 2
niko
I believe you're talking about assembly (DLL) versioning; the 'new' method attribute in C# is also a part of this system. I don't know of any source code versioning tools that ship with any of the (free or commercial) .NET implementations.
niko
From the article...
> On the other hand, have you noticed how hard it is to find Debian ISO images?
http://www.linuxiso.org - I can't believe you've never heard of this place. They've had Debian ISOs since I first learned of them.
I admit, debian.org's ISO download wizard is garbage, but I think they're trying to save bandwidth by having you download what you need instead of the entire ISO (there's no reason you need to install every package in the ISO).
niko
> Um...because that's the way nearly every package that uses zlib links it?
/bin and /sbin.
/lib/libpam.so.0 (0x40025000) /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4002d000) /lib/libwrap.so.0 (0x40031000) /lib/libutil.so.1 (0x40039000) /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4003c000) /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x4004b000) /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x40060000) /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40121000) /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x40244000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
This is most assuredly NOT true. There is no reason to link at compile time when you can at runtime, so no one does, with the exception of executables in
niko
ganymede:~$ ldd `which ssh`
libpam.so.0 =>
libdl.so.2 =>
libwrap.so.0 =>
libutil.so.1 =>
libz.so.1 =>
libnsl.so.1 =>
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 =>
libc.so.6 =>
libcrypt.so.1 =>
The idea of adopting a single platform or programming language for all programming needs isn't just naive, its dangerous and stupid. Do languages not simply expose the features of the platform they operate on? Isn't it a bit superficial to choose the language that you like to program in over the language that would best solve the engineering problem at hand?
Its okay to be superficial about language when you're writing end-user applications, but when you've got real engineering problems to solve, language is about the last thing you care about. Performance, portability, and planning should make the decisions, not the ease with which you can program in a particular language.
For example, it doesn't really matter which language I write a word processor, IM client, or file-sharing client in, but a high-performance web server, 3D rendering engine, statistical analysis engine, or RDMS have specific needs that modern RAD languages don't accomodate.
Programmers and software engineers are turning out to be two very different breeds.
niko
> Only $50 registration, but dress warm.
Its 60 degrees here in Pittsburgh today, though this isn't normal weather. Its nice to have the office windows open, though.
niko
I've recently started progamming in Java. The experience has been a very good one so far; the core libraries are complete and mature, and there are many, many third party libraries and utilities available, placing Java among the most well-engineered and supported development platforms I've ever used.
a ry /j-native.html?loc=j
.NET for a few reasons, the most important being maturity of the platform compared to Java; there are also the standard political reasons.
.NET is becoming more alluring in that Mono is building a free CLR, while we're still waiting for a complete and free implementation of the seven-year-old, and in my own opinion, superior Java platform. Kaffe seems to be coming along nicely. Anyone know of any other solutions, besides writing one myself?
As far as Mike's multiplayer game goes, Java's Bean architecture, combined with RMI (or maybe CORBA), sounds perfect for the event propogation needed to sync clients with a server. Although I've never tried using Beans with either, I'm pretty sure RMI would work fine, though I'm not too sure about CORBA.
Java run-time performance is the only question. It would be a cinch to develop the app in a language like Java, but it might not be much fun for the people playing it unless you used JIT compilation or pre-compiled the byte code to native code. Either of these could cause problems using RMI (object serialization breaks with byte-code native code translations), however, and as far as I know, there aren't any free x86 JIT compilers that support AWT and SWING, though I found one commercial Win32 JITter that offers a free personal edition. See this article, recently linked from Slashdot, at IBM Developer Works:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/libr
Maybe you could write critical sections of code in a language that produce native code, then wrap that code in Java using 'native' calls.
...or search google, there are LOTS of commercial solutions.
Your choice to use C# may solve some of the problems described above if you don't care about cross-platform compatability (and even then, Mono aims to solve that problem completely). There's also cross-language integration, which can make management code easier to write (Python, Perl, and VB are certainly easier to use than Managed C++). The platform also provides JIT and native compilation for all supported languages. Personally, I've avoided
Interestingly,
niko