"Once you buy the software, you agree to abide by the terms set by the publisher (seller). If you don't want to do this, please don't buy it."
Nope.
US Courts ruled way back in 1979 that this was _not_ the case.
I have a certain number of rights to use whatever I buy. If you want to take those rights away, you must use a contract. See 17 USC 117 for some very specific rights. Heck read ALL of Code 17: they're your rights. You should at least know what they are.
In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Federal courts ruled that so-called "click-wrap" licenses are NOT enforcable, and NOT legal.
Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992) and also Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), say that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
(This does not necessarily reflect my opinion, but I like to look at issues from as many angles as possible)
I can appreciate this, but you're still wrong.
Fact is, no matter what Microsoft says, you can reverse engineer, and make changes to their software. It is 100% legal to take a Windows "demo disc" or a XP Home, and apply a patch to the registry that turns it into XP Pro. It's also legal to redistribute that patch.
No matter how many times the SPA says it, doesn't make it law. I'd appreciate it if you only say what you know to be true, instead of what you have heard to be true.
Why are commercial ports of OSS software so expensive,
That assumes they are, which they arent. As you say, Red Hat Linux WS is $299. An OEM version of Windows XP Pro is ~$140. The problem is that support for Windows is $35 per call, per email, or per online chat. Of course, this only includes end-user support. Developer support is 250$ per call.
You can compare QT to GDI+ all you like, but GDI+ works on one platform, and QT works on many. Expect to pay more for an increased feature set. Law of the land, open versus closed never has and likely never will have any effect on that.
and what would need to happen before they could be competitive in the future?
They already are. You can tell because Microsoft shills like yourself are pretending to have questions about them not being competitive on slashdot.
So windows has a new patch, and as I stated there still legacy support for IPv4, and if you really want you can tunnel v4 to v6 or v6 to v4 if you must.
No I don't want to. Why do I want to be on your new-network? None of my friends are on it. They got your patch, but they didn't plug in new addresses or anything. They can't reach any IPV6 sites. They don't even know what that means.
No, telling people "you can set up tunnels if you want to reach the Internet" is mind-blowingly obtuse.
Now it'll get hard but as long as Microsoft offers versions of XP networking that support v6, and IE then all those people will switch (or have the option). Firefox will upgrade when it's stating to go live, Mozilla, opera, all of these will either upgrade or become obsolete. I'm guessing they will upgrade.
What do you think happens to obsolete systems?
First of all, its not a mere matter of changing software. Programs that once stored four bytes now need to store 16. Their parsers are different. URLS no longer match the expressions described in their earliest specifications. Documentation and think needs to change as well.
Then, routing tables and methods need to change. All those 256MB routers getting full BGP feeds need a memory and a hardware upgrade. And they're "brand new".
And everyone needs to change "all at once".
See, the idea behind IPV6 migration is "sites will start providing both IPV6 and IPV4, and eventually they'll stop providing IPV4" - but nobody at IPNG ever says why they'll start providing both. It's silly.
Why would I spend 30,000$USD to refit my network to support IPV6? Nobody's on IPV6. It doesn't get me any more customers, and given how complicated it is, it looks like IPV6 is vapor. What possibly can motivate me there?
So IPNG resorts to fear-tactics "We've exhausted 75% of the IP space, We're running out! OMG!"
And that makes their position worse: IPV4 has four billion addressable hosts, they say three billion are entrenched and they want to uproot three billion hosts twice!?
Tell me, exactly what part of their migration plan made sense to you?
But even with out the upgrade there's multiple ways we can tunnel V4-v6 through systems.
Why bother? Why do I want to be on IPV6 and have a lower service quality than I did on the Internet? So what if my ISP will proxy me to IPV4.
How would you feel if your ISP served IPX connections over PPP and gave you tunneling software to reach the Internet?
Remember anonymous browsing?
What are you talking about?
What if that will do your browsing for you even though it's on v4 it can reach v6? Easy.
I don't understand this. I suspect most people don't understand this.
And I keep hearing there's a simpler option, care to share it with me? You can say "but there's an easier option" all you want it doesn't help.
Ah, well, it's so mind-blowingly simple you won't like it: It doesn't inconvenience 3 billion people.
Push addressing to applications.
1. Mandate new applications support SRV records. Deprecate all other resource-specific RR types. This way services can live on any port they like. This increases the number of addressable sites by rougly 2^15. This buys people time (if the needs are
2. Allocate IPv6 addressing in a protocol. Give it UDP port #6, and allocate the top 16 bytes of the packet as a long-address. This makes 20-bytes (or 2^160 addresses).
Note at this point, IPV4 is simply 4 billion networks, but we've got 2^175 addressable nodes. More than IPV6, and we don't have to change anything _except_ what we're _going_ to do.
Re:You are completely retarded.
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Transparent roaming makes plenty of sense. You can plug in your machine anywhere and it will work. You don't have to make a "home" and "work" network profile, or change setting or anything.
Err, no. Sorry, there will still be multiple network protocols. If I allocate my machine a link-local address and try and serve a web-site, I'll need to make network configuration changes if I move a few cities over. IPNG talked about making it possible to do this (self-allocated addresses), but then smart people who have tried to manage large BGP tables called them stupid and the idea was kind of dropped.
If you have ever walked by the helpdesk staff at an ISP, you would realize that autoconfiguration is a big deal.
No, they use DHCP or Link-Local addresses. IPV6 isn't anything nor does anything special to make this possible.
Ordinary people still exist you know, and they should not have to know what their address is or how to set it like they do now.
Agreed. And as useful as this is, it doesn't justify converting billions of hosts. People at those sites can use DHCP or link-local addresses. They also do.
And IPv6 makes all the thousands of (potentially exploitable) encryption layers tacked on to applications obsolete. Everything will be encrypted at a lower level where the app doesn't need to know or care.
No it doesn't. IPSec isn't required by IPV6. Key exchange isn't covered by IPV6.
Everything will be secure.
IPV6 is supported on Windows, so it most certainly is not secure.
Misnomer means named incorrectly (or inappropriately). IPV6 is a misnomer because it is called "Internet Protocol Version Six", but it doesn't include the Internet.
The whole of the IPv4 address space is included in the IPv6 space.
Would've been a good thing if it were true.::ffff:0:0/96 addresses are simply IPV4 addresses in IPv6 format. You still need an IPV4 address to communicate with this network.::/96 has been reassigned, so it's no longer used for IPV4 encapsulation.
It is possible to translate between IPv4 and IPv6.
No it's not. It's possible to translate between TCP6 and TCP4, or UDP6 and UDP4, but really that's just NAT. IPV6 is as different a protocol as IPX is. Running it over the internet is done via tunnels.
IPsec is not mandatory, therefore the processing overhead is optional.
Obviously you are not on any IETF working groups as you are completely ignorant of the fact that IPv6 is a DOCUMENTED STANDARD that is ALREADY IS USE on the Internet! (See stupid comment about: "IPV6 is just a misnomer")
Really? Go ahead then. Remove your IPV4 stack.
The rest of us are on the Internet. It uses dotted-quads, and A records. None of this AAAA or D6 or A6 garbage. It's also where google and cnn and aol are. It's where we're communicating now- and where slashdot is. _THIS_ is the Internet.
If something doesn't contain this, it isn't the Internet. Period. I might as well call IPX an Internet Protocol because people do it inter-site. Heck, TP4 has wider deployment than IPV6, so let's call _IT_ the Internet.
Because the Internet isn't a protocol, or a program, or even your pet inferiority complex. The Internet is a concept that lots of people had to share to make it exist.
You are just an end user, who knows very little about networking. Sit back and enjoy the ride, leave network engineering to those of us with a clue.
JUST an end user?
I'm sorry, but since you're telling me I have to replace all of my hardware, software, and change my configuration settings to get on _your_ network, I'd say your engineering puts you at about the intelligence level of the morons who thought source-routing in RFC821 was a good idea.
You're a fool and a sucker. IPV6 is suffering a worse fate than MX records. Think about it:
MX advocates say "change your mail software, configuration, and databases. MX will make things _so_ much better!"
Never mind the fact that the gross majority of domains have a single MX, and the gross majority of MTAs don't actually load-balance.
Besides: both WKS and SRV records are better engineering than MX.
The real reason IPNG wants to push IPV6 is because they don't like putting addressing in application protocols. They think the Host header in HTTP is a "kludge". That RFC821 mtas shouldn't see domain names. They want to return to a kinder-gentler Internet that just plain never existed.
So just sit-back and relax, and wait for the IPNG people to bail you out. Fifty years from now, someone smart might get on the IPNG and actually tell them how to fix the problems they're talking about. But until then, just keep shooting your mouth off and tell people how smarter you are than them. After all, say it loud enough, and with just as little information and justification as possible, and they might actually believe it, saving you from actually having to be smarter than them.
Oh, and if you bothered to do any research before opening your mouth and claiming Google is "on your side", you may want to check into the fact that Google already own IPv6 space!
So what? _I_ own IPV6 space. IPV6 space is cheap. Why don't you have IPV6 space?
I hedge my bets, and eventually I'll want to do something using IPV6. Maybe in fifty years, someone will have managed to figure out how to actually deploy IPV6, at which point, and IPV6-based islands I created won't go through the headaches Apple went through when they decided to "migrate" to the Internet.
Guess what, you can buy IPX addresses too! And the right to name stars! And real-estate on Mars!
It doesn't mean that IPX is making a comeback any more than that real-estate can actually be turned in your lifetime.
Way to go cheese!
How does it feel to be wrong?
Re:You are completely retarded.
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
1. Security. Not even the ipv6 zealots claim that ipv6 is somehow miraculously more secure.. you pulled that one out of your ass.
Actually, they do. They say it's because NAT is insecure, and because IPV6 doesn't need NAT, it's somehow better.
These people don't run network centers though- some people use NAT for good...
Re:US Govt wil be all IPV6 by 2008
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
The OMB mandated all US Government agencies be on IPv6 by June of 2008. So I think it's much closer than many realize. And while few things in government meet deadlines, you can be sure this will be seen through. Just think of the joy of paying your taxes to the IRS over IPv6 in 2009:0
Beware, the US Government also decided to ban NTSC over-the-air signals in 2007, so I don't really put that much faith in their intelligence on the matter either.
Re:You are completely retarded.
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 0
Yes, IPv6 is better. Security, QoS, transparent roaming, autoconfiguration, etc, etc.
Err, transparent roaming doesn't make any sense. It's just tunneling that occurs at the link-level. autoconfiguration isn't now, nor was it ever really a problem with the Internet. IPV6's improvements to security aren't problems with security.
Its not just more numbers. And IPv6 can interoperate with IPv4. All the sites on the internet would still be accessible to you if you were using an IPv6 ISP instead of an IPv4 ISP.
Wrong. If I had an IPV6 ISP, I wouldn't be able to reach the Internet. I couldn't put http://www.google.com/ into a web browser because there are no AAAA records for www.google.com and there isn't any mechanism for that IPV4 host to send packets back to me.
Nobody needs to stop using the internet, we just need to transition over to a new protocol ON THE INTERNET.
Okay, I nominate an application protocol. It's simpler, and allows incremental rollout without disturbing any existing infrastructure.
Now stop being a pansy about it.
Its like saying paved roads were stupid because everyone was already using dirt roads and all the stores were on dirt roads, so it would be impossible to convince people to move off of the existing roads, and onto the paved ones where nothing was. Nobody is making new roads, just paving the existing ones dumbass.
Wrong.
It's more like because we need a wider highway, somebody got the crazy idea that we should all switch to ethenol at the same time.
TCP-Wrappers had to be "rewritten". Postfix needed new configuration parsers and deep changes. Lots of programs needed to be rewritten or altered. People needed to update.
IPV6 isn't compatible with IPV4. They're about as compatible as IPX and IPv4.
At least the IPv6 is ready for the day we run out of IPs which will be upon us sooner than some zealots say. But the simple fact is you never need to go to V6 unless you want an IP that's v6. The theory is v6 will still remain mostly v4 compliant. The infastructure is being update for the switch over and that's all that matters. If you want to remain ignorant or believe v4 will be here forever you're welcome to and it should be for the most part. But v6 will also start being used when it's time (I have yet to hear one legit complaint about it other then we don't need it "now".)
Okay, here's a legitimate complaint: How are you going to convince the 3 billion people to switch?
Here's another one: How are you going to change all that software?
Here's another one: Why would you even try to do either of those things while there's a much simpler option?
You can cry about how nobody ever told you about the real problems with IPV6, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. If you were part of the IPNG working group and didn't know about the mailing lists being censored to hide dissent, you're an idiot too. If you're not part of the IPNG working group, then why the hell would you expect to know about all the goings-on with IPV6?
WTF? See section 3.1 (specifically the "version" field) of RFC 791.
I'm sorry, you weren't there. RFC 791 nor IEN 21 mention IPV4 or IPV3 respectively.
RFC 791 refers to a interface that was _also_ the on-wire format in many situations. The "Version 4" is about as version-foury as 802.11 is "version 11 of link protocol 802".
Nevertheless, DARPA's Internet program isn't what we're using. We're using The Internet, this thing that people promise is running out of addresses. Calling it an extension of TCP Version 3 is not only just plain silly, but missing the point.
I know you're joking, but you're completely correct. Not only is IPv6 _not here_, it's not even halfway here. Not by anyone's measure that would make any more sense than (for example) "IPV6 is halfway here in the same way that the PS6 is halfway here."
See, there's this thing called The Internet, and Google, and AOL, and CNN are all on it. We all agree that that thing is called the Internet.
On IPV6, there's nobody.
IPV6 is just a misnomer. It should be called "Really big addresses" or something like that.
By calling it IPV6 they've managed to convince a large number of people that it's somehow better than what we've presently got. It's not. The Internet is useful because of who is on it and who uses it, not because of how many addresses it has (or doesn't have)- after all, we could use IPX- which has more addresses than IPV4 and just come up with a new routing scheme and it'd still be just as complicated to deploy.
No, see, there _was_ no IPV4 before IPV6 come out, and that should be your first clue that we're doomed.
The designers and advocates of IPV6 really need to just pull their collective heads from their collective asses and answer the one question people like me have been asking from the beginning:
You say we're 75% out of addresses? Okay, how are you going to convince 3 billion people that they need to stop using the Internet and start using your new toy?
Stop insulting our intelligence and show us a single roadmap that fixes this problem you describe. Stop making crap up, and trying to convince us that more radical steps are necessary than actually are. Just Stop.
There half a dozen mature, widely used post-Perl scripting languages; take your pick.
No, I wanted to take _your_ pick, smartass. I'm not even aware that there is another language with a find . -name... -type f -print0 | xargs -0 perl -p -i -e 's/"$//' analog. And a perl -n -e 'BEGIN {srand} rand($.) < 1 && ($line = $_); END { print $line; }'. And let's not forget... | perl -n -e '$total = $total + $_; END { $total =~ s/(^[-+]?\d+?(?=(?>(?:\d{3})+)(?!\d))|\G\d{3}(?=\d ))/$1,/g; print "$total\n"; }'
I know that isn't terribly readable, but it's extremely writable, and serves as a very useful replacement for awk/sed/tr/head/tail/expr/etc.
But you say there are a half-dozen mature languages that do all these things with as little typing? I say prove it.
I become happier that I left Perl for good several years ago.
We're glad you stopped programming.
And no. The skills needed for successfully managing a family and raising children doesn't, infact, have much in common with those skills needed to develop and maintain a programming-language.
I think programmers understood that he wasn't suggesting otherwise.
See, there are a lot of programmers (especially those that learned in the last 5 years, but plenty still that have been working in software development for longer) that programming constructs are taxonomic so e.g. an Apple is a Fruit which is an Edible, or Apple follows the protocols (interface in Java-speak) [hasColor,hasShape,somewhatRound], and that if we can just classify everything, programming would only have to tackle new patterns and problems that have never been tackled before.
These people are, however, wrong. Just as it is with kids, exceptions and special-cases are the norm, so it makes sense to acknowledge this.
A large white square with the literal text "Whatever" in the middle doesn't really tell anyone anything significant.
People have a lot of crap to do, and most of the things that they have to do, they accept a very fuzzy concept of how fast, or how clean that it has to be. They just want it done. Perl has always been good at filling that. The naysayers like to talk about what kind of a niche that is, and clarity or raw performance is much more important, but the reality remains that these niche exceptions and special cases are just so-common that they need a readily available system for dealing with them. Some people call it a programming language. Others call it Perl. Others say "whatever".
What you meant to say is it doesn't tell you anything significant. That's a completely different thing, and it might have to do with you not being a programmer.
There's a certain stage, for some projects, at which people realize that the Great Next Version, if it ever comes, will be too little too late, and that the action has moved elsewhere.
Maybe. But exactly how much time passed between perl4 and perl5? How about if we talk creation (i.e. the ability to create code in the respective languages)?
It's amazing that people think we've been waiting for a while for Perl6. People have been writing in perl6 for a while, it just so happens that more still write in perl5. As it was, several years after perl5 showed up, we still saw perl4. I think that this better reflects where we are with Perl6.
Given however, that like perl5 was to perl4, perl6 is more so like perl5 than perl5 is, we likely will be able to treat perl6 as/usr/bin/perl - something people most certainly have not been able to do- even between what would otherwise appear to be a minor version (python2.2 scripts not running on a 2.3 or 2.4 interpreter, for example).
Best thing to do is not worry about it. If you want to say there's nothing to see here, then at least qualify it by pointing out there wasn't anything to see with perl5 either.
I probably started using Perl more than 15 years ago. Perl was the best thing since sliced bread then, because it provided a cleaner and easier to use alternative to writing scripts in combinations of shell, awk, sed, tr, and a few other command line tools.
And so what exactly became a cleaner and easier to use alternative to writing scripts in combinations of shell, awk, sed, tr, and a few other commandline tools?
Like others have mentionned, PC gaming USED TO be easy to install and play. Doom, for example, didn't require huge computers when it was released.
Absurd. PC gaming used to involve expert prowess at freeing base memory, isolating interrupt line settings, and manually finding optimial use for the upper memory block. PC gaming was never easy.
Now, if you're really suggesting for a moment that PC gaming is more complicated than it used to be, I might give you that. My gamecube hasn't managed to confuse me too much, so I really don't play PC games any more...
In the mid-90s, you had numerous RPGs coming for PC, as well as numerous FPS, RTS, adventure games, sim games, racing games, flight sims and even the occasional beat 'em up... Nowadays, we get tons of The Sims copy cats, RTS are fewer in number every year, racing and sports games are on the decline, adventure games become rarer, flight sims are now almost inexistant beside the few surviving franchises. Only the almighty FPS seems to still exist as it was on PC.
I think you're confused. Games are getting worse across the board. The barrier for entry into "the games market" used to be a few days of BASIC instruction, and some creativity. Now it requires a few hundred-thousand dollars and an expert team, and some of the biggest most successful games these days have budgets that are millions of dollars.
I think we're finding that when it costs so much to even try to make a game, most studios simply put their money where it's already been proven- where they know exactly what kind of return they're going to get.
Really: with less people are trying than ever, did you really expect games to get better?
the goal is to make it as difficult for the bad guy, with as small of impact and effort as possible. You just pointed out the profiling does that, it is more difficult for al queda to come by a american they trust, which means it is much more practical to at least do some profiling, to increase their difficulty. It doesn't mean you don't look at white americans. well unless thats what you want them to recruit, so that it is easier for us to infiltrate with a spy, because thats what we have best access to..
No, the goal is to make it as uncomfortable as possible to innocent people so that hapless citizens will believe that these measures are making it just as uncomfortable to the "bad guys".
Maybe, if it caught 99 bad guys for every 1 innocent guy it made uncomfortable, I might feel differently, but right now, it's making 99 innocent guys feel uncomfortable, and there's no evidence whatsoever that it's making even _one_ bad guy nervous, let alone catching any terrorists.
Profling middle easteren Muslims on planes, because middle east muslims are trying to blow up planes, and have in the past, just makes sense to me.
That's the problem. You think hurting innocent people is okay so long as it stands a chance of hurting guilty people.
That's not what America is about. America is about preserving freedoms at all costs. Anti-americans like yourself are why the rest of the world hates America.
We're looking at the worst kind of "copy and paste coding" here: the kind that can change at any time in the future. If you can't write a spellchecker, and you can't copy one from someplace else, you're going to look mighty stupid when the cow-speller site goes down, and you can't fix it.
Seriously, by doing this, I'm not only trusting this bovine-fixated individual to not only (a) never change his API, (b) always be up, (c) never do evil things with my data, but also (d) actively prevent evil things from being done with my data.
Consider for a moment that you write an email client that "leverages" this technology. In this situation, not only are you handing your logs, you're also potentially passing your customer's email and passwords to this cow-speller.
Even after RTFA, I still feel that by choosing GPL I am giving up my freedoms as a developer.
You're wrong. If you license your own software under the GPL it doesn't affect you at all because you're still the copyright holder.
This type of freedom goes in one direction towards the end user (which is a good thing) but the developer gets screwed, by forcing his software to follow a strict set of rules.
No. The GPL applies on redistribution, not on distribution. The GPL puts no requirements or restrictions on the copyright holder whatsoever.
Incorporating GPL sections of GNU Code could put you in violation.
Incorporating BSD-licensed software could put you in violation if you remove the copyrights, or GZIP if you claim you wrote it (as Winzip used to do), or commercial software that you have source code to.
Fact is, it isn't the GPL that's restricting anyone doing anything. Copyright law already has these restrictions. The GPL gives you license to do things you otherwise wouldn't have a right to do.
But as I mentioned, it doesn't enter into effect at all unless you're redistributing someone elses code that is GPL licensed.
In theory even if you do not plan to widely distribute your application you still need to follow the rules.
Not in theory. It has no effect whatsoever on the distribution of your own application. It only has an effect when you want to redistribute code that you aren't the copyright holder to.
Guess what: you don't have the right to redistribute other people's code. The GPL had nothing to do with this.
It is like a chef having to give up his secret recipe just because he used GPL Spices.
That's absolutely correct, but guess what: His secret recipe, as valuable as it is, was done on the backs of others. If he can build his secret recipe without stealing from other people, then he's welcome to.
At least with software patents I can normally buy the right to use the software the way I want to use it.
You can do this with GPL software as well. MySQL (among other people) offer licenses for their software that gives you additional redistribution abilities.
But note, at no point here, did the GPL take away any of your rights as the copyright holder, or any of your rights as a redistributer. All the GPL does is give you rights, and only in certain circumstances.
I completely agree. The best part of this approach is that it has built-in performance monitoring for you! When the system crashes or starts throwing weird errors or denies you running new programs, etc... then it is telling you "time for more RAM".
I use daemontools to keep services running, and enable the VMOOMK on my Linux boxes, so if I run out of memory, Linux just starts killing processes. init keeps daemontools running, which keep everything else running. As a result, it apache takes a crap, it comes back in a second, and nobody ever notices.
Nope. Take any C program, put in C++, modify it a little with trivial changes which don't alter its meaning, and it runs as before.
Then, once modified, it's no longer C.
I never said 'subset' with the mathematical meaning. I said the term loosely. Just like Stroustrup said: Well written C tends to be legal C++ also. For example, every example in Kernighan & Ritchie: "The C Programming Language (2nd Edition)" is also a C++ program.
No, you just make up terms as you go to serve your purposes. Bjarne says a lot of things that aren't true.
I doubt you can compile the Linux kernel with anything else other than GCC.
Well surely, G++ would support any GCC extensions. That is, if C truly is a subset of C++.
Of course you can. It's called 'placement new'.
In other words, you have to modify the classes in order to support this allocation behavior.
Nope. My point is that, C programming can exist in C++: for most purposes, C can be considered a subset of C++ (even though it is not a subset in the strict sense), thus allowing programming techniques of C to exist in C++, making C++ hitting directly the metal if there is a need.
Alright then. So C is not a subset of C++.
So if you restrict yourself to the capabilities of C++ that are similar to C, how is it that you're taking advantage of C++?
I've already established that there is a cost to each of those features, and that it is difficult for most programmers (including yourself) to see those costs.
Bjarne outlines a very specific manner of coding which is considered "good C++ form", and that form is decidedly different than C.
I already told you about that. You can audit every line of C++ code too. And if you meet an overloaded operator, you can go the file it is declared and audit the function.
Absolutely, except how do I know what's an overloaded operator without checking each and every one of them?
I didn't say auditing C++ code was impossible, I said it was impractical, but I'll accept practically impossible as well. C++ hides code branches.
You are fooling yourself if you think that it is feasible to code in such a manner. Clients do not want 150 different executables for an application. This style of programming is not applied in Unix any more, as even commands and facilities have become quite complex.
Of course it's still in UNIX. gcc is made up of a few dozen executables. Postfix is made up of about a dozen executables. Qmail is made up of about a dozen executables. TinyDNS is made up of a dozen executables. Even something simple like making and compressing an archive still takes three executables. And there's nothing wrong with this!
Clients don't care how many executables something is. They care about performing a task. If it's one executable, or a dozen, they don't care. It doesn't affect how their tasks are accomplished, just how concious the developer is to tha gains to be had.
Next thing you're going to tell me, is that you know UNIX too.
Good luck making an application like Word or Excel broken into 150 pieces and have it work properly.
Good luck making Word or Excel work properly.
Anyway, Word and Excel most certainly are broken up into many different pieces, or are you going to tell me that DLLs can't live in their own address space in Windows? What exactly does DCOM do again?
Excuse me? Where is my err? You said you don't know C
That's one error.
Really now?
Your exact words were I don't claim I know all of C, but I have used a large part of it, nevertheless. and yet, you insist on making a claim that requires knowledge of all C, and that is that all C is a subset of C++.
Slashdot Mirror
US Courts ruled way back in 1979 that this was _not_ the case.
I have a certain number of rights to use whatever I buy. If you want to take those rights away, you must use a contract. See 17 USC 117 for some very specific rights. Heck read ALL of Code 17: they're your rights. You should at least know what they are.
In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Federal courts ruled that so-called "click-wrap" licenses are NOT enforcable, and NOT legal.
Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992) and also Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), say that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
I can appreciate this, but you're still wrong.
Fact is, no matter what Microsoft says, you can reverse engineer, and make changes to their software. It is 100% legal to take a Windows "demo disc" or a XP Home, and apply a patch to the registry that turns it into XP Pro. It's also legal to redistribute that patch.
No matter how many times the SPA says it, doesn't make it law. I'd appreciate it if you only say what you know to be true, instead of what you have heard to be true.
You can compare QT to GDI+ all you like, but GDI+ works on one platform, and QT works on many. Expect to pay more for an increased feature set. Law of the land, open versus closed never has and likely never will have any effect on that.
They already are. You can tell because Microsoft shills like yourself are pretending to have questions about them not being competitive on slashdot.
No, telling people "you can set up tunnels if you want to reach the Internet" is mind-blowingly obtuse.
What do you think happens to obsolete systems?
First of all, its not a mere matter of changing software. Programs that once stored four bytes now need to store 16. Their parsers are different. URLS no longer match the expressions described in their earliest specifications. Documentation and think needs to change as well.
Then, routing tables and methods need to change. All those 256MB routers getting full BGP feeds need a memory and a hardware upgrade. And they're "brand new".
And everyone needs to change "all at once".
See, the idea behind IPV6 migration is "sites will start providing both IPV6 and IPV4, and eventually they'll stop providing IPV4" - but nobody at IPNG ever says why they'll start providing both. It's silly.
Why would I spend 30,000$USD to refit my network to support IPV6? Nobody's on IPV6. It doesn't get me any more customers, and given how complicated it is, it looks like IPV6 is vapor. What possibly can motivate me there?
So IPNG resorts to fear-tactics "We've exhausted 75% of the IP space, We're running out! OMG!"
And that makes their position worse: IPV4 has four billion addressable hosts, they say three billion are entrenched and they want to uproot three billion hosts twice!?
Tell me, exactly what part of their migration plan made sense to you?
Why bother? Why do I want to be on IPV6 and have a lower service quality than I did on the Internet? So what if my ISP will proxy me to IPV4.
How would you feel if your ISP served IPX connections over PPP and gave you tunneling software to reach the Internet?
What are you talking about?
I don't understand this. I suspect most people don't understand this.
Ah, well, it's so mind-blowingly simple you won't like it: It doesn't inconvenience 3 billion people.
Push addressing to applications.
1. Mandate new applications support SRV records. Deprecate all other resource-specific RR types. This way services can live on any port they like. This increases the number of addressable sites by rougly 2^15. This buys people time (if the needs are
2. Allocate IPv6 addressing in a protocol. Give it UDP port #6, and allocate the top 16 bytes of the packet as a long-address. This makes 20-bytes (or 2^160 addresses).
Note at this point, IPV4 is simply 4 billion networks, but we've got 2^175 addressable nodes. More than IPV6, and we don't have to change anything _except_ what we're _going_ to do.
No, they use DHCP or Link-Local addresses. IPV6 isn't anything nor does anything special to make this possible.
Agreed. And as useful as this is, it doesn't justify converting billions of hosts. People at those sites can use DHCP or link-local addresses. They also do.
No it doesn't. IPSec isn't required by IPV6. Key exchange isn't covered by IPV6.
IPV6 is supported on Windows, so it most certainly is not secure.
Would've been a good thing if it were true.
No it's not. It's possible to translate between TCP6 and TCP4, or UDP6 and UDP4, but really that's just NAT. IPV6 is as different a protocol as IPX is. Running it over the internet is done via tunnels.
IPSec is stupid too.
The rest of us are on the Internet. It uses dotted-quads, and A records. None of this AAAA or D6 or A6 garbage. It's also where google and cnn and aol are. It's where we're communicating now- and where slashdot is. _THIS_ is the Internet.
If something doesn't contain this, it isn't the Internet. Period. I might as well call IPX an Internet Protocol because people do it inter-site. Heck, TP4 has wider deployment than IPV6, so let's call _IT_ the Internet.
Because the Internet isn't a protocol, or a program, or even your pet inferiority complex. The Internet is a concept that lots of people had to share to make it exist.
JUST an end user?
I'm sorry, but since you're telling me I have to replace all of my hardware, software, and change my configuration settings to get on _your_ network, I'd say your engineering puts you at about the intelligence level of the morons who thought source-routing in RFC821 was a good idea.
You're a fool and a sucker. IPV6 is suffering a worse fate than MX records. Think about it:
MX advocates say "change your mail software, configuration, and databases. MX will make things _so_ much better!"
Never mind the fact that the gross majority of domains have a single MX, and the gross majority of MTAs don't actually load-balance.
Besides: both WKS and SRV records are better engineering than MX.
The real reason IPNG wants to push IPV6 is because they don't like putting addressing in application protocols. They think the Host header in HTTP is a "kludge". That RFC821 mtas shouldn't see domain names. They want to return to a kinder-gentler Internet that just plain never existed.
So just sit-back and relax, and wait for the IPNG people to bail you out. Fifty years from now, someone smart might get on the IPNG and actually tell them how to fix the problems they're talking about. But until then, just keep shooting your mouth off and tell people how smarter you are than them. After all, say it loud enough, and with just as little information and justification as possible, and they might actually believe it, saving you from actually having to be smarter than them.
So what? _I_ own IPV6 space. IPV6 space is cheap. Why don't you have IPV6 space?
I hedge my bets, and eventually I'll want to do something using IPV6. Maybe in fifty years, someone will have managed to figure out how to actually deploy IPV6, at which point, and IPV6-based islands I created won't go through the headaches Apple went through when they decided to "migrate" to the Internet.
Guess what, you can buy IPX addresses too! And the right to name stars! And real-estate on Mars!
It doesn't mean that IPX is making a comeback any more than that real-estate can actually be turned in your lifetime.
How does it feel to be wrong?
These people don't run network centers though- some people use NAT for good...
Wrong. If I had an IPV6 ISP, I wouldn't be able to reach the Internet. I couldn't put http://www.google.com/ into a web browser because there are no AAAA records for www.google.com and there isn't any mechanism for that IPV4 host to send packets back to me.
Okay, I nominate an application protocol. It's simpler, and allows incremental rollout without disturbing any existing infrastructure.
Now stop being a pansy about it.
Wrong.
It's more like because we need a wider highway, somebody got the crazy idea that we should all switch to ethenol at the same time.
TCP-Wrappers had to be "rewritten". Postfix needed new configuration parsers and deep changes. Lots of programs needed to be rewritten or altered. People needed to update.
IPV6 isn't compatible with IPV4. They're about as compatible as IPX and IPv4.
Here's another one: How are you going to change all that software?
Here's another one: Why would you even try to do either of those things while there's a much simpler option?
You can cry about how nobody ever told you about the real problems with IPV6, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. If you were part of the IPNG working group and didn't know about the mailing lists being censored to hide dissent, you're an idiot too. If you're not part of the IPNG working group, then why the hell would you expect to know about all the goings-on with IPV6?
RFC 791 refers to a interface that was _also_ the on-wire format in many situations. The "Version 4" is about as version-foury as 802.11 is "version 11 of link protocol 802".
Nevertheless, DARPA's Internet program isn't what we're using. We're using The Internet, this thing that people promise is running out of addresses. Calling it an extension of TCP Version 3 is not only just plain silly, but missing the point.
I know you're joking, but you're completely correct. Not only is IPv6 _not here_, it's not even halfway here. Not by anyone's measure that would make any more sense than (for example) "IPV6 is halfway here in the same way that the PS6 is halfway here."
See, there's this thing called The Internet, and Google, and AOL, and CNN are all on it. We all agree that that thing is called the Internet.
On IPV6, there's nobody.
IPV6 is just a misnomer. It should be called "Really big addresses" or something like that.
By calling it IPV6 they've managed to convince a large number of people that it's somehow better than what we've presently got. It's not. The Internet is useful because of who is on it and who uses it, not because of how many addresses it has (or doesn't have)- after all, we could use IPX- which has more addresses than IPV4 and just come up with a new routing scheme and it'd still be just as complicated to deploy.
No, see, there _was_ no IPV4 before IPV6 come out, and that should be your first clue that we're doomed.
The designers and advocates of IPV6 really need to just pull their collective heads from their collective asses and answer the one question people like me have been asking from the beginning:
You say we're 75% out of addresses? Okay, how are you going to convince 3 billion people that they need to stop using the Internet and start using your new toy?
Stop insulting our intelligence and show us a single roadmap that fixes this problem you describe. Stop making crap up, and trying to convince us that more radical steps are necessary than actually are. Just Stop.
I know that isn't terribly readable, but it's extremely writable, and serves as a very useful replacement for awk/sed/tr/head/tail/expr/etc.
But you say there are a half-dozen mature languages that do all these things with as little typing? I say prove it.
I think programmers understood that he wasn't suggesting otherwise.
See, there are a lot of programmers (especially those that learned in the last 5 years, but plenty still that have been working in software development for longer) that programming constructs are taxonomic so e.g. an Apple is a Fruit which is an Edible, or Apple follows the protocols (interface in Java-speak) [hasColor,hasShape,somewhatRound], and that if we can just classify everything, programming would only have to tackle new patterns and problems that have never been tackled before.
These people are, however, wrong. Just as it is with kids, exceptions and special-cases are the norm, so it makes sense to acknowledge this.
People have a lot of crap to do, and most of the things that they have to do, they accept a very fuzzy concept of how fast, or how clean that it has to be. They just want it done. Perl has always been good at filling that. The naysayers like to talk about what kind of a niche that is, and clarity or raw performance is much more important, but the reality remains that these niche exceptions and special cases are just so-common that they need a readily available system for dealing with them. Some people call it a programming language. Others call it Perl. Others say "whatever".
What you meant to say is it doesn't tell you anything significant. That's a completely different thing, and it might have to do with you not being a programmer.
It's amazing that people think we've been waiting for a while for Perl6. People have been writing in perl6 for a while, it just so happens that more still write in perl5. As it was, several years after perl5 showed up, we still saw perl4. I think that this better reflects where we are with Perl6.
Given however, that like perl5 was to perl4, perl6 is more so like perl5 than perl5 is, we likely will be able to treat perl6 as
Best thing to do is not worry about it. If you want to say there's nothing to see here, then at least qualify it by pointing out there wasn't anything to see with perl5 either.
Now, if you're really suggesting for a moment that PC gaming is more complicated than it used to be, I might give you that. My gamecube hasn't managed to confuse me too much, so I really don't play PC games any more...
I think you're confused. Games are getting worse across the board. The barrier for entry into "the games market" used to be a few days of BASIC instruction, and some creativity. Now it requires a few hundred-thousand dollars and an expert team, and some of the biggest most successful games these days have budgets that are millions of dollars.
I think we're finding that when it costs so much to even try to make a game, most studios simply put their money where it's already been proven- where they know exactly what kind of return they're going to get.
Really: with less people are trying than ever, did you really expect games to get better?
The platform that hosts World of Warcraft and it's 7 subscribers with a million accounts each is a niche market.
Maybe, if it caught 99 bad guys for every 1 innocent guy it made uncomfortable, I might feel differently, but right now, it's making 99 innocent guys feel uncomfortable, and there's no evidence whatsoever that it's making even _one_ bad guy nervous, let alone catching any terrorists.
That's the problem. You think hurting innocent people is okay so long as it stands a chance of hurting guilty people.
That's not what America is about. America is about preserving freedoms at all costs. Anti-americans like yourself are why the rest of the world hates America.
We're looking at the worst kind of "copy and paste coding" here: the kind that can change at any time in the future. If you can't write a spellchecker, and you can't copy one from someplace else, you're going to look mighty stupid when the cow-speller site goes down, and you can't fix it.
Seriously, by doing this, I'm not only trusting this bovine-fixated individual to not only (a) never change his API, (b) always be up, (c) never do evil things with my data, but also (d) actively prevent evil things from being done with my data.
Consider for a moment that you write an email client that "leverages" this technology. In this situation, not only are you handing your logs, you're also potentially passing your customer's email and passwords to this cow-speller.
Bad fucking idea...
Get used to pressing control+[ and you'll be able to vi even faster on other people's keyboards.
No. The GPL applies on redistribution, not on distribution. The GPL puts no requirements or restrictions on the copyright holder whatsoever.
Incorporating BSD-licensed software could put you in violation if you remove the copyrights, or GZIP if you claim you wrote it (as Winzip used to do), or commercial software that you have source code to.
Fact is, it isn't the GPL that's restricting anyone doing anything. Copyright law already has these restrictions. The GPL gives you license to do things you otherwise wouldn't have a right to do.
But as I mentioned, it doesn't enter into effect at all unless you're redistributing someone elses code that is GPL licensed.
Not in theory. It has no effect whatsoever on the distribution of your own application. It only has an effect when you want to redistribute code that you aren't the copyright holder to.
Guess what: you don't have the right to redistribute other people's code. The GPL had nothing to do with this.
That's absolutely correct, but guess what: His secret recipe, as valuable as it is, was done on the backs of others. If he can build his secret recipe without stealing from other people, then he's welcome to.
You can do this with GPL software as well. MySQL (among other people) offer licenses for their software that gives you additional redistribution abilities.
But note, at no point here, did the GPL take away any of your rights as the copyright holder, or any of your rights as a redistributer. All the GPL does is give you rights, and only in certain circumstances.
Then, once modified, it's no longer C.
No, you just make up terms as you go to serve your purposes. Bjarne says a lot of things that aren't true.
Well surely, G++ would support any GCC extensions. That is, if C truly is a subset of C++.
In other words, you have to modify the classes in order to support this allocation behavior.
Alright then. So C is not a subset of C++.
So if you restrict yourself to the capabilities of C++ that are similar to C, how is it that you're taking advantage of C++?
I've already established that there is a cost to each of those features, and that it is difficult for most programmers (including yourself) to see those costs.
Bjarne outlines a very specific manner of coding which is considered "good C++ form", and that form is decidedly different than C.
Absolutely, except how do I know what's an overloaded operator without checking each and every one of them?
I didn't say auditing C++ code was impossible, I said it was impractical, but I'll accept practically impossible as well. C++ hides code branches.
Of course it's still in UNIX. gcc is made up of a few dozen executables. Postfix is made up of about a dozen executables. Qmail is made up of about a dozen executables. TinyDNS is made up of a dozen executables. Even something simple like making and compressing an archive still takes three executables. And there's nothing wrong with this!
Clients don't care how many executables something is. They care about performing a task. If it's one executable, or a dozen, they don't care. It doesn't affect how their tasks are accomplished, just how concious the developer is to tha gains to be had.
Next thing you're going to tell me, is that you know UNIX too.
Good luck making Word or Excel work properly.
Anyway, Word and Excel most certainly are broken up into many different pieces, or are you going to tell me that DLLs can't live in their own address space in Windows? What exactly does DCOM do again?
Really now?
Your exact words were I don't claim I know all of C, but I have used a large part of it, nevertheless. and yet, you insist on making a claim that requires knowledge of all C, and that is that all C is a subset of C++.