Nothing in the GPL permits you to claim that the software is endorsed by the University of California, therefore the no-advertizing clause does not restrict any right under the GPL.
OK, as above, I meant the no-endorsement clause; the third bullet of the BSD license forbids you to use the name of the licensor or contributors when you're promoting your derived work.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Yes, I hadn't appreciated that the GPL explicitly put these things outside its scope. So what you're left with is a program that's GPLed but still has the BSD no-endorsement restriction, and I've never seen that in a source.
The one dropped by virtually every project, including those of UCB and the three major free BSD variants, years ago?
OK, I meant the no-endorsement clause:
Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
The reason viruses don't exist/spread is because Linux mailers don't treat data as code. Simply reading text files and HTML (sans Java/Javascript) cannot allow a virus to spread by the *simple* mechanisms that allow them to propagate in the Windoze world.
Which are what?
Outlook hasn't executed java, javascript or activex in HTML mail for a very long time.
In a default exchange install you can't run any executable or script attachments from Outlook without saving them to disk first. Again, that's been true for a very long time.
Except Lucas fleshed out his character like Kate Moss trapped in a 1-dimensional universe.
Have you ever seen Kate Moss interviewed? She's actually half-way smart.
And hot. Oh, so very hot.
And I think the experiment has been reproduced in several other places. XP crashes. Linux doesn't. The hardware-blamers are the ones relying on anecdotal evidence.
OK, so tell me a sure-fire way to make my XP box crash. Because it doesn't.
And I mean a usual daily use thing. I don't want some random script you've pulled of bugtraq.
VSS accesses the code DB directly (i.e. there is no active "VSS Server"). That means you have to be able to mount the volume the code DB is on. Which is no problem if it's on the local LAN, but requires extra work to be visible outside the firewall.
OK but (as I said on the next line!) chances are you'll need that kind of access for other work-from-home stuff. For example, I like to be able to fetch files from my desk PC when I'm working at home, get remote desktops to test machines, get access to central utilities stores that aren't versioned, etc.
And my other point (on that same next line) was that it's fairly trivial to configure a Virtual Private Network from your home to your office that will effectively put your home machine on the office LAN. Problem solved - ?
We started using cvs when OSX came out and had nothing but success with it. It has its limitation but it is straight foward and I even think it is Open Source (correct me if I am wrong) so if you don't like something, just change it!
True, but it's an open-source dinosaur. The code has been so badly hacked over the years that some influential guys decided it needed a huge rewrite and that's subversion. When you get *really* large scale CVS use (like the GCC project) that it uses rcs and file locks becomes quite a pain, and some of the operations had bad O() orders on file count. (There's even duplication of the core code for network client and file repository access.)
That's not to say that CVS is stable and very usable for small-scale. But if you want to enhance it, give your time to subversion.
Does anyone here have any real world experience running Subversion? It has lofty goals, and I've d/l'ed the PC version to play with, but how does it handle 100s of programmers retrieving the latest version for a rather large project?
The subversion project is itself hosted in subversion - that's probably the biggest public one.
There were complaints a few months back about insane memory usage for commits (256mb+) but I think that was a berkeley db bug. Can't remember if it got resolved or not. I'm sure it will be before svn 1.0.
The GCC project have CVS scalability issues and would like to migrate to subversion and there are a few GCC guys on the subversion mailing lists, so they at least have confidence in it.
Come on people, this question is just begging for one of the "use Google" whiners to pop their heads up. Where is the "Well, duh, Ask Slashdot used to be so cool but it should now be renamed Ask Google" comments from the people who post a completely un-helpful link to a Google query such as "visual sourcesafe alternatives?"
Hell, who needs the use-google-whiners when we've got the use-google-whiner-whiners like you? :-p
I'd suggest discussing this on a non-OSDN sponsored forum. Whilst I trust editorial integrity here, any positive appraisal of Sourceforge will (quite rightly) come under suspicion, with this being the major money-maker for those bank-rolling this site.
But sourceforge isn't a VSS competitor - it's a whole-process management system. Its competitors are Clearcase, Sourcecast or the free system aegis. Clearcase has its own source control system but the others are built (AFAIK) on top of CVS - *that's* the VSS competitor here.
Note that Microsoft most certainly do not eat their own dog food. At least, they certainly did not then (1998-1999).
No, they still don't - they've got an internal replacement that's command-line only. AFAIK it's basically VSS rewritten to overcome the file size limit. I'm not aware of any moves to sell it but in any case VSS always struck me as a hack developer tool boxed up and sold rather than a polished product. But I've no complaints with it - it's sold to developers who can cope.
But that aside, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with VSS. You need to properly configure your server to handle the file locking, not to virus scan the VSS database, etc., but then it just works. It's a different branching paradigm to CVS, sure, but it works well (c.f. subversion that uses this too). And the multi-checkout-merge stuff works as well as CVS's.
The proprietary product may not be around tomorrow, it's license may change, or they may hold your work for ransom, and you have no control.
This argument comes up quite a bit and I don't understand it.
If I buy an indefinite licence of fookeeper and use it to control my source, how can I be stopped from using my own repository? If the fookeeper authors deprecate it and stop me from buying more licences, I can use my old licence to extract revision history from fookeeper and feed it into my new revision control software.
If I buy a year's licence for fookeeper and decide not to renew it, I have plenty of notice to extract revision history from it and feed it into my new software before it stops working.
If I'm a good developer and back up my working copy daily then I'll always have a recent snapshot of my source anyway.
How could the software not be around tomorrow? How could they 'hold my work for ransom'? Why don't I have control?
That's not the point, the point is your code is STORED INSIDE the product. So if you switch, you have to start from scratch on a new product. You don't just "abandon it" you have to pay time (i.e. money) to switch. This is true for any proprietary system.
I don't follow your argument.
OK, it's stored inside. But to eat your code completely they'd have to:
switch off their product overnight giving you no notice to export your source / history
delete all your working copies on developer machines
delete all your daily backups of the working copies.
If they can (legally) pull of the first you'll lose at your revision history but there's no way you're going to lose your source.
If you're not incorporating the Free software into your own product, there is no more license taint than using a proprietary system
The GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court and it's open to some interpretation - all the arguments about the definition of 'link'. That's why businesses are nervous about using it. IMO, it's up to the FSF to nail down the definition to make businesses happy.
So, let's see you ship a gratis copy of MS SQL server with each unit of your next product, and then let's talk about "license taint" (when you're through with the lawsuits of course).
But they provide MSDE, a redistributable SQL server core, specifically for that. The licence says:
no Microsoft endorsement (c.f. Apache licence)
may not sue Microsoft (i.e. no warranty c.f. any free software licence)
OpenCM [opencm.org] looks to me to be much more useful and stable than subversion.
OpenCM
0.1.1alpha1-1 is now available for download from the releases page.
That's not mature/stable confidence inspiring.
SVN aims to be a simple, stable replacement. It's been in development longer than that and is aiming lower. That's why it'll deliver first and be stable and usable.
Is arch better than svn? Don't know. It makes too many assumptions that XYZ posix utility is actually the GNU one. My Solaris box doesn't play along with that, and that's a showstopper for me until I can find a *lot* more time to play.
No, Microsoft won't be after instant PR for this - they're laying the groundwork for when they can convince everyone that passport is a good idea. Sure, there'll be early adopters, but no one will use this seriously until it's had good real-word exposure.
Amazon run HPUX. Chances are they've got too much an investment in *tested* software to ever change that. Microsoft would probably do anything they could to get Amazon to accept Passport.
Most likely it's because Microsoft has no expertise in the unix programming field. Just the retooling of meat-puppets would have been cost-prohibitive.
Didn't they port.NET to BSD themselves?
I'm sure MS have got all the expertise they need, but it's probably tied up on other projects. Microsoft contract when they need short term specialist resource, just like anyone else.
MS have been supplying developers (like myself) with 64 bit SDKs for at least 6 months, and migration information (i.e. recommendations for writing portable code) for at least 12 months.
*Way* longer than that.
In late 1999, MS shipped a crippled 64-bit compiler in their platform SDK for syntax/portability verification. They began shipping a functional compiler and libraries six to nine months later. My then employers (a network card manufacturer) used to get weekly or fortnightly pre-release builds of Win2k and I'm fairly sure they had Itanium builds up to November 1999 or so - when they just stopped. We didn't have itanium hardware anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, as above, I meant the no-endorsement clause; the third bullet of the BSD license forbids you to use the name of the licensor or contributors when you're promoting your derived work.
Conversely, clause 6 of the GPL includes:Yes, I hadn't appreciated that the GPL explicitly put these things outside its scope. So what you're left with is a program that's GPLed but still has the BSD no-endorsement restriction, and I've never seen that in a source.
OK, I meant the no-endorsement clause:
license here for reference. There's a similar one in the Apache license.
"By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work."
Correct. Isn't that nice and free of them?
Is that really true? Doesn't the BSD no-advertisment clause count as an additional distribution restriction forbidden by the GPL?
Yes, it's ridiculous that the GPL defends your right to claim that Berkley endorse your code but sounds like a legal minefield to me (IANAL).
(I'm sure this has been discuessed many times but I've never seen it resolved.)
The reason viruses don't exist/spread is because Linux mailers don't treat data as code. Simply reading text files and HTML (sans Java/Javascript) cannot allow a virus to spread by the *simple* mechanisms that allow them to propagate in the Windoze world.
Which are what?
Outlook hasn't executed java, javascript or activex in HTML mail for a very long time.
In a default exchange install you can't run any executable or script attachments from Outlook without saving them to disk first. Again, that's been true for a very long time.
(I realise this is old - found in metamods)
Except Lucas fleshed out his character like Kate Moss trapped in a 1-dimensional universe. Have you ever seen Kate Moss interviewed? She's actually half-way smart. And hot. Oh, so very hot.
Actually, the trick here would be to swap the two boxes and see what happens
Agreed, that's the only way he'll have the 'controlled experiment' he says he's got.
But it still remains his anecdotal evidence until he can tell me how to reproduce it.
And I think the experiment has been reproduced in several other places. XP crashes. Linux doesn't. The hardware-blamers are the ones relying on anecdotal evidence.
OK, so tell me a sure-fire way to make my XP box crash. Because it doesn't.
And I mean a usual daily use thing. I don't want some random script you've pulled of bugtraq.
VSS accesses the code DB directly (i.e. there is no active "VSS Server"). That means you have to be able to mount the volume the code DB is on. Which is no problem if it's on the local LAN, but requires extra work to be visible outside the firewall.
OK but (as I said on the next line!) chances are you'll need that kind of access for other work-from-home stuff. For example, I like to be able to fetch files from my desk PC when I'm working at home, get remote desktops to test machines, get access to central utilities stores that aren't versioned, etc.
And my other point (on that same next line) was that it's fairly trivial to configure a Virtual Private Network from your home to your office that will effectively put your home machine on the office LAN. Problem solved - ?
We started using cvs when OSX came out and had nothing but success with it. It has its limitation but it is straight foward and I even think it is Open Source (correct me if I am wrong) so if you don't like something, just change it!
True, but it's an open-source dinosaur. The code has been so badly hacked over the years that some influential guys decided it needed a huge rewrite and that's subversion. When you get *really* large scale CVS use (like the GCC project) that it uses rcs and file locks becomes quite a pain, and some of the operations had bad O() orders on file count. (There's even duplication of the core code for network client and file repository access.)
That's not to say that CVS is stable and very usable for small-scale. But if you want to enhance it, give your time to subversion.
Does anyone here have any real world experience running Subversion? It has lofty goals, and I've d/l'ed the PC version to play with, but how does it handle 100s of programmers retrieving the latest version for a rather large project?
The subversion project is itself hosted in subversion - that's probably the biggest public one.
There were complaints a few months back about insane memory usage for commits (256mb+) but I think that was a berkeley db bug. Can't remember if it got resolved or not. I'm sure it will be before svn 1.0.
The GCC project have CVS scalability issues and would like to migrate to subversion and there are a few GCC guys on the subversion mailing lists, so they at least have confidence in it.
Plus, developers can work from home seamlessly, which is generally not the case with VSS.
What's the problem working from home with VSS?
Sure, you need filesystem access to the repository but you'll need that for other work-from-home stuff anyway and you can easily do that over a VPN.
Come on people, this question is just begging for one of the "use Google" whiners to pop their heads up. Where is the "Well, duh, Ask Slashdot used to be so cool but it should now be renamed Ask Google" comments from the people who post a completely un-helpful link to a Google query such as "visual sourcesafe alternatives?"
Hell, who needs the use-google-whiners when we've got the use-google-whiner-whiners like you?
:-p
I'd suggest discussing this on a non-OSDN sponsored forum. Whilst I trust editorial integrity here, any positive appraisal of Sourceforge will (quite rightly) come under suspicion, with this being the major money-maker for those bank-rolling this site.
But sourceforge isn't a VSS competitor - it's a whole-process management system. Its competitors are Clearcase, Sourcecast or the free system aegis. Clearcase has its own source control system but the others are built (AFAIK) on top of CVS - *that's* the VSS competitor here.
Note that Microsoft most certainly do not eat their own dog food. At least, they certainly did not then (1998-1999).
No, they still don't - they've got an internal replacement that's command-line only. AFAIK it's basically VSS rewritten to overcome the file size limit. I'm not aware of any moves to sell it but in any case VSS always struck me as a hack developer tool boxed up and sold rather than a polished product. But I've no complaints with it - it's sold to developers who can cope.
But that aside, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with VSS. You need to properly configure your server to handle the file locking, not to virus scan the VSS database, etc., but then it just works. It's a different branching paradigm to CVS, sure, but it works well (c.f. subversion that uses this too). And the multi-checkout-merge stuff works as well as CVS's.
The proprietary product may not be around tomorrow, it's license may change, or they may hold your work for ransom, and you have no control.
This argument comes up quite a bit and I don't understand it.
If I buy an indefinite licence of fookeeper and use it to control my source, how can I be stopped from using my own repository? If the fookeeper authors deprecate it and stop me from buying more licences, I can use my old licence to extract revision history from fookeeper and feed it into my new revision control software.
If I buy a year's licence for fookeeper and decide not to renew it, I have plenty of notice to extract revision history from it and feed it into my new software before it stops working.
If I'm a good developer and back up my working copy daily then I'll always have a recent snapshot of my source anyway.
How could the software not be around tomorrow? How could they 'hold my work for ransom'? Why don't I have control?
Ta.
I don't follow your argument.
OK, it's stored inside. But to eat your code completely they'd have to:
- switch off their product overnight giving you no notice to export your source / history
- delete all your working copies on developer machines
- delete all your daily backups of the working copies.
If they can (legally) pull of the first you'll lose at your revision history but there's no way you're going to lose your source.If you're not incorporating the Free software into your own product, there is no more license taint than using a proprietary system
The GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court and it's open to some interpretation - all the arguments about the definition of 'link'. That's why businesses are nervous about using it. IMO, it's up to the FSF to nail down the definition to make businesses happy.
So, let's see you ship a gratis copy of MS SQL server with each unit of your next product, and then let's talk about "license taint" (when you're through with the lawsuits of course).
But they provide MSDE, a redistributable SQL server core, specifically for that. The licence says:
- no Microsoft endorsement (c.f. Apache licence)
- may not sue Microsoft (i.e. no warranty c.f. any free software licence)
- may not use in a competitor to Microsoft Office.
That's not too bad, is it?Is arch better than svn? Don't know. It makes too many assumptions that XYZ posix utility is actually the GNU one. My Solaris box doesn't play along with that, and that's a showstopper for me until I can find a *lot* more time to play.
Are you ever going to make a Win32 version? How?
I didn't look at the source myself, but here is a quote from Al Viro who did (and I find he has good taste):
:-p
What, so you're not only a slashbot, you're an *alvirobot* too?
There's nothing wrong with svn code. If you ever program for a living, you'll have to deal with other people's code. You won't like it all. Grow up.
For the price to performance ratio apache wins.
Really? I'd bet it's easier to configure and maintain than apache so you save money on admin time.
Liberty. Why Passport?? *shudders*
Because Microsoft aren't going to pay people to work on their competitor?
No, Microsoft won't be after instant PR for this - they're laying the groundwork for when they can convince everyone that passport is a good idea. Sure, there'll be early adopters, but no one will use this seriously until it's had good real-word exposure. Amazon run HPUX. Chances are they've got too much an investment in *tested* software to ever change that. Microsoft would probably do anything they could to get Amazon to accept Passport.
Most likely it's because Microsoft has no expertise in the unix programming field. Just the retooling of meat-puppets would have been cost-prohibitive.
.NET to BSD themselves?
Didn't they port
I'm sure MS have got all the expertise they need, but it's probably tied up on other projects. Microsoft contract when they need short term specialist resource, just like anyone else.
Do they really expect people who do not use IIS to use Passport?
Why should they care if anyone's actually using it? They're getting paid.
And no users == no tech support.
MS have been supplying developers (like myself) with 64 bit SDKs for at least 6 months, and migration information (i.e. recommendations for writing portable code) for at least 12 months.
*Way* longer than that.
In late 1999, MS shipped a crippled 64-bit compiler in their platform SDK for syntax/portability verification. They began shipping a functional compiler and libraries six to nine months later. My then employers (a network card manufacturer) used to get weekly or fortnightly pre-release builds of Win2k and I'm fairly sure they had Itanium builds up to November 1999 or so - when they just stopped. We didn't have itanium hardware anyhow.