Re:In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
>By this logic, then, the Linux source code has >absolutely no value?
Value is a measure of a thing's worth to a person. Linux has much value to me in that it provides benefits.
>Certainly to a corporation this comes close to >the mark, forcing them to yet again reinvent >the wheel, or to have to have more staff so >that 'infected' people can look at some GPL >code and write up a specification, what the >code does, and hand that over to a 'clean' >person and have that person implement the >specification. Let's say, for the sake of >argument, that I want to use some of Linux' >memory management ideas for the x86 in some >wacko proprietary operating system >of my own design, for whatever purpose - maybe >something top secret and military or something. >I have to hire at least one more person to >actually get those memory hacks into my >code base, or it becomes infected and my whole >ball of wax melts. So, the GPL forces >reinvention and code non-reuse.
Interesting scenario! Why not have the corporation make a deal with the copyright holder for the rights to use the aforementioned GPL code under a commercially viable license?
Or, the corporation could participate actively in the community both gaining the use of and contributing to the GPL codebase?
The GPL forces anybody that wishes to use the code for profit making purposes to play or pay. If something has value then the buyer must be willing to pay a price for it.
BOTTOM LINE: Corey, I like your point of view. Actually, I believe we agree with each other more than disagree. From your standpoint, the BSD license is evidently the best choice and from mine, the GPL's protection from being coopted with no rights whatsoever is the best choice.
I believe I understand your position alot better than I did when this thread first started. You really don't care if they take the code - as a matter of fact, you are expecting them to.
GPL and BSDL - two fundamentaly different licensing options with strangely similar goals - software freedom.
Re:In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 2
>Then you should respect their wishes to allow >their code to thrive whenever and wherever it >may.
I do. The BSD style freedom is closer to the utopian idea of freedom than the GPL is. However, we don't live in a utopian world. (The theme of my original post.)
>The point is, the code base that you put out >under the BSD license cannot be taken away from >you or the rest of the community.
Not taken away but proprietized and closed up under a DIFFERENT license.
>It cannot be modified and re-released by someone >else who claims to have written the code in the >first place.
It can't be modified and released under the BSD license with credits given to somebody else... no.
>It fosters commonality in code bases, making it >easier to track and fix bugs if someone keeps >their code close to the original.
BSD does foster commonality in codebases - true. But, those codebases tend to diverge over time contributing to the current state of the UNIX world. Can you deny this?
>>I vote for the GPL because the GPL protected >>codebase becomes a living thing that constantly >>improves. It survives the demise of it's >>creators and is not dependant on any one entity >>for it's livelihood.
>And how, pray tell, is BSD any different? Do not >the free BSD operating systems and maintainers >of packages under the BSD license fix bugs and >support their code? Have there not been changes >in maintainership of BSD-licensed code in the >public? How does code under the BSD license not >stand up to this litmus test of yours?
You have told me how BSD is different or not. Evidently, my 'litmus test' was wrong.
>>The BSD license provides for a public good that >>is consumable; the GPL license provides for a >>public good that is durable.
>Again, I fail to see how the GPL ensures this >when the BSD license doesn't.
Look at it from the corporate point of view. They see things as goods that are consumable or nonconsumable assets that can be used during the course of business. The BSD source code is such a good - it has value even though the cost of procurement was minimal. The good is incorporated into a VALUE-ADDED product that is sold for a profit. The corporation makes money by adding VALUE to a good and selling it for a profit. If the value is percieved by the customer then the purchase will be made. The enhancements made to the original good will not be released back due to the fact that the enhancements are the intellectual property of the corporation and the primary source of profit in the sale of the enhanced good.
Hence, BSD becomes a free R&D lab for the proprietary operating systems of the world. The companies take the code, proprietize it and laugh all the way to the bank.
You, however, still have your much vaunted rights to the original code.
>Besides, prove in a court of law that I've >snitched some piece of code from a GPLed >package and incorporated it into my own >commercial product. Go on, I dare you.
A very valid point. If there are proprietary systems that use GPL code that are being distributed outside of the entity that modified the code then violations of the GPL are alleged to have occurred. Proving the point is difficult but not impossible. A team member could spill the beans and implicate the business entity of abusing GPL code. Then there would be litigation. As you know, litigation is expensive.
>If I use a BSD-licensed product for, say, >reading in a file of some specific format, >then I've helped to make that format a standard, >and increased the interoperability of various >programs and modules because I've used the code.
>How does that make you suffer?
BSD does not make me suffer. Proprietary enhancements to open standards, designed to 'lock-in' a userbase, make me suffer.
Re:In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
>You say having a good, working codebase is such a >bad thing.
No, I didn't say that at all! Having a good, working codebase is a Good Thing(tm).
>You rabid GPL advocates are always going around >with the scare tactic of "oh no, somebody MUST >be stealing all your code!
I'm not a rabid GPL advocate. I just see the GPL as the best way to ensure that the code stays free as in freedom.
>First off, you can't steal what is given away >freely.
Can't dispute that!
>Second, as I've said time and time again in this >discussion, the GPL is not a magic wrapper around >your code, protecting it from the "evil" >corporate coders who might steal your code.
True again. Any code that is available can be taken. It's just that if they are caught then there will be serious legal repercussions that many corporations would not like to fund. As such, the GPL works for the purpose it was intended for as does the BSD license.
>Get over yourself; maybe your code isn't worth >stealing anyhow:)
I've got a job in programming that says my skills are valuable. I choose not to give them away with no chance of recompense. When I write code for GPL release, I feel that I am contributing to a codebase that provides me with an Operating System and Applications that are outstanding. It's my way of contributing to the community. I know that the BSD folks are contributing SELFLESSLY. I congratulate them for thier baseless and pure hearts. I trust them; I don't trust the corporations.
Anyway, what has this, "Get over yourself" stuff got to do with anything?
Re:In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
>Damn - I'd hate it everyone had an OS or >software that worked.
Wouldn't you though? That is what some of the folks who are proprietizing BSD code could stop. They take the code, proprietise it, and make sure it runs only on their own hardware or that it runs only their software.
>The point is that the BSD license allows more >freedom of use because companies will not use >the GPL or they won't survive since they can't >sell their value-added product because the >GPL would force them to give the source to it >to everyone, including their competitors.
That is PRECISELY THE POINT! Companies take BSD code and HOPEFULLY provide enhancements to the codebase back to the developers. You WANT them to use the code and I can respect that. You evidently want a world where there is free and open cooperation - so do I. I just don't trust corporations to go against their profit motive and that includes proprietizing the formerly open code and NOT providing enhancements to the codebase back to the developers.
>Do you honestly expect WordPerfect, Oracle, or >any of the other big commercial vendors who've >jumped on the Linux bandwagon (primarily for >the PR) to actually release their source? >Not a chance.
This is precisely my point! I EXPECT them to NOT provide enhancements back unless it enhances their profit potential. I understand that they will proprietize source code - that is the whole basis for my logic. Please convince me otherwise if I am wrong as per my tagline.
>The BSD license gives everyone the chance to >have a good fill_in_the_blank. Witness the >TCP/IP stack that the Internet lives on - >from BSD.
I most assuredly agree! I just don't trust corps to be good citizens - it is against their very nature.
In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 2
license. However, we don't live in a perfect world so... the guarantees of freedom and source code availability of the GPL are a neccessity.
I respect the ideals and the skill of the BSD people but they are being robbed blind by the corporate element! The BSD folks strive to have complete freedom and the very best code! They will never have the very best code because everyone else will have it too! This situation is probably their aim and if it is... it's working. They are selflessly advancing the state of the art. I'm sure that Bill and Steve appreciate it!
I vote for the GPL because the GPL protected codebase becomes a living thing that constantly improves. It survives the demise of it's creators and is not dependant on any one entity for it's livelihood.
The BSD license provides for a public good that is consumable; the GPL license provides for a public good that is durable.
One: They are still trying to repair their damaged reputation at the expense of the community. (In my opinion, they should publish an objective and unbiased report next time.)
Two: There are a few zealots out there! If someone insulted your mother or girlfriend like Mindcraft insulted Linux (by not even consulting members of the community the way they consulted Microsoft on the test) you would get mad too! Possibly even pounding the living daylights out of the offender!
Maybe... we should resort to carefully researched and worded FUD like Microsoft is doing? Or, should we speak our honest minds? We SHOULD practice diplomacy and prove our mettle - yes. But, these reposted emails do underscore the powerful objections that many in the community felt when the Mindcraft findings were posted.
I would have to say that instead of posting hate mail from a few choice individuals, in an attempt to discredit the whole Linux community (and probably at the behest of Microsoft for propoganda purposes), Mindcraft should apologise for not properly consulting the community on the tests and ultimately gain our respect and support.
After all, we are the generation of technicians and programmers they may hope to do business with in the future.
The only thing that I can think of that would work for extended periods of time would be: ElectroMagnetic broadcast power. The problem with this type of power is that it doesn't pass through impermeable material; therefore there would need to be trancievers placed profusely throughout any structure where the robots would be used.
Also, the robots themselves would probably not be autonomous but be controlled using telemetry feedback. A console station would be used to accumulate the data, formulate a strategy to accomplish a task and to broadcast instructions to individually addressed robots who could then link up to perform the task.
It's the only feasible and practical way I could see it working.
but why bother? You, cjr, have put into words my very thoughts. Thank you.
I got a wonderful mental picture with hoards of gaunt and starving people frantically digging in the plains of Texas for oil; dirt was flying everywhere as they sought to compete with Standard Oil! Reminds me alot of today's computing marketplace.
If you ask me, Microsoft is insulting our intelligence! Who in their right mind would fall for Microsoft's assertion that these three companies pose any REAL threat to it's monopoly? Not me says I.
I'm sick to death of Microsoft's heavy handedness in the computing industry - it's time for a change! I laud these three (now two) company's (AOL and Sun) partnership; it may someday become competition for Microsoft. Someday.
>The point of J++ and any other Windows dependent >Java clone is to make the cost of moving from >Windows too great for people to switch to another >OS.
That is the whole point isn't it? Microsoft is protecting it's monopoly market position by getting aspiring Java developers to use proprietary and non-portable tools.
J++, DirectX, ASP, COM/DCOM/COM+, MFC. All very proprietary technologies and related as to underlying purpose - killing crossplatform capablility.
So what? People are going to complain no matter what you do so quit worrying about it. Move on.
Just finish the Linux Standard Base specification and we can all code for the standard and it wont matter WHAT distro you use... the program will work.
If Microsoft *APPEARS* to be easier then, to the user, perception is reality.
We must not only make Linux easier to install but it should configure itself (at least for desktop distros). Furthermore, Linux should endear perception of near-sentience to the new user in configuring itself and presenting user interface to services.
Then, Linux will be ready enough for the OEM's to drop Windows completely without even a moment's hesitation.
I *really* like this WindowManager - WindowMaker. The dockable apps, the sound handling, the smooth window handling, the easy configurability, the modest memory footprint, the graphical rendering of components.
but I think that the systems with the most usership will be able to put major pressure on server vendors to adopt a service/protocol.
That said, I also want to remind everyone that Windows9x is in an area (desktop) that Linux aspires to expand into (and doing quite well I might add); conversely, Linux excells where Microsoft wants to expand - the serverspace. Linux rests squarely in Microsoft's upgrade path for Win2000 and is eating into current NT and Windows installations.
Linux must be easier to install, configure and use than Win9x. Essentially, a nobrainer.
A friend of mine has one of these cards and loves it for it's capabilities! Yet, ATI has not provided drivers that are stable enough or problem free to make his experience memorable. He's a hairsbreadth away from getting a TNT2; especially since X and 3D support is now available in Linux.
And remember... it's just an idea. Why not allow patents on ideas?
The patent holder could carefully word his/her idea and back it up with hard data. The patent holder could not keep anyone from using the idea but if money had been made using the idea then the patent holder would be entitled to a royalty. The royalty period would expire after a certain amount of time had passed.
The idea is not to halt or impede the free flow of information but to reward those with good ideas! It would also allow scientists and engineers who were especially productive to get quite wealthy too! In turn, rapid advances in technology would result due to the increased incentive. New markets would be created for even higher profits for corporations. Private research would become commonplace.
Is this idea workable? If it is then I've already gotten my patent application in for it.
The movie was worth the price of admission and I'd go see it again. However, I was frankly underwhelmed. It didn't have the bravado or derringdo that the original movie had. The elements of suspense were missing, there was too much comedy, you could predict what happened next, the space and planetary graphics were not up to ESB standards. The JarJar Binks character could have had less comedy and more development (I liked the shielding though). The battle scene between JarJar's people and the droids could have been more realistic and less of a comedy free-for-all. The script needed some major tightening. There is little believable emotion in or between characters. The kid seems to care NOTHING for his mother! Only the interaction between Anakin and Queen Amidala even approached an emotional level (and that was quickly squelched). Even the force was hardly visible in this movie.
Thats the criticism. Now the good stuff! The interaction between the two Jedi was very good. The fight scenes between the Jedi and Darth Maul were terrific! The graphics of the battle droids movement and shields were above and beyond. The development of Senator Palpatine was good but should have been taken much further - he was not menacing enough (I did like the wry smiles though). The Assembly Chamber was a very well done thing but waay too short of a segment. The best character in the movie, in my opinion, was Queen Amidala.
Queen Amidala is why I will go see this movie again!
Mr. Lucas, Please reawaken the days when you did THX1138 and StarWars1,2,3. Make the evil guys REAL EVIL (Darth Maul was great and he hardly said a word), the good guys should have integrity (the Jedi were great but not deep enough), the emotions should be better represented. Deeply develop the characters.
Yeah. As I understand, the way many journaling systems work it, the filesystem itself is a database. Just as a database uses a journal to record transactions in preparation for committing or rollbacks, so does the journaling filesystem. The journal holds the transactions (block writes) until they are written, then the journal entries for them are cleared. If there is corruption in the filesystem, the journal can be used to bring the filesystem back to sanity.
I've never lost an ext2 filesystem; it does, however, take some time to fsck... a journaling capability would be nice to have.:)
AFAIK, the "preferred" link is made in the startup scripts. I got to where I didn't like it much and just make sure I have a module directory that matches my kernel version. I do a 'depmod -a' then modprobe my modules and all is well.
Slashdot Mirror
>By this logic, then, the Linux source code has
>absolutely no value?
Value is a measure of a thing's worth to a person. Linux has much value to me in that it provides benefits.
>Certainly to a corporation this comes close to
>the mark, forcing them to yet again reinvent
>the wheel, or to have to have more staff so
>that 'infected' people can look at some GPL
>code and write up a specification, what the
>code does, and hand that over to a 'clean'
>person and have that person implement the
>specification. Let's say, for the sake of
>argument, that I want to use some of Linux'
>memory management ideas for the x86 in some
>wacko proprietary operating system
>of my own design, for whatever purpose - maybe
>something top secret and military or something.
>I have to hire at least one more person to
>actually get those memory hacks into my
>code base, or it becomes infected and my whole
>ball of wax melts. So, the GPL forces
>reinvention and code non-reuse.
Interesting scenario! Why not have the corporation make a deal with the copyright holder for the rights to use the aforementioned GPL code under a commercially viable license?
Or, the corporation could participate actively in the community both gaining the use of and contributing to the GPL codebase?
The GPL forces anybody that wishes to use the code for profit making purposes to play or pay. If something has value then the buyer must be willing to pay a price for it.
BOTTOM LINE:
Corey, I like your point of view. Actually, I believe we agree with each other more than disagree. From your standpoint, the BSD license is evidently the best choice and from mine, the GPL's protection from being coopted with no rights whatsoever is the best choice.
I believe I understand your position alot better than I did when this thread first started. You really don't care if they take the code - as a matter of fact, you are expecting them to.
GPL and BSDL - two fundamentaly different licensing options with strangely similar goals - software freedom.
>Then you should respect their wishes to allow
>their code to thrive whenever and wherever it
>may.
I do. The BSD style freedom is closer to the utopian idea of freedom than the GPL is. However, we don't live in a utopian world. (The theme of my original post.)
>The point is, the code base that you put out
>under the BSD license cannot be taken away from
>you or the rest of the community.
Not taken away but proprietized and closed up under a DIFFERENT license.
>It cannot be modified and re-released by someone
>else who claims to have written the code in the
>first place.
It can't be modified and released under the BSD license with credits given to somebody else... no.
>It fosters commonality in code bases, making it
>easier to track and fix bugs if someone keeps
>their code close to the original.
BSD does foster commonality in codebases - true. But, those codebases tend to diverge over time contributing to the current state of the UNIX world. Can you deny this?
>>I vote for the GPL because the GPL protected
>>codebase becomes a living thing that constantly
>>improves. It survives the demise of it's
>>creators and is not dependant on any one entity
>>for it's livelihood.
>And how, pray tell, is BSD any different? Do not
>the free BSD operating systems and maintainers
>of packages under the BSD license fix bugs and
>support their code? Have there not been changes
>in maintainership of BSD-licensed code in the
>public? How does code under the BSD license not
>stand up to this litmus test of yours?
You have told me how BSD is different or not. Evidently, my 'litmus test' was wrong.
>>The BSD license provides for a public good that
>>is consumable; the GPL license provides for a
>>public good that is durable.
>Again, I fail to see how the GPL ensures this
>when the BSD license doesn't.
Look at it from the corporate point of view. They see things as goods that are consumable or nonconsumable assets that can be used during the course of business. The BSD source code is such a good - it has value even though the cost of procurement was minimal. The good is incorporated into a VALUE-ADDED product that is sold for a profit. The corporation makes money by adding VALUE to a good and selling it for a profit. If the value is percieved by the customer then the purchase will be made. The enhancements made to the original good will not be released back due to the fact that the enhancements are the intellectual property of the corporation and the primary source of profit in the sale of the enhanced good.
Hence, BSD becomes a free R&D lab for the proprietary operating systems of the world. The companies take the code, proprietize it and laugh all the way to the bank.
You, however, still have your much vaunted rights to the original code.
>Besides, prove in a court of law that I've
>snitched some piece of code from a GPLed
>package and incorporated it into my own
>commercial product. Go on, I dare you.
A very valid point. If there are proprietary systems that use GPL code that are being distributed outside of the entity that modified the code then violations of the GPL are alleged to have occurred. Proving the point is difficult but not impossible. A team member could spill the beans and implicate the business entity of abusing GPL code. Then there would be litigation. As you know, litigation is expensive.
>If I use a BSD-licensed product for, say,
>reading in a file of some specific format,
>then I've helped to make that format a standard,
>and increased the interoperability of various
>programs and modules because I've used the code.
>How does that make you suffer?
BSD does not make me suffer. Proprietary enhancements to open standards, designed to 'lock-in' a userbase, make me suffer.
>You say having a good, working codebase is such a
:)
>bad thing.
No, I didn't say that at all! Having a good, working codebase is a Good Thing(tm).
>You rabid GPL advocates are always going around
>with the scare tactic of "oh no, somebody MUST
>be stealing all your code!
I'm not a rabid GPL advocate. I just see the GPL as the best way to ensure that the code stays free as in freedom.
>First off, you can't steal what is given away
>freely.
Can't dispute that!
>Second, as I've said time and time again in this
>discussion, the GPL is not a magic wrapper around
>your code, protecting it from the "evil"
>corporate coders who might steal your code.
True again. Any code that is available can be taken. It's just that if they are caught then there will be serious legal repercussions that many corporations would not like to fund. As such, the GPL works for the purpose it was intended for as does the BSD license.
>Get over yourself; maybe your code isn't worth
>stealing anyhow
I've got a job in programming that says my skills are valuable. I choose not to give them away with no chance of recompense. When I write code for GPL release, I feel that I am contributing to a codebase that provides me with an Operating System and Applications that are outstanding. It's my way of contributing to the community. I know that the BSD folks are contributing SELFLESSLY. I congratulate them for thier baseless and pure hearts. I trust them; I don't trust the corporations.
Anyway, what has this, "Get over yourself" stuff got to do with anything?
>Damn - I'd hate it everyone had an OS or
>software that worked.
Wouldn't you though? That is what some of the folks who are proprietizing BSD code could stop. They take the code, proprietise it, and make sure it runs only on their own hardware or that it runs only their software.
>The point is that the BSD license allows more
>freedom of use because companies will not use
>the GPL or they won't survive since they can't
>sell their value-added product because the
>GPL would force them to give the source to it
>to everyone, including their competitors.
That is PRECISELY THE POINT! Companies take BSD code and HOPEFULLY provide enhancements to the codebase back to the developers. You WANT them to use the code and I can respect that. You evidently want a world where there is free and open cooperation - so do I. I just don't trust corporations to go against their profit motive and that includes proprietizing the formerly open code and NOT providing enhancements to the codebase back to the developers.
>Do you honestly expect WordPerfect, Oracle, or
>any of the other big commercial vendors who've
>jumped on the Linux bandwagon (primarily for
>the PR) to actually release their source?
>Not a chance.
This is precisely my point! I EXPECT them to NOT provide enhancements back unless it enhances their profit potential. I understand that they will proprietize source code - that is the whole basis for my logic. Please convince me otherwise if I am wrong as per my tagline.
>The BSD license gives everyone the chance to
>have a good fill_in_the_blank. Witness the
>TCP/IP stack that the Internet lives on -
>from BSD.
I most assuredly agree! I just don't trust corps to be good citizens - it is against their very nature.
license. However, we don't live in a perfect world so... the guarantees of freedom and source code availability of the GPL are a neccessity.
I respect the ideals and the skill of the BSD people but they are being robbed blind by the corporate element! The BSD folks strive to have complete freedom and the very best code! They will never have the very best code because everyone else will have it too! This situation is probably their aim and if it is... it's working. They are selflessly advancing the state of the art. I'm sure that Bill and Steve appreciate it!
I vote for the GPL because the GPL protected codebase becomes a living thing that constantly improves. It survives the demise of it's creators and is not dependant on any one entity for it's livelihood.
The BSD license provides for a public good that is consumable; the GPL license provides for a public good that is durable.
Linux's stability, affordability, and customizability are being recognised! This is a good thing.
This should mean more jobs for competant technicians and support personnel too.
Soon, all will know that they don't have to put up with expensive and defective Operating Systems.
One: They are still trying to repair their damaged reputation at the expense of the community. (In my opinion, they should publish an objective and unbiased report next time.)
Two: There are a few zealots out there! If someone insulted your mother or girlfriend like Mindcraft insulted Linux (by not even consulting members of the community the way they consulted Microsoft on the test) you would get mad too! Possibly even pounding the living daylights out of the offender!
Maybe... we should resort to carefully researched and worded FUD like Microsoft is doing? Or, should we speak our honest minds? We SHOULD practice diplomacy and prove our mettle - yes. But, these reposted emails do underscore the powerful objections that many in the community felt when the Mindcraft findings were posted.
I would have to say that instead of posting hate mail from a few choice individuals, in an attempt to discredit the whole Linux community (and probably at the behest of Microsoft for propoganda purposes), Mindcraft should apologise for not properly consulting the community on the tests and ultimately gain our respect and support.
After all, we are the generation of technicians and programmers they may hope to do business with in the future.
These devices MUST have reliable long-term power!
The only thing that I can think of that would work for extended periods of time would be: ElectroMagnetic broadcast power. The problem with this type of power is that it doesn't pass through impermeable material; therefore there would need to be trancievers placed profusely throughout any structure where the robots would be used.
Also, the robots themselves would probably not be autonomous but be controlled using telemetry feedback. A console station would be used to accumulate the data, formulate a strategy to accomplish a task and to broadcast instructions to individually addressed robots who could then link up to perform the task.
It's the only feasible and practical way I could see it working.
but why bother? You, cjr, have put into words my very thoughts. Thank you.
I got a wonderful mental picture with hoards of gaunt and starving people frantically digging in the plains of Texas for oil; dirt was flying everywhere as they sought to compete with Standard Oil! Reminds me alot of today's computing marketplace.
If you ask me, Microsoft is insulting our intelligence! Who in their right mind would fall for Microsoft's assertion that these three companies pose any REAL threat to it's monopoly? Not me says I.
I'm sick to death of Microsoft's heavy handedness in the computing industry - it's time for a change! I laud these three (now two) company's (AOL and Sun) partnership; it may someday become competition for Microsoft. Someday.
or so the article led me to believe. No harddrive, no floppy, few movable parts to wear out. Possibly the ideal terminal.
Time will tell... time will tell...
>The point of J++ and any other Windows dependent
:|
>Java clone is to make the cost of moving from
>Windows too great for people to switch to another
>OS.
That is the whole point isn't it? Microsoft is protecting it's monopoly market position by getting aspiring Java developers to use proprietary and non-portable tools.
J++, DirectX, ASP, COM/DCOM/COM+, MFC. All very proprietary technologies and related as to underlying purpose - killing crossplatform capablility.
It's painfully obvious.
So what? People are going to complain no matter what you do so quit worrying about it. Move on.
Just finish the Linux Standard Base specification and we can all code for the standard and it wont matter WHAT distro you use... the program will work.
Nuff said.
Notice how the things that Borland must do are outlined specifically? Notice how the things that Microsoft must do are left intentionally ambiguous?
Also, I got tired of Microsoft development environments and went to Delphi. I loved it. Now, it looks like even that wont work anymore.
Thank God for Linux.
If Microsoft *APPEARS* to be easier then, to the user, perception is reality.
We must not only make Linux easier to install but it should configure itself (at least for desktop distros). Furthermore, Linux should endear perception of near-sentience to the new user in configuring itself and presenting user interface to services.
Then, Linux will be ready enough for the OEM's to drop Windows completely without even a moment's hesitation.
HEHEhehehe..... I really like AC's. Thanx!
This one's going in my funny file.
how much Australian legislation would fail to pass the filter?
I *really* like this WindowManager - WindowMaker. The dockable apps, the sound handling, the smooth window handling, the easy configurability, the modest memory footprint, the graphical rendering of components.
WindowMaker just plain rocks!
Adfu was slow... yoda seems pretty fast. The add popped right up as if it was local.
but I think that the systems with the most usership will be able to put major pressure on server vendors to adopt a service/protocol.
That said, I also want to remind everyone that Windows9x is in an area (desktop) that Linux aspires to expand into (and doing quite well I might add); conversely, Linux excells where Microsoft wants to expand - the serverspace. Linux rests squarely in Microsoft's upgrade path for Win2000 and is eating into current NT and Windows installations.
Linux must be easier to install, configure and use than Win9x. Essentially, a nobrainer.
Briefly, much will be decided this year.
A friend of mine has one of these cards and loves it for it's capabilities! Yet, ATI has not provided drivers that are stable enough or problem free to make his experience memorable. He's a hairsbreadth away from getting a TNT2; especially since X and 3D support is now available in Linux.
FUMBLE! (aka ATI's dropping the ball...)
And remember... it's just an idea.
Why not allow patents on ideas?
The patent holder could carefully word his/her idea and back it up with hard data. The patent holder could not keep anyone from using the idea but if money had been made using the idea then the patent holder would be entitled to a royalty. The royalty period would expire after a certain amount of time had passed.
The idea is not to halt or impede the free flow of information but to reward those with good ideas! It would also allow scientists and engineers who were especially productive to get quite wealthy too! In turn, rapid advances in technology would result due to the increased incentive. New markets would be created for even higher profits for corporations. Private research would become commonplace.
Is this idea workable? If it is then I've already gotten my patent application in for it.
The movie was worth the price of admission and I'd go see it again. However, I was frankly underwhelmed. It didn't have the bravado or derringdo that the original movie had. The elements of suspense were missing, there was too much comedy, you could predict what happened next, the space and planetary graphics were not up to ESB standards. The JarJar Binks character could have had less comedy and more development (I liked the shielding though). The battle scene between JarJar's people and the droids could have been more realistic and less of a comedy free-for-all. The script needed some major tightening. There is little believable emotion in or between characters. The kid seems to care NOTHING for his mother! Only the interaction between Anakin and Queen Amidala even approached an emotional level (and that was quickly squelched). Even the force was hardly visible in this movie.
Thats the criticism. Now the good stuff! The interaction between the two Jedi was very good. The fight scenes between the Jedi and Darth Maul were terrific! The graphics of the battle droids movement and shields were above and beyond. The development of Senator Palpatine was good but should have been taken much further - he was not menacing enough (I did like the wry smiles though). The Assembly Chamber was a very well done thing but waay too short of a segment. The best character in the movie, in my opinion, was Queen Amidala.
Queen Amidala is why I will go see this movie again!
Mr. Lucas,
Please reawaken the days when you did THX1138 and StarWars1,2,3. Make the evil guys REAL EVIL (Darth Maul was great and he hardly said a word), the good guys should have integrity (the Jedi were great but not deep enough), the emotions should be better represented. Deeply develop the characters.
I laugh at your pitiful rebellion!
now go crawl back under the rock you came from. :))
When Linux goes critical mass, we can probably free up some real estate around a small lake in Washington State.
Yeah. As I understand, the way many journaling systems work it, the filesystem itself is a database. Just as a database uses a journal to record transactions in preparation for committing or rollbacks, so does the journaling filesystem. The journal holds the transactions (block writes) until they are written, then the journal entries for them are cleared. If there is corruption in the filesystem, the journal can be used to bring the filesystem back to sanity.
:)
I've never lost an ext2 filesystem; it does, however, take some time to fsck... a journaling capability would be nice to have.
AFAIK, the "preferred" link is made in the startup scripts. I got to where I didn't like it much and just make sure I have a module directory that matches my kernel version. I do a 'depmod -a' then modprobe my modules and all is well.