Original author was making some implication that they could not use the GPL on their release, and that somehow the GPL would "infect" all contributed patches. This is bogus. Yes they could *accept* GPL patches, but they don't have to!
I think I'm the original author you mention. What I said is that they *will not* accept GPL patches - not that they don't have to. My impression for many years is that they want to preserve the right to close everything if they so desire, and that's fine, I just wanted to point it out. If someone has no intention of closing their source in the future, there is a fair chance they wouldn't want others to close it either and so would use GPL. If someone wants to reserve the option to close it later (or allow others to do so) they use BSD or MIT licenses.
Now some parts of the OS are lagging behind others that use GPLed code. It would be prudent to borrow other code to speed development, but it seems their desire to keep a certain license is more important than using existing code to speed development. That points to a strong desire to go closed source at some point in the future. Which is fine. I just don't like calling something "Free Software" when the intention appears to be to make it nonFree in the future.
The developer FAQ explicitly states that they do not want contributions under viral licenses like the GPL. They even use the word viral, and they explicitly name the GPL. Their intent to allow closed source releases has been clear for many years. I'd quote their developer FAQ, but it's currently not responding. But yes, the X11 (MIT) license is considered Free by the FSF.
Haiku is not Free Software. On the off chance it becomes wildly successful they can close it up and go commercial. IIRC the license is something more like BSD or MIT, but certainly not GPL.
When you consider that it costs roughly 200k to raise a child in the United States, trading that human's life for certain goals is not necessarily worthwhile now, while it would have been worthwhile 200 or even 100 years ago.
So if it costs $400K to raise a child and get them ready to be an astronaut, why should we add Billions of dollars cost to ensure their safety? Remember, this is a person willing to take the risk. Why should safety cost SO much more than the person?
Now when they had doubt about launching on a cold morning, the cost of delaying would not have been very high so I'd agree with you on that. The loss was actually a lot higher than the 7 people - the PR issue for killing a teacher, and the loss of all the reusable components.
If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort. Add onto that any annoyance of having to wear glasses and it's just over before it gets started.
If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?
As a guy from Germany pointed out. The inventor holds the patent by law. It's the stupid "IP" agreement you have to sign as a condition of employment that says you "agree" to assign it to the company. Now oddly, in Germany he says the company is required to pay you yearly for the duration of the patent - he said 1000 to 20000 Euro depending on the quality of the patent. When I got one, I had to split $500 with another guy who somehow got his name on it. So that's why I don't play even though our system (by law) should be better for me....
I was going to say that very thing. Y is too unique for this. It would be better to compare the entire genome of a child and the 2 parents. If the child has a variation not present in either parent it must be a mutation.
How many people actively watch television without a DVR? Wouldn't it be fairly easy for those DVRs to simply report back what shows you're watching?
Sure, but those guys aren't sharing the data with Neilsen. They probably don't want to share it with anyone or the popular channels will start claiming they need to get paid more for allowing their stuff to be carried by Cable/Sat companies.
You forget that many times spammers are criminals using botnets composed of hijacked machines, whose innocent owners would wind up paying the price while the spammer cheerfully pays his chump change to the botnet operator.
That argument doesn't hold up. First, if the "price" is high enough for anonymous emails, the botnet machines will become unusable to their users and hence get fixed.
Second, if the "price" is high enough, the botnets won't be able to send much spam at all and will not be used because they are ineffective.
The usual complaints about such proposals are the cases of mailing lists and other special cases. These could be white-listed and given easy problems.
Better yet, anyone getting white-listed could be given the solution to an essentially unsolvable problem (infinite cost) and then they'd actually be "billed" a lot, but they'd have a free pass - this prevents impostors from using the fact that someone has been white-listed.
There are feasible technical solutions to this, but no-one has fleshed them out AND gotten widespread use.
DNA-based chips may sound like crackpot tech, but those involved believe the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today.
You can tell if they're crackpots by weather they can complete the sentence "the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today BY DOING xxxxxxx yyyyyyy zzzzzzzz".
If they don't have a proposed method for reaching the goal, they're just blowing hot air. We see this all the time with people looking for publicity or money.
It only means it meets the spec, not that the spec is correct...
Yes, and the spec is written in Haskell. So essentially they've proven the C code is equivalent to the Haskell code in some sense.
I would still like to see the paper, there must be more value in it than that right?
Any good embedded communication solutions for networked motor drive and control applications?
CAN. Many motor control chips have a CAN controller built in. Serial works too, but may be slower (or not). Then there are chips that handle USB, but I haven't seem a motion control chip with that, so you're looking at a 2 chip solution there - but really fast communication.
As for fabrication, I believe TI is also at the 45nm node and they have ARM cores on a number of parts. The funny thing about Linux is that any architecture that has an MMU and GCC support can become a player.
There are several suitable codecs. The problem is the major players involved with their "Not Invented Here" mentalities.
Actually the problem isn't "NOT Invented Here" it's "Invented Here - please pay us". So Theora doesn't have the quality, but H.264 is patented. Neither is suitable to all interests for those reasons. Those were the leading contenders, others suffer from the same issues. So now that Google owns a good codec, clearly they'll use it. The question is weather they'll let others use it and on what terms. IMHO they should allow anyone to use it for free. Adding yet another proprietary codec to the web would be detrimental, while the upside of codec licensing is probably small potatoes to Google. Freeing a good codec would mean easy access to Google video for everyone and not-as-easy access to MS and Apple.
That's why GM did hybrid SUVs. They took the Tahoe from something like 14MPG to 21. There are a few other vehicles with the 2-mode system as well. While you are probably right about attacking the worst vehicles first, most people think "hybrid SUV" is an oxymoron. They feel the way to attack that part of the market is to kill it, not make it better. Of course that neglects the actual utility of such vehicles which cannot be replaced by small cars. Anyway, GM already took the approach you mention.
That happens every day to about 125,000 men world wide. Or roughly 6000 men in the US each day. Oh, and women die every day too. Why would he find it scary that this particular guy may have died?
Please read my responses several levels deeper. Why would you assume the stupidest possible interpretation of what I wrote and then refute it? Bill Gates was talking about the problem of "piracy" in the mid 1970s.
1) I was NOT talking about syntax. xxxx,yy are place holders for specific fixed values that I did not provide so as not to get sued (that's a joke OK).
2) The interpreter specifically checked fixed address xxxxx for fixed value yy AFTER the command was executed. If yy was not found it errored out. This was not a check that the poke worked, it was to make it appear that the command wasn't supported (which should have been indicated by SN error, but was something else). Having hacked the interpreter myself to add/remove commands I can say it was easy enough that this was not an accident.
3) The peek command (not poke) specifically disallowed looking at the interpreter or the ROM. And I believe peek itself was also disabled initially. You had to do more poking to circumvent those checks. Who figured this stuff out (or leaked it) I don't know, but it's all documented in the Interaction newsletter - I *might* still have every issue printed.
4) As I said in my original post, this BASIC is on tape, not in ROM. The Interact ROM provided text display (bitmap gfx only 112x77) rectangle filling and tape read/write functions and not much else.
For those wondering what this odd machine was, Interact was based in AnnArbor Michigan and only a few thousand machines were produced. In a strange coincidence, years later I had a job working for the guy who originally wrote the Interact ROM.
I still have my 8080-based Interact computer from back then AND a (legal) copy of MS BASIC for it on tape. One thing I distinctly recall is that the Peek and Poke commands did not work out of the box. For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error. The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock. Not sure if Interact or MS decided to put this in. There was another series of things to do to unlock the peek command. IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range. Do I still get in legal trouble if I post the values of XXXX,YY?? They are still burned into my brain. Does anyone at Microsoft still have this basic or know how to unlock these commands? I wonder...
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'm the original author you mention. What I said is that they *will not* accept GPL patches - not that they don't have to. My impression for many years is that they want to preserve the right to close everything if they so desire, and that's fine, I just wanted to point it out. If someone has no intention of closing their source in the future, there is a fair chance they wouldn't want others to close it either and so would use GPL. If someone wants to reserve the option to close it later (or allow others to do so) they use BSD or MIT licenses.
Now some parts of the OS are lagging behind others that use GPLed code. It would be prudent to borrow other code to speed development, but it seems their desire to keep a certain license is more important than using existing code to speed development. That points to a strong desire to go closed source at some point in the future. Which is fine. I just don't like calling something "Free Software" when the intention appears to be to make it nonFree in the future.
The developer FAQ explicitly states that they do not want contributions under viral licenses like the GPL. They even use the word viral, and they explicitly name the GPL. Their intent to allow closed source releases has been clear for many years. I'd quote their developer FAQ, but it's currently not responding. But yes, the X11 (MIT) license is considered Free by the FSF.
Haiku is not Free Software. On the off chance it becomes wildly successful they can close it up and go commercial. IIRC the license is something more like BSD or MIT, but certainly not GPL.
So if it costs $400K to raise a child and get them ready to be an astronaut, why should we add Billions of dollars cost to ensure their safety? Remember, this is a person willing to take the risk. Why should safety cost SO much more than the person?
Now when they had doubt about launching on a cold morning, the cost of delaying would not have been very high so I'd agree with you on that. The loss was actually a lot higher than the 7 people - the PR issue for killing a teacher, and the loss of all the reusable components.
I think that was his point. He doesn't believe there are no more significant developments to be had, but none are happening.
If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort. Add onto that any annoyance of having to wear glasses and it's just over before it gets started.
If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?
They (and many other "social" web sites") ask for exactly those 3 things. They have millions of users who post all sorts of stuff (mostly crap).
As a guy from Germany pointed out. The inventor holds the patent by law. It's the stupid "IP" agreement you have to sign as a condition of employment that says you "agree" to assign it to the company. Now oddly, in Germany he says the company is required to pay you yearly for the duration of the patent - he said 1000 to 20000 Euro depending on the quality of the patent. When I got one, I had to split $500 with another guy who somehow got his name on it. So that's why I don't play even though our system (by law) should be better for me....
I was going to say that very thing. Y is too unique for this. It would be better to compare the entire genome of a child and the 2 parents. If the child has a variation not present in either parent it must be a mutation.
Cool. Now they'll surely want to "monetize" it, which should drive users to Ekiga instead :-)
Is there a Windows port?
Sure, but those guys aren't sharing the data with Neilsen. They probably don't want to share it with anyone or the popular channels will start claiming they need to get paid more for allowing their stuff to be carried by Cable/Sat companies.
That argument doesn't hold up. First, if the "price" is high enough for anonymous emails, the botnet machines will become unusable to their users and hence get fixed.
Second, if the "price" is high enough, the botnets won't be able to send much spam at all and will not be used because they are ineffective.
The usual complaints about such proposals are the cases of mailing lists and other special cases. These could be white-listed and given easy problems.
Better yet, anyone getting white-listed could be given the solution to an essentially unsolvable problem (infinite cost) and then they'd actually be "billed" a lot, but they'd have a free pass - this prevents impostors from using the fact that someone has been white-listed.
There are feasible technical solutions to this, but no-one has fleshed them out AND gotten widespread use.
No, it's 4th. Just ask the guy with the "4 boxes to defend liberty" thing in his sig.
You can tell if they're crackpots by weather they can complete the sentence "the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today BY DOING xxxxxxx yyyyyyy zzzzzzzz".
If they don't have a proposed method for reaching the goal, they're just blowing hot air. We see this all the time with people looking for publicity or money.
This is just fun.
Yes, and the spec is written in Haskell. So essentially they've proven the C code is equivalent to the Haskell code in some sense.
I would still like to see the paper, there must be more value in it than that right?
CAN. Many motor control chips have a CAN controller built in. Serial works too, but may be slower (or not). Then there are chips that handle USB, but I haven't seem a motion control chip with that, so you're looking at a 2 chip solution there - but really fast communication.
As for fabrication, I believe TI is also at the 45nm node and they have ARM cores on a number of parts. The funny thing about Linux is that any architecture that has an MMU and GCC support can become a player.
Actually the problem isn't "NOT Invented Here" it's "Invented Here - please pay us". So Theora doesn't have the quality, but H.264 is patented. Neither is suitable to all interests for those reasons. Those were the leading contenders, others suffer from the same issues. So now that Google owns a good codec, clearly they'll use it. The question is weather they'll let others use it and on what terms. IMHO they should allow anyone to use it for free. Adding yet another proprietary codec to the web would be detrimental, while the upside of codec licensing is probably small potatoes to Google. Freeing a good codec would mean easy access to Google video for everyone and not-as-easy access to MS and Apple.
That's why GM did hybrid SUVs. They took the Tahoe from something like 14MPG to 21. There are a few other vehicles with the 2-mode system as well. While you are probably right about attacking the worst vehicles first, most people think "hybrid SUV" is an oxymoron. They feel the way to attack that part of the market is to kill it, not make it better. Of course that neglects the actual utility of such vehicles which cannot be replaced by small cars. Anyway, GM already took the approach you mention.
Well in that case, he's probably not going by Lance Davis any more. Maybe the project brought in more money than these guys knew...
That happens every day to about 125,000 men world wide. Or roughly 6000 men in the US each day. Oh, and women die every day too. Why would he find it scary that this particular guy may have died?
Please read my responses several levels deeper. Why would you assume the stupidest possible interpretation of what I wrote and then refute it? Bill Gates was talking about the problem of "piracy" in the mid 1970s.
To clarify:
1) I was NOT talking about syntax. xxxx,yy are place holders for specific fixed values that I did not provide so as not to get sued (that's a joke OK).
2) The interpreter specifically checked fixed address xxxxx for fixed value yy AFTER the command was executed. If yy was not found it errored out. This was not a check that the poke worked, it was to make it appear that the command wasn't supported (which should have been indicated by SN error, but was something else). Having hacked the interpreter myself to add/remove commands I can say it was easy enough that this was not an accident.
3) The peek command (not poke) specifically disallowed looking at the interpreter or the ROM. And I believe peek itself was also disabled initially. You had to do more poking to circumvent those checks. Who figured this stuff out (or leaked it) I don't know, but it's all documented in the Interaction newsletter - I *might* still have every issue printed.
4) As I said in my original post, this BASIC is on tape, not in ROM. The Interact ROM provided text display (bitmap gfx only 112x77) rectangle filling and tape read/write functions and not much else.
For those wondering what this odd machine was, Interact was based in AnnArbor Michigan and only a few thousand machines were produced. In a strange coincidence, years later I had a job working for the guy who originally wrote the Interact ROM.
I still have my 8080-based Interact computer from back then AND a (legal) copy of MS BASIC for it on tape. One thing I distinctly recall is that the Peek and Poke commands did not work out of the box. For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error. The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock. Not sure if Interact or MS decided to put this in. There was another series of things to do to unlock the peek command. IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range. Do I still get in legal trouble if I post the values of XXXX,YY?? They are still burned into my brain. Does anyone at Microsoft still have this basic or know how to unlock these commands? I wonder...
Or C++0x0A no need to change the name.