If you don't like it, write your own code under your license of choice.
I like the goal of the GPL, just not the means. People should write open source software out of their own free fill (as I do), and not because they are forced to by a license.
You may argue that without the requirements the GPL places on people, there would hardly be any open source software. This is the assumption that most people are "bad" and would not share there code, but the GPL gives them no choice. I have more faith in the world and think that there are enough good-willing developers that would contribute code back anyway.
Also did you not read my original post - why are you telling me to use a different license - when it was clear from my original post that I already do (BSD/MIT variants)?
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
I never implied the developer has an obligation to let me use his code. Neither does the closed source developer.
My point is by placing this restrictions, the GPL developer prevents not only closed source software using his code - but also certain class of open source software (BSD/MIT-style licensed).
This is obvious - but my in stating it, I was disputing the point of the grandparent who was implying that GPL is good for every open source developer - which is not the case for developers writing BSD-licensed software, as the GPL code cannot be used in their projects.
Did you miss the word either in the statement you emphasized?
What I said was fact. Given the premise that I want the above functionality in my app, I either have license my app as GPL or re-implement the functionality as MIT/BSD. This is obvious from the restrictions the GPL places on the software. I don't see the point of dispute in this statement.
Actually I never said I wish to restrict the freedom of others.
I follow the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
Your freedom to write GPL'd code should not be restricted. My point was the license is not the golden chalice for any open source developer (which was the GP's point).
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
Unless you want to license your open source code as BSD/MIT...
Suppose you're writing an open source app (let's say 20k LOC) and wish to license it under MIT. Now, suppose you need a specific functionality that's already been implemented by another open source project under GPL (let's say the functionality is 1K LOC).
Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
Hard drives have caches which can max the bus interface, since they operate at RAM speeds, and not disk speeds. So whenever you get cache hits, you can expect your data to go through the full 3GB/s.
I think the way to solve both problems (creators keeping copyright and it not being abused for too long) is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work.
This way, creators who are still alive do not feel cheated like they do currently (after all, they made it), but the timeframe is not extended in all cases, so the work still enters public domain if the author has passed away and 50 years expired.
"To be a "correct" Mac OS program, you must support.... The Java VM gets basically none of them right"
How about this argument:
1. Apple supplies the Java VM on Mac OS X (true) 2. The Java VM doesn't follow your list of properties 3. Therefore, either:
a) Apple disagrees with you about what a "correct" Mac OS program should be
b) Apple is incompetent and _should_ fix their Java VM to behave properly
Neither of these conclusions say I, as a developer, am doing anything wrong! Either your list is bogus (I don't think so), or Apple isn't doing a good job with its Java VM (likely). So go complain to Apple instead of blaming developers that target a technology Apple ships and promotes (not as much as Cocoa, but still pretty prominently).
P.S. If you tell me to use Cocoa, I'll tell you I don't have the time and money to code the user interface code for my program X times, where X is the number of platforms I support. Big companies can do this, they have the money to. But as a one person developer, I can't afford to if I want cross platform compatibility.
Good point, though there's a better way to edit binary files.
For example, I make a product called FileCarver which allows you to create a file format definition (in XML! heh), that describes the format of a binary file, and the program will automatically provide you with a GUI to edit it. Check it out at http:/fizzysoft.net/filecarver/
You don't understand how the Admin account on OS X works (or is supposed to work, in this case).
It is not the same as root nor as Admin accounts on Windows.
On Mac OS X, the Admin account is like an in-between between regular user and root. That is, when you are logged on as an Admin, it generally allows you to do things that normal users can do, plus any permissions given specifically to Admins (these are not common). On the other hand, you _can_ also do anything else that you want, as root would, BUT before doing such actions you are supposed to be prompted for your password.
For example, if a folder has permissions for some user/group that I am not in, and I have an Admin account, I am normally not able to do anything in that folder without first re-entering my password to Prompt. This is the philosophy behind Admins accounts on OS X.
Of course, with Linux, comes Windows. In the form of emulating it using VMWare (which isn't supported on Mac OS X natively yet), and also with Wine (true, this isn't real Windows - but it satisfies people's needs to run some Windows programs).
It really depends on the type of crash, and I'm not it's safe to jump to your conclusion so eagerly. In fact, many crashes in C programs CANNOT lead to execution of arbirtrary code, such as division by zero errors and trying to access memory with a NULL pointer.
While you are correct that a human hacker would still be able to find out what port RDC is running on, and then proceed exploit it (if there is an exploit), changing the port will still protect from automated worms that would just go for port 3389 and try to do their exploits.
It is, and this is a known fact. Google changes search results (well, prioritizes over which ones show up first on the list), depending on your past searchies.
This is done with cookies, and the effect can be seen if you take a browser which has a long-standing cookie from Google on which you've searched for lots of things vs one with no cookies, and search for some terms - it won't always happen, but often you'll see different results show up on the first page of searches depending on your past ones.
Are those also present? I know the latest stable release lacks many things... just how many are being added in 5.0? The article seems to be sparse on details.
Anyone have a more detailed feature-list of MySQL 5?
First, the slideshow not working from the remote control.
Then the internet not working for the guy that wanted to show controlling your TV recording from the net.
Then, the blue screen on that car game.
Finally, Conan getting like 5fps on that game at the end (when he finally got unstuck), when Bill was getting normal (high fps).
One thing that always irked me about the "official" definition of "open source" found here is that they put a bunch of restrictions of what "open source" is.
In other words, contrary to what most people think, something to which the code is available and can be modified legally for your own personal needs is not necessarily "open source" by the definiton.
For example, CircleMud - a popular free MUD engine to which the code is available - is not "open source" by the official definition, even though anyone can grab the code and use it for their needs, as long as they don't make a profit from it (this is in the license). Such a clause prohibits the software from being "open source" by the official definiton, even if the source code is open - and there is no other appropriate name for such software! This is what bothers me the most - we can't just call it "open source" we must say "the code is available for download and use blah blah blah" instead of having a convenient name.
Come on, if the source code is open for anyone to download and modify, it should be "open source" - since that's what the name describes! Why attach some arbitrary hidden restrictions to the term, that are not easily apparent from the words themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies for the spelling/grammar mistakes, "fill" should be "will", "there" should be "their", etc... I am tired.
If you don't like it, write your own code under your license of choice.
I like the goal of the GPL, just not the means. People should write open source software out of their own free fill (as I do), and not because they are forced to by a license.
You may argue that without the requirements the GPL places on people, there would hardly be any open source software. This is the assumption that most people are "bad" and would not share there code, but the GPL gives them no choice. I have more faith in the world and think that there are enough good-willing developers that would contribute code back anyway.
Also did you not read my original post - why are you telling me to use a different license - when it was clear from my original post that I already do (BSD/MIT variants)?
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
I never implied the developer has an obligation to let me use his code. Neither does the closed source developer.
My point is by placing this restrictions, the GPL developer prevents not only closed source software using his code - but also certain class of open source software (BSD/MIT-style licensed).
This is obvious - but my in stating it, I was disputing the point of the grandparent who was implying that GPL is good for every open source developer - which is not the case for developers writing BSD-licensed software, as the GPL code cannot be used in their projects.
Did you miss the word either in the statement you emphasized?
What I said was fact. Given the premise that I want the above functionality in my app, I either have license my app as GPL or re-implement the functionality as MIT/BSD. This is obvious from the restrictions the GPL places on the software. I don't see the point of dispute in this statement.
I meant "every developer" instead of "any developer" in the above post. Doh.
Actually I never said I wish to restrict the freedom of others.
I follow the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
Your freedom to write GPL'd code should not be restricted. My point was the license is not the golden chalice for any open source developer (which was the GP's point).
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
Unless you want to license your open source code as BSD/MIT...
Suppose you're writing an open source app (let's say 20k LOC) and wish to license it under MIT. Now, suppose you need a specific functionality that's already been implemented by another open source project under GPL (let's say the functionality is 1K LOC).
Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
And how does this stop female programmers from becoming famous by making some awesome OSS software?
So, then, once you go black... you can go back?
Hard drives have caches which can max the bus interface, since they operate at RAM speeds, and not disk speeds. So whenever you get cache hits, you can expect your data to go through the full 3GB/s.
I think the way to solve both problems (creators keeping copyright and it not being abused for too long) is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work. This way, creators who are still alive do not feel cheated like they do currently (after all, they made it), but the timeframe is not extended in all cases, so the work still enters public domain if the author has passed away and 50 years expired.
"To be a "correct" Mac OS program, you must support .... The Java VM gets basically none of them right"
How about this argument:
1. Apple supplies the Java VM on Mac OS X (true)
2. The Java VM doesn't follow your list of properties
3. Therefore, either:
a) Apple disagrees with you about what a "correct" Mac OS program should be
b) Apple is incompetent and _should_ fix their Java VM to behave properly
Neither of these conclusions say I, as a developer, am doing anything wrong! Either your list is bogus (I don't think so), or Apple isn't doing a good job with its Java VM (likely). So go complain to Apple instead of blaming developers that target a technology Apple ships and promotes (not as much as Cocoa, but still pretty prominently).
P.S. If you tell me to use Cocoa, I'll tell you I don't have the time and money to code the user interface code for my program X times, where X is the number of platforms I support. Big companies can do this, they have the money to. But as a one person developer, I can't afford to if I want cross platform compatibility.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<content name="Shameless Self Promotion">
Good point, though there's a better way to edit binary files.
For example, I make a product called FileCarver which allows you to create a file format definition (in XML! heh), that describes the format of a binary file, and the program will automatically provide you with a GUI to edit it. Check it out at http:/fizzysoft.net/filecarver/
</content>
You don't understand how the Admin account on OS X works (or is supposed to work, in this case).
It is not the same as root nor as Admin accounts on Windows.
On Mac OS X, the Admin account is like an in-between between regular user and root. That is, when you are logged on as an Admin, it generally allows you to do things that normal users can do, plus any permissions given specifically to Admins (these are not common). On the other hand, you _can_ also do anything else that you want, as root would, BUT before doing such actions you are supposed to be prompted for your password.
For example, if a folder has permissions for some user/group that I am not in, and I have an Admin account, I am normally not able to do anything in that folder without first re-entering my password to Prompt. This is the philosophy behind Admins accounts on OS X.
Of course, with Linux, comes Windows. In the form of emulating it using VMWare (which isn't supported on Mac OS X natively yet), and also with Wine (true, this isn't real Windows - but it satisfies people's needs to run some Windows programs).
It really depends on the type of crash, and I'm not it's safe to jump to your conclusion so eagerly. In fact, many crashes in C programs CANNOT lead to execution of arbirtrary code, such as division by zero errors and trying to access memory with a NULL pointer.
While you are correct that a human hacker would still be able to find out what port RDC is running on, and then proceed exploit it (if there is an exploit), changing the port will still protect from automated worms that would just go for port 3389 and try to do their exploits.
It is, and this is a known fact. Google changes search results (well, prioritizes over which ones show up first on the list), depending on your past searchies.
This is done with cookies, and the effect can be seen if you take a browser which has a long-standing cookie from Google on which you've searched for lots of things vs one with no cookies, and search for some terms - it won't always happen, but often you'll see different results show up on the first page of searches depending on your past ones.
Are those also present? I know the latest stable release lacks many things... just how many are being added in 5.0? The article seems to be sparse on details. Anyone have a more detailed feature-list of MySQL 5?
Slashdot previously covered his project, and there is some interesting discussion about some of his ideas in this article.
Got any source for your third point? I've seen people state this a lot, but I haven't seen any reliable information about them actually selling it.
Two? I counted 4.
First, the slideshow not working from the remote control.
Then the internet not working for the guy that wanted to show controlling your TV recording from the net.
Then, the blue screen on that car game.
Finally, Conan getting like 5fps on that game at the end (when he finally got unstuck), when Bill was getting normal (high fps).
One thing that always irked me about the "official" definition of "open source" found here is that they put a bunch of restrictions of what "open source" is.
In other words, contrary to what most people think, something to which the code is available and can be modified legally for your own personal needs is not necessarily "open source" by the definiton.
For example, CircleMud - a popular free MUD engine to which the code is available - is not "open source" by the official definition, even though anyone can grab the code and use it for their needs, as long as they don't make a profit from it (this is in the license). Such a clause prohibits the software from being "open source" by the official definiton, even if the source code is open - and there is no other appropriate name for such software! This is what bothers me the most - we can't just call it "open source" we must say "the code is available for download and use blah blah blah" instead of having a convenient name.
Come on, if the source code is open for anyone to download and modify, it should be "open source" - since that's what the name describes! Why attach some arbitrary hidden restrictions to the term, that are not easily apparent from the words themselves?
Surely no one actually puts periods in PC, as in "P.C."?
In the future they do...