Problem with india is that they do not have the same needs for programming as we do.
Simply because they are poorer and has less companies.
The solution is for india to develop and have its own needs. Everybody can be rich. (Although everybody cannot be richer than the other guy)
One specific about programming is that the jobs often only need to be done once for a common task. The biggest industry is custom applications and maintanance. That issue just becomes clearer when the market is larger. (you dont need 4 more windowses when the market quadroubles).
Lets create value for eachother Americans, Indians and Europeans and everybody else. Create value by creating something somebody else wants and have a need for.
Give it to the other guy for some good stuff he has done.
Grow crops, create more gloves, make more video-games =)
Wealth is nothing more than what we create. Lets create.
The haikus do not have any real creative value. They exist for a purpose I do not believe the legislators in most countries had in mind when they wrote the laws.
People are not interested in the value of the haikus. People are just using it as a key to check for clean mail.
Using copyright law in this context is imho pervertion of the law.
Purpose might or might not be an issue for the law depending on country.
Do bussiness with the good guys. If you, in your bussines, have need for support. Where would you go? To the guy who fscked you (redhat) or the guy who is giving away goodies (mandrake).
RedHat might not have fscked anyone. (except me. for I feed fscked) and Mandrake might not be angels.
But as a general rule. If you like the ethics of a company. Use their services when you have a choice.
Style errors could be errors that work for a given platform at a given configuration. But would not work on another one.
Unitialized variables is often a mistake where you assume than an int, as an example, is zero if you dont init it. True on many compilers, but not on others. ISO C standard states you must initialize the variables.
Such an error might or might not raise an error or a warning by the compiler.
Standard compliance really hits you in the nose when you try to compile stuff written for a linux distro and you want to use it on FreeBSD.
Good tools for the developer means good applications and availability for these applications for the user.
Choose good tools for the user. I agree with you. But good tools for users are often what is good for the developers since they create the applications.
Aside from your post being vulgar, offensive and making assumptions of what I tried to explain.
QT is IMO a good toolkit. The biggest concern for me is that it more or less forces me to program in C++. A language I feel makes my day more complex than a C counterpart would do.
It limits developers which can lead to less incentive for developers to embrace the platform.
Personally I will embrace any choice between GTK+ and QT as they both are very competent libraries.
For me it is a choice between a ferrari and a mercedes with an automatic gearbox. I wouldnt say no to the mercedes with the automatic gearbox (QT) although I would have preferred to play with the gears on the ferrari (GTK+).
Me making binary distributions would cause problems because of the ABI incompatibilities. Increasing the need to compile it with static libs. It would increase the binary. (binary by convencience. sources available)
Maybe it is some sort of geekish fetish from my side. But as a developer geekish fetishes might not be such a bad thing.
Having guidelines for the design of a program or system that are not needed at the moment for the specific task, may soon enough be relevant when the program or system develops. Thinking refactoring.
Also. I am not just looking at the current state of GTK+ or QT. A design-choice for a library to be C++ is in my opinion poor in terms of quality. But good in terms of development of the library.
A library is to be used over and over and over. Putting more of an effort to make it geekishly fetishly perfected in design might be a good design choice.
The thing with UserLinux is that all players want a standard base to work with.
Standardisation, simplification and predictability.
Starting multiple spinnoffs will probably go against the idea of the project in the first place.
But sure. If one creates a spinoff-project and it becomes successful because of widespread adoption. Probably the ones on the original path will be happy about seeing a project, with the same goals as theirs, being successful.
I dont think the guys behind UserLinux are trying to advocate for a specific desktop enviroment for its own cause.
They have probably chosen the path they belive is most benificial to the goals of the project.
I salute the guys behind UserLinux for their work and I am quite excited looking at the possibilites of this project.
One thing about GTK+ is that it is not restricted to C++ as QT. GTK+ has an object-oriented model but written in C with C++ bindings.
This gives you more choices than QT when programming.
Also, not being in contact with Trolltech (a company I am sure is very good), I assume the advancement of the QT library is in the hands of this company. With little input from other developers.
It is not only the license that has effect of how free your code is. Not when you take on account that the main base will evolve.
The kernel eg is free. But should you want to take it in a different direction, you will need to put in your own patches against the "clean" kernel. Others will not maintain it for you. But the lower parts are shared by multiple other applications that you dont have control of. So you dont have a free space where you can play freely. You need to make sure your version of a library or kernel, fits with most other apps using it.
Personally I use KDE. Acctually primarily for that big nice clock defaulting in your right bottom corner =). And it has a kick-ass window-manager.
Gnome is really pretty. But a little too bugged out at the moment. I see great potential there.
UserLinux moving towards gnome will make me have a little tear in my eye, since I love my kde-desktop so much. But I think it can be a good choice in the long run.
P.S. Everybody stating what kind of desktop-enviroment they prefer is not trying to be flaimbaiting. Given the nature of this article it is quite on topic giving pros and cons of our different enviroments.
Started to think if this is just a bussiness ploy to get IBM start coughing up big bucks.
IBM has a lot of investment in Linux and RH is surely a big part of it. RH might see this as an opportunity to: 1. Be bought up by IBM 2. Get IBM to fund a regular RedHat distro
Just speculations. But I think it might be interesting nonethelesss.
Being in the middle of development of a catalog management and design system I would say it has good potential of making it in the commercial halls.
More or less we are now with a choice of Quark or InDesign. Downsides with both of these. Quark is getting old and stale and InDesign not being really well built. Problems with xml -> data -> automatic updating eg. (poor referencing in import making semiautomatic update problematic (but not unsolveable)).
As this is open software I am able to create new pieces of functionality through scripting, but most importantly, in the code itself. As a developer I am not required to wait for (we need functionality now) and purchase a new version of InDesign. I could do the alterations myself. Makes me not tied to whatever the InDesign-team decides is a good thing to create well.
I admit my and my teammates time costs money, but sometimes we have some things that simply cannot be done with proprietary tools.
Now, this kind of use might not be that of the ordinary bloke. But it is nonetheless a reason why this kind of software would be used and developed not just for playing.
The most interesting and difficult part I get from this is how can you be sure that the modifications are not done in DATA or in executable format headers (ELF eg).
I would recon you would need to be able to disassemble the whole thing before being able to make modifications. Otherwise you could touch static data (vars initialized in the code) or the executable format (some of the metadata about the executable, the ARCH field in and ELF binary eg).
AFAIK GPL prevents code in the same "product" to be anything else than GPL:ed.
Even if you have a license on one part of the kernel that is dual-licensed, you still have to obay to the terms of all other contributors. Who probably have not agreed on you making derived works that are not GPL:ed.
GPL states that if you cannot guarantee that the code can be used with the same rights as you have, you cannot distribute it at all.
Scenario: 1. You submit a patch to intel which you dual-license. 2. This is a derived work of many contributions in the kernel. 3. Intel redistributes you patches with their code under limited license. 4. The users recieving that code cannot get the sources for your derived work on GPL:ed software. 5. You have broken your license with numerous contributors.
Bottom line: All code in the product needs to be dual-licensed not just a part of it.
Btw.. I dont like this. But nobody said I had to agree with it. Take it or leave it, Stallman says.
Since it is copyrighted you are NOT allowed to distribute the code.
However, if you make an optional contract with the author of the software, you may redistribute it. But you are then bound to the terms of the contract between you and the copyrightowner.
This contract really has nothing to do with copyright law.
There are terms in the GPL concerning patents. If there are patents prohibiting the user to use the software without a fee or other obligation you are not allowed to redistribute the software. This since it is not possible for you to give the proper freedom over the software as stipulated in the contract with the copyrightholder.
My interpretation would be that you could be in deep shit if you redistributed code for creating gifs with patented algorithms. You party in your agreement could claim breach of contract as you gannot give the users the right to use the software freely. The copyrightholder of the GD-library *could* sue you for redistributing their code since you cannot grant the correct freedoms required by your contract.
Even BSD-licenses are copyrighted requiring a "contract" to redistribute or modify.. The only option without the "contract" is Public Domain AFAIK.
(Yes. I am aware of that contract is a poor word. Agreement would be more correct but not as illustrative)
I would say that evolution is not a force. It is simply the result of phenomenons. Saying that evolution would draw towards stronger/better beings and weed out the weaker/lesser beings is in my opinion untrue.
If a being replicates it replicates and by genetics its genes are carried on.
If something is not replicated, no matter how strong or good we might think it is. Its genes will not carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with india is that they do not have the same needs for programming as we do.
Simply because they are poorer and has less companies.
The solution is for india to develop and have its own needs. Everybody can be rich. (Although everybody cannot be richer than the other guy)
One specific about programming is that the jobs often only need to be done once for a common task. The biggest industry is custom applications and maintanance. That issue just becomes clearer when the market is larger. (you dont need 4 more windowses when the market quadroubles).
Lets create value for eachother Americans, Indians and Europeans and everybody else. Create value by creating something somebody else wants and have a need for.
Give it to the other guy for some good stuff he has done.
Grow crops, create more gloves, make more video-games =)
Wealth is nothing more than what we create. Lets create.
I think the parent wanted to point out that the window-managers are not part of the X-server.
The window-managers are apps running on the X-server.
Although. I cannot read anybodys minds =)
The haikus do not have any real creative value. They exist for a purpose I do not believe the legislators in most countries had in mind when they wrote the laws.
People are not interested in the value of the haikus. People are just using it as a key to check for clean mail.
Using copyright law in this context is imho pervertion of the law.
Purpose might or might not be an issue for the law depending on country.
Just give the spammers jailtime for spamming.
When such a public effort goes this big. Why not have it distributed.
Mirrors anyone?
Its write seldom read often. A good choice for mirroring. If no mirrors where found maybe a peer-to-peer solution?
Probably not peer to peer because of the latency. But antways.
What kind of moron has moderated this flamebait?
He is stating that debian rocks. And that you could look into that. There is no flamebait in that.
Grow up mod
And no
Im not one of the posters
I agree.
Do bussiness with the good guys.
If you, in your bussines, have need for support. Where would you go? To the guy who fscked you (redhat) or the guy who is giving away goodies (mandrake).
RedHat might not have fscked anyone. (except me. for I feed fscked)
and Mandrake might not be angels.
But as a general rule. If you like the ethics of a company. Use their services when you have a choice.
Style errors could be errors that work for a given platform at a given configuration. But would not work on another one.
Unitialized variables is often a mistake where you assume than an int, as an example, is zero if you dont init it. True on many compilers, but not on others. ISO C standard states you must initialize the variables.
Such an error might or might not raise an error or a warning by the compiler.
Standard compliance really hits you in the nose when you try to compile stuff written for a linux distro and you want to use it on FreeBSD.
Good tools for the developer means good applications and availability for these applications for the user.
Choose good tools for the user. I agree with you. But good tools for users are often what is good for the developers since they create the applications.
Aside from your post being vulgar, offensive and making assumptions of what I tried to explain.
QT is IMO a good toolkit. The biggest concern for me is that it more or less forces me to program in C++. A language I feel makes my day more complex than a C counterpart would do.
It limits developers which can lead to less incentive for developers to embrace the platform.
Personally I will embrace any choice between GTK+ and QT as they both are very competent libraries.
For me it is a choice between a ferrari and a mercedes with an automatic gearbox. I wouldnt say no to the mercedes with the automatic gearbox (QT) although I would have preferred to play with the gears on the ferrari (GTK+).
Me making binary distributions would cause problems because of the ABI incompatibilities. Increasing the need to compile it with static libs. It would increase the binary. (binary by convencience. sources available)
Maybe it is some sort of geekish fetish from my side. But as a developer geekish fetishes might not be such a bad thing.
Having guidelines for the design of a program or system that are not needed at the moment for the specific task, may soon enough be relevant when the program or system develops. Thinking refactoring.
Also. I am not just looking at the current state of GTK+ or QT. A design-choice for a library to be C++ is in my opinion poor in terms of quality. But good in terms of development of the library.
A library is to be used over and over and over. Putting more of an effort to make it geekishly fetishly perfected in design might be a good design choice.
And please. Be civilized.
The thing with UserLinux is that all players want a standard base to work with.
Standardisation, simplification and predictability.
Starting multiple spinnoffs will probably go against the idea of the project in the first place.
But sure. If one creates a spinoff-project and it becomes successful because of widespread adoption. Probably the ones on the original path will be happy about seeing a project, with the same goals as theirs, being successful.
I dont think the guys behind UserLinux are trying to advocate for a specific desktop enviroment for its own cause.
They have probably chosen the path they belive is most benificial to the goals of the project.
I salute the guys behind UserLinux for their work and I am quite excited looking at the possibilites of this project.
One thing about GTK+ is that it is not restricted to C++ as QT. GTK+ has an object-oriented model but written in C with C++ bindings.
This gives you more choices than QT when programming.
Also, not being in contact with Trolltech (a company I am sure is very good), I assume the advancement of the QT library is in the hands of this company. With little input from other developers.
It is not only the license that has effect of how free your code is. Not when you take on account that the main base will evolve.
The kernel eg is free. But should you want to take it in a different direction, you will need to put in your own patches against the "clean" kernel. Others will not maintain it for you. But the lower parts are shared by multiple other applications that you dont have control of. So you dont have a free space where you can play freely. You need to make sure your version of a library or kernel, fits with most other apps using it.
Personally I use KDE. Acctually primarily for that big nice clock defaulting in your right bottom corner =). And it has a kick-ass window-manager.
Gnome is really pretty. But a little too bugged out at the moment. I see great potential there.
UserLinux moving towards gnome will make me have a little tear in my eye, since I love my kde-desktop so much. But I think it can be a good choice in the long run.
P.S. Everybody stating what kind of desktop-enviroment they prefer is not trying to be flaimbaiting. Given the nature of this article it is quite on topic giving pros and cons of our different enviroments.
Huh? When did settling by the law become the grown up thing to do?
Thanks a bunch for the tip about http://www.magnatune.com/. It have not got very much artists. But I think the artist they do have are really good =)
Started to think if this is just a bussiness ploy to get IBM start coughing up big bucks.
IBM has a lot of investment in Linux and RH is surely a big part of it. RH might see this as an opportunity to:
1. Be bought up by IBM
2. Get IBM to fund a regular RedHat distro
Just speculations. But I think it might be interesting nonethelesss.
Well
Programmers will just have to settle with, programming for pay. Not getting payed for programs.
Most people get payed for the work that they do. I dont see any plumber getting royalties on his previous work at my house every time I use the knob.
Seems you got slashdotted already :o)
Quota exceeded.
Being in the middle of development of a catalog management and design system I would say it has good potential of making it in the commercial halls.
More or less we are now with a choice of Quark or InDesign. Downsides with both of these. Quark is getting old and stale and InDesign not being really well built. Problems with xml -> data -> automatic updating eg. (poor referencing in import making semiautomatic update problematic (but not unsolveable)).
As this is open software I am able to create new pieces of functionality through scripting, but most importantly, in the code itself. As a developer I am not required to wait for (we need functionality now) and purchase a new version of InDesign. I could do the alterations myself. Makes me not tied to whatever the InDesign-team decides is a good thing to create well.
I admit my and my teammates time costs money, but sometimes we have some things that simply cannot be done with proprietary tools.
Now, this kind of use might not be that of the ordinary bloke. But it is nonetheless a reason why this kind of software would be used and developed not just for playing.
Seems the article is giving a false sense of security in saying the versions has anonymity and encryption features:
"Freenet, another network, was also designed to allow anonymous, encrypted sharing of files and other information"
Nowhere does it state that the versions would offer either anonymity or encryption.
Freenet has it, that is true. But not these releases Kazaa.
Just a note. Successfully compiled the kernel 2.4.21 with gcc 3.3 debian (sid). Works nicely. 2.4.20 barfed though.
The most interesting and difficult part I get from this is how can you be sure that the modifications are not done in DATA or in executable format headers (ELF eg).
I would recon you would need to be able to disassemble the whole thing before being able to make modifications. Otherwise you could touch static data (vars initialized in the code) or the executable format (some of the metadata about the executable, the ARCH field in and ELF binary eg).
This is no hoax
I has the same properties as:
a*b gives the same result as b*a.
You have options on what instructions to use which yields the same results.
Lets say a*b is a 1 and b*a is a 0. You could describe a byte with eight occurancies of the (a*b || b*a) operation.
a*b b*a b*a a*b a*b a*b b*a a*b == 10011101
A common practice with x86 is to use XOR AX, AX instead of MOV AX, 0 to clear the AX register.
However, this is not interchangeable since they do not have the same size. The XOR method is often used because it is faster and have less size IIRC.
AFAIK GPL prevents code in the same "product" to be anything else than GPL:ed.
Even if you have a license on one part of the kernel that is dual-licensed, you still have to obay to the terms of all other contributors. Who probably have not agreed on you making derived works that are not GPL:ed.
GPL states that if you cannot guarantee that the code can be used with the same rights as you have, you cannot distribute it at all.
Scenario:
1. You submit a patch to intel which you dual-license.
2. This is a derived work of many contributions in the kernel.
3. Intel redistributes you patches with their code under limited license.
4. The users recieving that code cannot get the sources for your derived work on GPL:ed software.
5. You have broken your license with numerous contributors.
Bottom line:
All code in the product needs to be dual-licensed not just a part of it.
Btw.. I dont like this. But nobody said I had to agree with it. Take it or leave it, Stallman says.
GPL:ed software is NOT free to copy.
Since it is copyrighted you are NOT allowed to distribute the code.
However, if you make an optional contract with the author of the software, you may redistribute it. But you are then bound to the terms of the contract between you and the copyrightowner.
This contract really has nothing to do with copyright law.
There are terms in the GPL concerning patents. If there are patents prohibiting the user to use the software without a fee or other obligation you are not allowed to redistribute the software. This since it is not possible for you to give the proper freedom over the software as stipulated in the contract with the copyrightholder.
My interpretation would be that you could be in deep shit if you redistributed code for creating gifs with patented algorithms. You party in your agreement could claim breach of contract as you gannot give the users the right to use the software freely. The copyrightholder of the GD-library *could* sue you for redistributing their code since you cannot grant the correct freedoms required by your contract.
Even BSD-licenses are copyrighted requiring a "contract" to redistribute or modify..
The only option without the "contract" is Public Domain AFAIK.
(Yes. I am aware of that contract is a poor word. Agreement would be more correct but not as illustrative)
Nopes..
They do not deliver outside UK.
... as a force.
I would say that evolution is not a force. It is simply the result of phenomenons. Saying that evolution would draw towards stronger/better beings and weed out the weaker/lesser beings is in my opinion untrue.
If a being replicates it replicates and by genetics its genes are carried on.
If something is not replicated, no matter how strong or good we might think it is. Its genes will not carry on.