I can't find a fqa from that site that has been rectified since 1992. I would wager that most of the criticisms on the FQA are still valid on every c++ implementation as of today. (heck, let's even say by next year)
You don't know what you are talking about. There are very detailed paragraph by paragraph explanations on nearly every fqa. Serious flaws and problems, not just 'i don't like the way that works'. Architectural flaws that if you knew one language other than C++, would be obvious to you.
C++ is garbage, I write it every day. It's difficult to write, syntax is impossible to remember, silent errors, millions of gotcha's. there is nothing C++ does that some other language doesn't do better. It was a cheap hack to get classes in C++, and technologically relevant 30 years ago, why are people still praising it?
c++ is a rusty old bus, do you actually think it's a sports car?
this response is so late I doubt you'll read it, but I'll respond briefly anyways.
From a BSD point of view, it seems like complete nonsense to think you could just selectively delete the license. Just as not being able to remove other terms from a GNU licensed file. I agree its all about point of view and I meant simply that my opinion makes more sense to me, which is obvious i guess. Anyways thanks for the response, and I agree, this dual licensed GNU/BSD thing seems very muddled.
of course the point is to allow both licenses, which is why both licenses must be kept intact. But you are wrong about permission to remove the BSD copyright. If the original work was released under the auspices both licenses, it must continue to be so, otherwise you are de-licensing something. Unless the meta-license says you can remove one. But it doesn't in this case. It simply says it can also be distributed under the GPL, that's all.
"This code can also be distributed under the terms of the GPL license version 2" "This code can also be distributed under the terms of the BSD license."
Removing one or the other means no more dual licensing, and therefore means violating the original license of the copyright holder. That's my opinion, it makes more sense than your opinion, but I don't know (from a legal standpoint) which is the correct one.
Once you have the dual-licensed code, you can do with it what you want, so long as you respect ONE of the TWO licenses. However any derivative of this work must also have BOTH licenses included. The linux people are way off on this. Dual licensing does not mean pick one license and go with it, it means proceed with both licenses, obey one. The onus is on you to prove that you have the right to remove one of those licenses without proper permission. Why even have dual licensing if this is the case?
Secondly, the concept of community and sharing. Since both gpl and bsd have similar ideals (open the source), a certain amount of camaraderie and back scratching is nice. Each camp has similar goals. What pisses off the openbsd people in this case is that the gpl people acted in bad faith and removed a license illegally. Theo is 100% right about this.
If you want your work to be GPL only, separate it out and place under GPL only, and leave the dual licensed code alone, which would be legal. But as Theo says, this will reflect badly on the spirit of cooperation between the two license camps, and probably mean less inclination to support dual licenses in the future.
it's because reporting about the private lives of politicians is illegal in france. Sarko and his wife were widely speculated to be having problems and close to breaking up, however because of these laws, french news will never report on them. the laws, and perhaps a bit of class, who knows.
Gratis Open-source Killer-app Destroys Demand for Expensive Inferior Products
So according to the articles: some companies are embracing open source and are profiting from it -> that's evil open source is gaining mainstream acceptance -> that's evil (linux is still cool, right?) microsoft shop decides to go open source -> that's even more evil than just being a MS shop
The Open Source Movement becomes less revolutionary and exclusive as its success increases. Reducing the rebellion factor perhaps? some people simply like having the source because of utilitarian concerns, rather than because it has been an anti-establishment movement. Stallman was a crusader because he had to be, he was a pioneer.
But hating big business because it profits from open source makes you a communist, not simply a believer in open source.
The differences are ideological and the possibility of the two camps seeing eye to eye is nil. Perhaps it is time for people to accept that they have different goals and move on from there. The one true solution is, as with most things, neither here nor there. Me, I'll stick with GNU/BSD licenses for most software that I use or wish I could use for free (speech, not beer) for the time being because it is in line with my philosophy. It's just a shame that there are so many extremists on either side of this debate.
Thanks, but I use my CDR's to backup my shit, not pirate music. Since my money will be going to the music makers pockets anyways, might as well get my moneys worth. It becomes very ethical to do, from my point of view.
It's funny how defending oneself is seen as threatening. If I lock my door, am I threatening you?
No, it is not funny, and it is not about locking your door. It really show how much (or how little in this case) you know about a topic when you use analogies like that. Instead of oversimplifying the situation, try thinking about being in the position of another country, like Pakistan, for example. And assuming they have ICBM's, how scared do you think they are that an aggressive superpower like the United States (the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon on another country) can now fire ICBM's at them at will, with no fear of a counterattack because they can defend against ICBM's.
Do you think they will just happily sit around with the USA basically pointing a gun to their head for all intents and purposes saying "Oh don't worry, I would never pull the trigger. Just don't go to war with India, or don't allow such and such to become president, and don't buy Pepsi products blah blah blah". Or do you think perhaps that it is more likely that they will attempt to balance themselves with the United States causing a new arms race with unpredictable consequences possibly disasterous for the entire planet?
And statistics don't lie? haha. Remember this cliche: "There are 3 kinds of lies in the world... lies, damned lies, and statistics." Well, just remember that everything is "provable" by statistics.
Of course back then the only people who used the Internet, DARPA and such, were from the government, military, or educational institutions. It is a different situation now. I doubt uu.net or @home would give a rats ass if the government started using IPv6.
Pretty obvious to me, whatever the little rj-45 plug from the back of the cable modem plugs into, that is what it is connected to! How else could you possibly define it?
No, the gun enabled and encouraged the bullet to hit the target, the user just pulled the trigger.
Napster et al. was written specifically with the purpose of allowing people to share music files, just like a gun was specifically designed to launch bullets. At least, that is the extent of what the tools allow, so what the original inventors thought when designing them is irrelevant. You can't simply ignore the legitimate uses for such tools and write them off as criminal because one potential use is criminal. If you did that, then as other people have said over and over again, you will have to outlaw things such as guns, nuclear reactors, steel anvils, screwdrivers and hammers, coat hangers, as well as metal birdseed and electromagnets.
<Insert P2P service of choice> gives the user access to steal, just like owning a gun gives its owner access to kill, however it still takes somebody with a brain behind the tool (or as is probable in most cases, half a brain) to commit a crime.
P.S. And no, I don't equate gun control with peer to peer networking control, since there is at least an order of magnitude of difference between killing somebody and stealing something.
We could be speaking a different language, but in spite of means the same thing as despite. I think you might mean "In spite of the piracy, or because of".
The whole point of having an interpreter is that you don't have to compute things at compile time, you can a lot more calculation and optimizing at run time while you interpret the program.
And yes, writing a compiler is pretty tough for most modern languages. (If you don't believe me, try writing a small one for C or pascal, and then try to imagine writing a C++ compiler or a Perl interpreter!:P)
However, if you originally meant that somebody should write a compiler to compile all 5 of these languages to a common one and run it on one of the interpreters, then yes, this could be possible, except for all of the annoying differences in the various class libraries and built in functionality of the various languages. This would make writing this compiler incredibly tedious and almost impossible to maintain.
Not quite. First off, for interpreted languages, there is nothing stopping the interpreter from creating the dynamic length string on its own, based upon the "*20" or "*$foo" and then making one call to print, instead of $foo calls to print.
Whether Ruby actually does this, I have no idea, and whether this is actually more efficient, well it depends on efficiency of print vs. creating a string in memory in Ruby. There is a potential for a drastic difference though, so the amount of work that can potentially be saved is quite great.
You know what's even funnier? That your own comment perfectly reflects what you were ranting about. But since the significance of Wumpus' last comment was probably lost on some people, I just thought I'd point it out.
And by the way, there are at least five grammatical errors and one spelling error in your post. Now who's the asshole?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find a fqa from that site that has been rectified since 1992. I would wager that most of the criticisms on the FQA are still valid on every c++ implementation as of today. (heck, let's even say by next year)
You don't know what you are talking about. There are very detailed paragraph by paragraph explanations on nearly every fqa. Serious flaws and problems, not just 'i don't like the way that works'. Architectural flaws that if you knew one language other than C++, would be obvious to you.
C++ is garbage, I write it every day. It's difficult to write, syntax is impossible to remember, silent errors, millions of gotcha's. there is nothing C++ does that some other language doesn't do better. It was a cheap hack to get classes in C++, and technologically relevant 30 years ago, why are people still praising it?
c++ is a rusty old bus, do you actually think it's a sports car?
this response is so late I doubt you'll read it, but I'll respond briefly anyways.
From a BSD point of view, it seems like complete nonsense to think you could just selectively delete the license. Just as not being able to remove other terms from a GNU licensed file. I agree its all about point of view and I meant simply that my opinion makes more sense to me, which is obvious i guess. Anyways thanks for the response, and I agree, this dual licensed GNU/BSD thing seems very muddled.
of course the point is to allow both licenses, which is why both licenses must be kept intact. But you are wrong about permission to remove the BSD copyright. If the original work was released under the auspices both licenses, it must continue to be so, otherwise you are de-licensing something. Unless the meta-license says you can remove one. But it doesn't in this case. It simply says it can also be distributed under the GPL, that's all.
"This code can also be distributed under the terms of the GPL license version 2"
"This code can also be distributed under the terms of the BSD license."
Removing one or the other means no more dual licensing, and therefore means violating the original license of the copyright holder. That's my opinion, it makes more sense than your opinion, but I don't know (from a legal standpoint) which is the correct one.
Once you have the dual-licensed code, you can do with it what you want, so long as you respect ONE of the TWO licenses. However any derivative of this work must also have BOTH licenses included. The linux people are way off on this. Dual licensing does not mean pick one license and go with it, it means proceed with both licenses, obey one. The onus is on you to prove that you have the right to remove one of those licenses without proper permission. Why even have dual licensing if this is the case?
Secondly, the concept of community and sharing. Since both gpl and bsd have similar ideals (open the source), a certain amount of camaraderie and back scratching is nice. Each camp has similar goals. What pisses off the openbsd people in this case is that the gpl people acted in bad faith and removed a license illegally. Theo is 100% right about this.
If you want your work to be GPL only, separate it out and place under GPL only, and leave the dual licensed code alone, which would be legal. But as Theo says, this will reflect badly on the spirit of cooperation between the two license camps, and probably mean less inclination to support dual licenses in the future.
it's because reporting about the private lives of politicians is illegal in france. Sarko and his wife were widely speculated to be having problems and close to breaking up, however because of these laws, french news will never report on them. the laws, and perhaps a bit of class, who knows.
Gratis Open-source Killer-app Destroys Demand for Expensive Inferior Products
So according to the articles:
some companies are embracing open source and are profiting from it -> that's evil
open source is gaining mainstream acceptance -> that's evil (linux is still cool, right?)
microsoft shop decides to go open source -> that's even more evil than just being a MS shop
The Open Source Movement becomes less revolutionary and exclusive as its success increases. Reducing the rebellion factor perhaps? some people simply like having the source because of utilitarian concerns, rather than because it has been an anti-establishment movement. Stallman was a crusader because he had to be, he was a pioneer.
But hating big business because it profits from open source makes you a communist, not simply a believer in open source.
The differences are ideological and the possibility of the two camps seeing eye to eye is nil. Perhaps it is time for people to accept that they have different goals and move on from there. The one true solution is, as with most things, neither here nor there. Me, I'll stick with GNU/BSD licenses for most software that I use or wish I could use for free (speech, not beer) for the time being because it is in line with my philosophy. It's just a shame that there are so many extremists on either side of this debate.
look at the guy's nickname. dumbass.
If you are implying that Lucas shit the script for Starwars episode 1 and 2 out of his ass, then I sure as hell am not going to disagree!
I think it was a joke... (Nix0n's comment I mean)
Get that and then get your all set...
What the?!? What is an all set? Does everyone have an all set? And what do I do once I get my all set?
I chuckled.
-Ryan
Uh.... no. Your arithmetic is right but your conclusions are wrong. That's $142 not $142 mil.
It could be because :w and :q are in the manpage but :x is not. This holds for the Solaris box I Checked as well as FreeBSD. So get off your high horse.
What, can't you metamoderate every day?
Thanks, but I use my CDR's to backup my shit, not pirate music. Since my money will be going to the music makers pockets anyways, might as well get my moneys worth. It becomes very ethical to do, from my point of view.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
If pigs can fly, I'll give you a million dollars.
Is that more clear?
no, we have lots of oil and gas up in Canada, no worries there.
It's funny how defending oneself is seen as threatening. If I lock my door, am I threatening you?
No, it is not funny, and it is not about locking your door. It really show how much (or how little in this case) you know about a topic when you use analogies like that. Instead of oversimplifying the situation, try thinking about being in the position of another country, like Pakistan, for example. And assuming they have ICBM's, how scared do you think they are that an aggressive superpower like the United States (the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon on another country) can now fire ICBM's at them at will, with no fear of a counterattack because they can defend against ICBM's.
Do you think they will just happily sit around with the USA basically pointing a gun to their head for all intents and purposes saying "Oh don't worry, I would never pull the trigger. Just don't go to war with India, or don't allow such and such to become president, and don't buy Pepsi products blah blah blah". Or do you think perhaps that it is more likely that they will attempt to balance themselves with the United States causing a new arms race with unpredictable consequences possibly disasterous for the entire planet?
And statistics don't lie? haha. Remember this cliche: "There are 3 kinds of lies in the world... lies, damned lies, and statistics." Well, just remember that everything is "provable" by statistics.
Of course back then the only people who used the Internet, DARPA and such, were from the government, military, or educational institutions. It is a different situation now. I doubt uu.net or @home would give a rats ass if the government started using IPv6.
Pretty obvious to me, whatever the little rj-45 plug from the back of the cable modem plugs into, that is what it is connected to! How else could you possibly define it?
No, the gun enabled and encouraged the bullet to hit the target, the user just pulled the trigger.
Napster et al. was written specifically with the purpose of allowing people to share music files, just like a gun was specifically designed to launch bullets. At least, that is the extent of what the tools allow, so what the original inventors thought when designing them is irrelevant. You can't simply ignore the legitimate uses for such tools and write them off as criminal because one potential use is criminal. If you did that, then as other people have said over and over again, you will have to outlaw things such as guns, nuclear reactors, steel anvils, screwdrivers and hammers, coat hangers, as well as metal birdseed and electromagnets.
<Insert P2P service of choice> gives the user access to steal, just like owning a gun gives its owner access to kill, however it still takes somebody with a brain behind the tool (or as is probable in most cases, half a brain) to commit a crime.
P.S. And no, I don't equate gun control with peer to peer networking control, since there is at least an order of magnitude of difference between killing somebody and stealing something.
We could be speaking a different language, but in spite of means the same thing as despite. I think you might mean "In spite of the piracy, or because of".
-Ryan
The whole point of having an interpreter is that you don't have to compute things at compile time, you can a lot more calculation and optimizing at run time while you interpret the program.
:P)
And yes, writing a compiler is pretty tough for most modern languages. (If you don't believe me, try writing a small one for C or pascal, and then try to imagine writing a C++ compiler or a Perl interpreter!
However, if you originally meant that somebody should write a compiler to compile all 5 of these languages to a common one and run it on one of the interpreters, then yes, this could be possible, except for all of the annoying differences in the various class libraries and built in functionality of the various languages. This would make writing this compiler incredibly tedious and almost impossible to maintain.
Not quite. First off, for interpreted languages, there is nothing stopping the interpreter from creating the dynamic length string on its own, based upon the "*20" or "*$foo" and then making one call to print, instead of $foo calls to print.
Whether Ruby actually does this, I have no idea, and whether this is actually more efficient, well it depends on efficiency of print vs. creating a string in memory in Ruby. There is a potential for a drastic difference though, so the amount of work that can potentially be saved is quite great.
If by recent you mean 7 years old (1994), then yes, Drunken Master 2 is recent. I remember seeing it at least 6 years ago, so it can't be too far off.
The original came out in 1978, according to the IMDB.
You know what's even funnier? That your own comment perfectly reflects what you were ranting about. But since the significance of Wumpus' last comment was probably lost on some people, I just thought I'd point it out.
And by the way, there are at least five grammatical errors and one spelling error in your post. Now who's the asshole?