I am no where near a cmake guru, but it does seem a lot simpler to deal with than the autotools stuff; not that I am an autotools guru. Though I do wish the cmake folks would shorten the option names. They can get a lot more lengthy than those used in./configure, like; -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, why not just INSTALL_PREFIX or PREFIX?
So lets see, discover helium behaves like glass under certain conditions; raise helium prices to reflect some "perceived artificial low" price; profit from a helium super fluids.
Then I would have to say your tool-chain is messed up in some fashion, your cmake installation is hosed in some fashion or you are just trolling. I have built opencv with cmake since their initial version release switched and up to its current release; it has always compiled and installed just fine.
So you are saying if you were to compile kde-4.4.x (they use cmake) you would convert it all to autotools?... I don't believe you at all, not for a second.
Oh yes, cmake is really complicated compared to the autotools build stuff. I mean I really enjoy fiddling around with all the *.in, *a4, *.am, ltmain.sh, etc just so I can do;./configure --help.
But then I guess you have never tried to use cmake; else you would not have made the ignorant statement about its incomprehensibility. If you have never used autoconf, automake, make, libtool, m4 and friends it would be just as incomprehensible.
They have a fail-safe system that is statistically guaranteed to create lots of wealth and keep the stock market booming. No taxpayer money is at risk,...
What frigging planet have you been living on for the past 3 years? You do know our government use our tax dollars to bail out the financial sector.
If your suggesting their inability to predict the outcome because of some "randomness" then it stands to reason you are suggesting there is no randomness in the financial sector. Obviously that's a load a bull, else they would have predicted this last financial meltdown. I fail to see how you can possibly think they are good at their jobs unless "good at" is defined as making everyone else pay for their mishtakes.
Thanks for supporting my point that they are self absorbed cry babies that will ignore a mathematical proof because you did not follow their procedures.
Carlson said. "But what he did is definitely not the way things are normally done."
And the only reason they took him seriously was from past work. So in other words; if someone cracks an astounding math problem and they don't know you; they will ignore you because you did not "follow their procedures"; even though your work might be the basis for faster than light travel or some current science fiction technology. What a bunch of self absorbed petty cry babies. They remind me of the scientists in HHGTTG for hanging the guy that created the infinite improbability drive; simply because they didn't like a smart-ass.
But but... an antenna stub would have De-Applefied its prettiness and we all know all Apple lovers WOULD NEVER buy something "ugly"... even if it meant the product not working right.
Now I can write off Zogby International as a half assed, two bit of a chump market research company. So who paid for this research, Google, Apple or Microsoft?
the world has gone insane and has been for a good long while. But to even consider the notion to file legal charges against the fellas for failing to predict an "Act of ", well that about tops it all.
Microsoft has been pulling that kind of shit for ages, except they have been much more subtle about it. I only point that out because you monkeys are so addicted to their crack that you will tolerate it.
Another way to put it; What the hell has taken you so long to realize Apple does not give a shit about your app, or the others not written by them? That fuzzy line is there so they can toss those apps that are indirect conflict with theirs or those they have coming down the pipe.
No. Your wrong. It isn't about the developers. Its about the restrictions Apple has on their App Store. The FSF points out these restrictions are in violations of Section 6 of the GPL. It isn't about hating Apple. Perhaps if you had read TFA you would realize it is all about the restrictions Apple imposes.
If Apple cannot comply with the terms of the GPL then they are first in violation of the GPL terms and second, they are in the copyright violation arena. It is totally immaterial WHY they cannot comply. I am sure if Apple found a program in violation of their terms they would not afford the violator the same kindness they are currently being allowed.
No he is not being sarcastic and is exactly right... the GPL is built upon copyright law. He is also correct to point out her glaring error about FOSS foregoing copyright. It has not and she is completely wrong to make that statement.
I agree a program IS nothing more than a list of instructions. I do not have to much of an issue with copyrights as they pertain to software, but patents? That I just cannot agree with and there is not a single person on this planet that can justify their rational that it should happen. At its very basic level, software is nothing more than adding or subtracting numbers with an occasional shift left or right.
Adobe can make all the excuses for flash they want, but it still sucks hind tit for all the reasons people have complained about before. However, I do think they have a valid point regarding their thoughts about "internet standards" and how it was supposed to be versus how it is now a days. It was not intended there be patent encumbered which defeats the whole purpose and idea behind the ubiquity of accessing data. Yet there are companies with the sole intent of making everyone pay a toll or beholding to them. That in my view is wrong and is no better than the wall AOL tried to erect around the Internet.
"...where the patient accepts my word as the gospel truth,..."
I asked my doctor once what the side-effects were for a prescription. He looked at me dumbfounded and never answered my question. That Doctor then became NOT my Doctor.
You are absolutely wrong about A and B. You need to go read the GPL terms. If someone uses or releases code under GPL and his company chooses to use his GPLed code, then that company has to make the source available under the same terms they got the code, ie GPL. The only exception I am aware of is this; if you use GPLed code and as long as you DO NOT DISTRIBUTE it, then you are not obligated to make the source code available.
Slashdot Mirror
I am no where near a cmake guru, but it does seem a lot simpler to deal with than the autotools stuff; not that I am an autotools guru. Though I do wish the cmake folks would shorten the option names. They can get a lot more lengthy than those used in ./configure, like; -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, why not just INSTALL_PREFIX or PREFIX?
So lets see, discover helium behaves like glass under certain conditions; raise helium prices to reflect some "perceived artificial low" price; profit from a helium super fluids.
So you are saying if you were to compile kde-4.4.x (they use cmake) you would convert it all to autotools? ... I don't believe you at all, not for a second.
But then I guess you have never tried to use cmake; else you would not have made the ignorant statement about its incomprehensibility. If you have never used autoconf, automake, make, libtool, m4 and friends it would be just as incomprehensible.
They have a fail-safe system that is statistically guaranteed to create lots of wealth and keep the stock market booming. No taxpayer money is at risk, ...
What frigging planet have you been living on for the past 3 years? You do know our government use our tax dollars to bail out the financial sector.
They would have predicted the Chicago Cubs.
If your suggesting their inability to predict the outcome because of some "randomness" then it stands to reason you are suggesting there is no randomness in the financial sector. Obviously that's a load a bull, else they would have predicted this last financial meltdown. I fail to see how you can possibly think they are good at their jobs unless "good at" is defined as making everyone else pay for their mishtakes.
Thanks for supporting my point that they are self absorbed cry babies that will ignore a mathematical proof because you did not follow their procedures.
And the only reason they took him seriously was from past work. So in other words; if someone cracks an astounding math problem and they don't know you; they will ignore you because you did not "follow their procedures"; even though your work might be the basis for faster than light travel or some current science fiction technology. What a bunch of self absorbed petty cry babies. They remind me of the scientists in HHGTTG for hanging the guy that created the infinite improbability drive; simply because they didn't like a smart-ass.
Yes. One bad Apple spoils the whole bunch.
But but... an antenna stub would have De-Applefied its prettiness and we all know all Apple lovers WOULD NEVER buy something "ugly"... even if it meant the product not working right.
Adobe has had the final clue bat applied and truly fix their garbage. When the porn world speaks, others follow.
Now I can write off Zogby International as a half assed, two bit of a chump market research company. So who paid for this research, Google, Apple or Microsoft?
the world has gone insane and has been for a good long while. But to even consider the notion to file legal charges against the fellas for failing to predict an "Act of ", well that about tops it all.
their head out of their ass if they used the worlds largest crane; http://www.dlog.com/fileadmin/user_upload/UEber_uns/Presse/mobil_kran_2_20cm.jpg
Microsoft has been pulling that kind of shit for ages, except they have been much more subtle about it. I only point that out because you monkeys are so addicted to their crack that you will tolerate it. Another way to put it; What the hell has taken you so long to realize Apple does not give a shit about your app, or the others not written by them? That fuzzy line is there so they can toss those apps that are indirect conflict with theirs or those they have coming down the pipe.
No. Your wrong. It isn't about the developers. Its about the restrictions Apple has on their App Store. The FSF points out these restrictions are in violations of Section 6 of the GPL. It isn't about hating Apple. Perhaps if you had read TFA you would realize it is all about the restrictions Apple imposes.
The GPL does not require the source code originate from the same site as the binary. So yes, the source can be made available elsewhere.
If Apple cannot comply with the terms of the GPL then they are first in violation of the GPL terms and second, they are in the copyright violation arena. It is totally immaterial WHY they cannot comply. I am sure if Apple found a program in violation of their terms they would not afford the violator the same kindness they are currently being allowed.
No he is not being sarcastic and is exactly right... the GPL is built upon copyright law. He is also correct to point out her glaring error about FOSS foregoing copyright. It has not and she is completely wrong to make that statement.
I agree a program IS nothing more than a list of instructions. I do not have to much of an issue with copyrights as they pertain to software, but patents? That I just cannot agree with and there is not a single person on this planet that can justify their rational that it should happen. At its very basic level, software is nothing more than adding or subtracting numbers with an occasional shift left or right.
Adobe can make all the excuses for flash they want, but it still sucks hind tit for all the reasons people have complained about before. However, I do think they have a valid point regarding their thoughts about "internet standards" and how it was supposed to be versus how it is now a days. It was not intended there be patent encumbered which defeats the whole purpose and idea behind the ubiquity of accessing data. Yet there are companies with the sole intent of making everyone pay a toll or beholding to them. That in my view is wrong and is no better than the wall AOL tried to erect around the Internet.
To hell with teh intrawebs.... I want them tubes so I can drive my F250 down them.
I asked my doctor once what the side-effects were for a prescription. He looked at me dumbfounded and never answered my question. That Doctor then became NOT my Doctor.
You are absolutely wrong about A and B. You need to go read the GPL terms. If someone uses or releases code under GPL and his company chooses to use his GPLed code, then that company has to make the source available under the same terms they got the code, ie GPL. The only exception I am aware of is this; if you use GPLed code and as long as you DO NOT DISTRIBUTE it, then you are not obligated to make the source code available.