Yep, but if I were designing client software to be used on an average Windows user's machine, I'd probably want it to be a compiled executable, that would run right out of the box.
Looking at it, Ruby's uses an interpretter. There's nothing like Py2exe that I can find that would generate executables. Ruby would be fine for server-side stuff, but not for client apps.
Isn't the art of good coding to make things as efficient as possible?
No! Nonononononono!
Efficiency of your code only matters when you specifically need your code to be efficient. In the case of IM, that simply isn't the case.
Efficient code counts for nothing if the overall structure is not clean and well thought out, especially when it comes to standard formats, or libraries.
Any good programmer will know this.
With a binary format the data can usually in whole or part be mapped direct onto a C structure. In other words the parsing is down for you in a few lines and uses up bugger all CPU.
The advantages of this do not outweight the disadvantages. Sure, you may get your IM application constructing and destructing messages at times under 1ms, but when it's going to take 200ms or so for the messages to arrive, who cares? The speed that binary protocols would give mean nothing outside absolute real-time environments (such as networked Quake III:). For IM, using a binary protocol would be pointless.
Binary data is far, far harder to extend, and it would also be harder for the programmer to make a parsing algorithm. Since it's XML, he can just use a library to do the work for him. This makes the code modular, simpler, easier to maintain, and less prone to error.
I said CASUAL snooping. If someone can just run tcpdump on a LAN they can read all the correspondance going on. If they have to figure out the protocol they'll probably not bother unless they have malicious intent.
Security through obscurity. The point is that if you want security, you'd just encrypt it. Jabber does have an option to do that. It's as simple as pressing a button.
By having obscure protocols, you just give the illusion of security. And in any case, just because an IM protocol is binary doesn't mean that it won't have plaintext within it.
Yes it was, but being a high level network protocol was NOT one of them.
By using XML, you have the benefit of having a selection of XML libraries to do the work of parsing for you. You have the advantage that it's easy to debug, because it's human-readable. You have the advantage that XML is easily extensible, unlike a binary protocol.
Terseness doesn't particularly matter for an IM protocol. Therefore there is no reason for the speed of a binary protocol. Security through an obscure protocol is silly, as with a standard it would be simple just to pipe tcpdump through a translator. All it discourages is the most casual of listeners. If you have something important to say, encrypt it. It's as easy as setting an option.
Binary has lots of disadvantages. It's very hard to extend, which was one of the main goals for Jabber. It's also harder to parse than XML, considering the amount of libraries availiable. It's harder to debug and more error-prone, thus affecting stability.
XML isn't perfect. It's got a lot of crap in the protocol that isn't needed. But for Jabber, XML was the perfect choice.
Oh, who cares at this point?:) - The first language that comes to my mind when someone says "truly OO scripting language", isn't Python, or Ruby, but Smalltalk;)
Ruby I haven't looked at much. Does it have a compiler and access to a good GUI toolkit, like Qt or wxWindows?
I have used Java. I have used Python. Python's clearly the better language out of those two. You seem to have dragged Ruby into it; for what reason, I have no idea. I take it you're a Ruby fan?
"you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
Um, how is that at all, in any way, relevant? I'm talking about a script that would do the same thing as a human in downloading and installing it. Unless there's a specific clause saying "no automation", then if a human can download it, a script can download it.
A download script created from scratch and sharing no common code with Quicktime, would obviously not be a derivitive work of the separate video codec. I rather fail to see your point.
I'm not really a "fan", per se, of Python. I'm in favour of using the language which is best for the job. Ruby may be better than Python at some things. Lisp may be better than Python and Ruby at others. So what? I'm just claiming Python is obviously better than Java, as a language. I fail to see your point.
Well then that's tough. The GPL is based on Copyright law. They can "not recognise it" all the way into court and out the other side. It doesn't do them any good. Just because you don't "recognise" a law, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
Trolltech has said, in nice, clear, watertight legal writing, that anyone can do anything they like with the Qt library, as long as they pass on the modifications to the source. If Canopy, who have no control over Trolltech anyway, say that's invalid, then tough. There's nothing they can do about it.
Anyone who claims that the GPL is unenforceable or against the constitution is just delusional. I submit the example of SCO.
Acutally, QT is dual licensed.
That doesn't make it any less fully GPLed, you idiot. All GPLed software is "dual licensed" anyway, as the author(s) retain their own copyright over it, even after it's been GPLed.
Yes, yes, but that's not the same. STL strings cannot be passed into Qt functions without some form of converstion. Therefore, in my view, Qt is not compatable with the STL. It is, however, compatable with the C++ language.
The problem with evolutionists is that well It is simply an attempt remove any reference to GOD in life and project arrogant people as "gods".
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. It's just too stupid for words.
The fact is there is NONE absolutely no evidence at all of the BIG BANG.
Some people like to check their facts before arguing a point. Other people like to pull things out of their ass and pass them off as facts. You seem to be shaping up to be the latter.
Scientists have not yet explained the big bang other than it may have happened but don't know where the original mass came from and that is where every evolution, big bang, small bang, spread theory, alien theory, big suns theory, super mass theory, goes wrong.
Uhuh... So let me get this straught. Your argument is, as follows:
1. Science doesn't adequately explain why the big bang occured. 2. ??? 3. Therefore I'm right!
Perverting and bastardizing the laws of physics to prove a point for selfish reasons is not science. It is false diseased conjecture and it belongs with all of those religious fruitcake cults you seem to have the misfortune of running into too all the time.
Isn't that what you were doing with the "Second Law of Themodynamics" argument you rattled on about for so long?
Religious relics are false(what?).
Oh, I was just talking about all of the pieces of wood and nails and such that were passed off as religious artifacts in the middle ages. I was just pointing out that there have been far more faked religious artifacts throughout history then there has been faked scientific evidence.
No offence intended, at all. Any scientist that fakes evidence is no more a scientist than a priest who fakes a religious relic is a priest.
One of the reasons Creationism is plausibleto me is it has a scientific explanation of what was, is, and is to become with no gaps. no postulating. Any questions can be answered. Any other theory I have read major has problems.
There's a large problem with Creationism as a scientific theory. It's not.
You can believe in Creationism, yes. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But it's not science. It's not a theory that can be disproved through observation. Ergo, it is not a scientific theory.
One BIG one that you hit upon was the bridging hominids Where are the hominids? Where are the skeletons? Where are the bones in the opposable thumbs of the hominids?. There has not been a single skeleton found or partial one found.
Meanhwile there have been thousands of skeletons found of humans.
Skeletons. Not fossils. Skeletons decay; they're biological. When preserved in a pyramid or in a grave, they last longer, but they still decay. Skeletons don't last a million years, so obviously there are no skeletons of early man/ape.
There are, however, fossils. Fossilisation is a very rare process where the bones are gradually replaced by rock. How many fossils of humans are there? No more proportionally than earlier species.
But go ahead if you want your 10^1000th great grandfather to be a chimp. Be my guest. My oldest ancestor had no belly button and named chimps.
I don't think it's a matter of "want" on my part. More that it's a fact of life. The majority of the evidence points toward me having an ape-like ancestor. Of course, I'm not directly descended from chimps, and nor do I believe that's the case. However, the overwhelming evidence points to me and the
That was kinda my point to begin with. I haven't looked at Qt in a while, so I could be wrong, but Qt uses the QString class, I think.
Anyway, is it possible to pass a string to a Qt class and have is implicitly changed to a QString? If not, then Qt's incompatable with the STL, by my definition. It's compatable with standard C++, but, as I say, that was my point all along.
You people keep proving my point: Trolltech needs to come clean on exactly what their relationship is with Canopy, Ralph Yarro and SCO.
Huh? What does it matter? Canopy can't tell Trolltech to do anything the employees don't want. So the Canopy owning stock issue is moot; it all depends on what the Trolltech employees want to do. You might as well ask Trolltech to come clean on exactly what their relationship is with William Shatner. He can exert as much influence on Trolltech policy as Canopy can; i.e. none.
The scary part is this : Canopy and SCO may have warrants on Trolltech ( that is the ability to buy Trolltech at a later date).
That is how outsiders can take control of a company.
Uhuh. And who, exactly, would care? I mean firstly, it's highly unlikely to be bought by Canopy, and astronomically unlikely to be bought by SCO. But even if it were bought? So what?
Qt is GPL.
If the Qt library goes in a direction that the Open Source community doesn't like, it can be forked. Simple as that.
Whilst it's commendable you care so much about Trolltech, the Qt library is fully GPL. So if, heaven forbid, the Trolltech ship goes down, it won't take Qt with it. That all said, I personally think Trolltech's doing a great job so far.
"Canopy has no control" The guy that runs Canopy sits on the board of directors of Trolltech !!! That sounds like control to me.
Since you don't understand how the board of directors works, let me explain. One share equals one vote. Canopy has 5.7% of the votes. Trolltech employees have 64.7% of the votes. They control the company. No-one else matters because they control the majority of the votes. Canopy can't tell them to do anything, because they're outvoted.
This is how people retain control of PLCs. As long as the original owners retain 51% of the shares, it doesn't matter who owns the rest. Trolltech has nothing to say upon this matter because Canopy has absolutely no say in the running of Trolltech.
"According to http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html the Canopy Group only has 5.7% shares of Trolltech while 64.7% are in posession of Trolltech employees with an additional 5% controlled by the Trolltech founders. One can hardly say that the Canopy Group owns or controls Trolltech"
Canopy bought stock in Trolltech. Such things happen all the time. Canopy clearly had no control over the company at all, nor any real influence.
Perl and Python are WORA as well. They're often faster to develop in than Java, and have toolkits such as Qt and wxWindows. Personally, if I wanted a WORA application, I'd use Python/wxWindows to do it. It would be slower to run, but for most applications that doesn't so much matter.
If you want speed, then compile your software. Qt's GUI library is better than any for Java. No, really. I can't comprehend of anyone who has used both systems of prefering Java. Likewise, Python is a better language than Java is. I'd say this is all my opinion and whatnot, but, well, I can't believe that anyone that has used both Java and Python extensively could possibly think the former was better for client application development.
The only time you'd need Java for a desktop application, is if you need speed desperately, and you really, really don't want to have to compile it to get that speed.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.
Which means, in case you're wondering, that no, they couldn't create a script to circumvent it.
Why not? I can't see anything in that license which forbids having script download the file, open it, and then create a symbolic link from the dll to the MPlayer codec directory. After all, if a human can do those things, why not an automated script? And even if they forbid automation (which would be pointless for them), MPlayer could still put up a script on its site; there's no DMCA in Hungary.
In any case, I don't particularly believe that it's advantageous for Apple's Quicktime, or any other companies, to forbid MPlayer to supply the dlls. After all, Apple wants users to have its codec. The more the better. That's why it's giving it away, so that people will use Quicktime to actually encode movies because lots of people have the codec to decode the thing. It wouldn't be in Apple's interests to ask MPlayer to stop.
If they did ask MPlayer to stop, I'd imagine they would, straight away. Then Maplyer would put a link to the Quicktime codec up, so that users could download it themselves. Then the users could either put the dll in the MPlayer codec directory, or symbolic link it. The effect would be the same, just more difficult for the user. So this is illegal such that it removes the step of going to a load of difference websites.
As for a script, well, the installer could be tricky, I suppose. I guess someone would have to come up with something using WINE, or just figure out how to unzip the data without touching the install (done in a country where reverse engineering is legal). Or just not use Quicktime.
So Apple benefits from this. It wants people to have its codec. MPlayer provides that. It could ask them to take it down, in which case MPlayer would certainly do so, but that would only harm Apple.
So no, Mplayer is completely in the wrong, legally and otherwise. That's just one example. Feel free to track down the license agreements for their other codecs to check for yourself.
"Legally and otherwise"? I can see it legally being in the wrong, assuming that Hungarian law doesn't trump the right parts of Apple's license, but otherwise? What's morally wrong about it? Apple benefits by having more people having the Quicktime codec. The users benefit, as they can see Quicktime movies. I suppose the lawyers don't benefit, but then unless MPlayer refused to take down the copyrighted material, they wouldn't benefit much anyway. So although this may, and I stress the may, be legally wrong, it benefits all parties involved.
On the other hand, MPlayer, the actual program, contains no known copyright violations. KISS does, and this copyright violation does not benefit the original authors in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but if I were designing client software to be used on an average Windows user's machine, I'd probably want it to be a compiled executable, that would run right out of the box.
I would imagine radio control could be jammed by the opposing force.
You can save a good fraction of a second for your critical UI-bound application that way.
Wow. A good fraction of a second in an application where the bottleneck will almost certainly be network latency.
Looking at it, Ruby's uses an interpretter. There's nothing like Py2exe that I can find that would generate executables. Ruby would be fine for server-side stuff, but not for client apps.
Isn't the art of good coding to make things as efficient as possible?
:). For IM, using a binary protocol would be pointless.
No! Nonononononono!
Efficiency of your code only matters when you specifically need your code to be efficient. In the case of IM, that simply isn't the case.
Efficient code counts for nothing if the overall structure is not clean and well thought out, especially when it comes to standard formats, or libraries.
Any good programmer will know this.
With a binary format the data can usually in whole or part be mapped direct onto a C structure. In other words the parsing is down for you in a few lines and uses up bugger all CPU.
The advantages of this do not outweight the disadvantages. Sure, you may get your IM application constructing and destructing messages at times under 1ms, but when it's going to take 200ms or so for the messages to arrive, who cares? The speed that binary protocols would give mean nothing outside absolute real-time environments (such as networked Quake III
Binary data is far, far harder to extend, and it would also be harder for the programmer to make a parsing algorithm. Since it's XML, he can just use a library to do the work for him. This makes the code modular, simpler, easier to maintain, and less prone to error.
I said CASUAL snooping. If someone can just run tcpdump on a LAN they can read all the correspondance going on. If they have to figure out the protocol they'll probably not bother unless they have malicious intent.
Security through obscurity. The point is that if you want security, you'd just encrypt it. Jabber does have an option to do that. It's as simple as pressing a button.
By having obscure protocols, you just give the illusion of security. And in any case, just because an IM protocol is binary doesn't mean that it won't have plaintext within it.
Yes it was, but being a high level network protocol was NOT one of them.
By using XML, you have the benefit of having a selection of XML libraries to do the work of parsing for you. You have the advantage that it's easy to debug, because it's human-readable. You have the advantage that XML is easily extensible, unlike a binary protocol.
Terseness doesn't particularly matter for an IM protocol. Therefore there is no reason for the speed of a binary protocol. Security through an obscure protocol is silly, as with a standard it would be simple just to pipe tcpdump through a translator. All it discourages is the most casual of listeners. If you have something important to say, encrypt it. It's as easy as setting an option.
Binary has lots of disadvantages. It's very hard to extend, which was one of the main goals for Jabber. It's also harder to parse than XML, considering the amount of libraries availiable. It's harder to debug and more error-prone, thus affecting stability.
XML isn't perfect. It's got a lot of crap in the protocol that isn't needed. But for Jabber, XML was the perfect choice.
Oh, who cares at this point? :) - The first language that comes to my mind when someone says "truly OO scripting language", isn't Python, or Ruby, but Smalltalk ;)
Ruby I haven't looked at much. Does it have a compiler and access to a good GUI toolkit, like Qt or wxWindows?
Without having used Ruby, I couldn't comment :P
I have used Java. I have used Python. Python's clearly the better language out of those two. You seem to have dragged Ruby into it; for what reason, I have no idea. I take it you're a Ruby fan?
This has turned into a rant and rave non logical blog.
:)
What the hell are you talking about? No, wait, I don't really want to know.
I'm out.
Bye!
"you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
Um, how is that at all, in any way, relevant? I'm talking about a script that would do the same thing as a human in downloading and installing it. Unless there's a specific clause saying "no automation", then if a human can download it, a script can download it.
A download script created from scratch and sharing no common code with Quicktime, would obviously not be a derivitive work of the separate video codec. I rather fail to see your point.
Sorry :(
Here
I'm not really a "fan", per se, of Python. I'm in favour of using the language which is best for the job. Ruby may be better than Python at some things. Lisp may be better than Python and Ruby at others. So what? I'm just claiming Python is obviously better than Java, as a language. I fail to see your point.
C-A-N-O-P-Y-D-O-E-S-N-O-T-R-E-C-O-G-N-I-Z-E-T-H-E- G-.-P-.-L-.
Well then that's tough. The GPL is based on Copyright law. They can "not recognise it" all the way into court and out the other side. It doesn't do them any good. Just because you don't "recognise" a law, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
Trolltech has said, in nice, clear, watertight legal writing, that anyone can do anything they like with the Qt library, as long as they pass on the modifications to the source. If Canopy, who have no control over Trolltech anyway, say that's invalid, then tough. There's nothing they can do about it.
Anyone who claims that the GPL is unenforceable or against the constitution is just delusional. I submit the example of SCO.
Acutally, QT is dual licensed.
That doesn't make it any less fully GPLed, you idiot. All GPLed software is "dual licensed" anyway, as the author(s) retain their own copyright over it, even after it's been GPLed.
Yes, yes, but that's not the same. STL strings cannot be passed into Qt functions without some form of converstion. Therefore, in my view, Qt is not compatable with the STL. It is, however, compatable with the C++ language.
The problem with evolutionists is that well It is simply an attempt remove any reference to GOD in life and project arrogant people as "gods".
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. It's just too stupid for words.
The fact is there is NONE absolutely no evidence at all of the BIG BANG.
Some people like to check their facts before arguing a point. Other people like to pull things out of their ass and pass them off as facts. You seem to be shaping up to be the latter.
It took google 0.05 seconds to return 208,000 results for "evidence for the big bang". Here's the first link: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.ht ml#BBevidence.
Scientists have not yet explained the big bang other than it may have happened but don't know where the original mass came from and that is where every evolution, big bang, small bang, spread theory, alien theory, big suns theory, super mass theory, goes wrong.
Uhuh... So let me get this straught. Your argument is, as follows:
1. Science doesn't adequately explain why the big bang occured.
2. ???
3. Therefore I'm right!
Perverting and bastardizing the laws of physics to prove a point for selfish reasons is not science. It is false diseased conjecture and it belongs with all of those religious fruitcake cults you seem to have the misfortune of running into too all the time.
Isn't that what you were doing with the "Second Law of Themodynamics" argument you rattled on about for so long?
Religious relics are false(what?).
Oh, I was just talking about all of the pieces of wood and nails and such that were passed off as religious artifacts in the middle ages. I was just pointing out that there have been far more faked religious artifacts throughout history then there has been faked scientific evidence.
No offence intended, at all. Any scientist that fakes evidence is no more a scientist than a priest who fakes a religious relic is a priest.
One of the reasons Creationism is plausibleto me is it has a scientific explanation of what was, is, and is to become with no gaps. no postulating. Any questions can be answered. Any other theory I have read major has problems.
There's a large problem with Creationism as a scientific theory. It's not.
You can believe in Creationism, yes. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But it's not science. It's not a theory that can be disproved through observation. Ergo, it is not a scientific theory.
One BIG one that you hit upon was the bridging hominids Where are the hominids? Where are the skeletons? Where are the bones in the opposable thumbs of the hominids?. There has not been a single skeleton found or partial one found.
Um, yes there has. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Meanhwile there have been thousands of skeletons found of humans.
Skeletons. Not fossils. Skeletons decay; they're biological. When preserved in a pyramid or in a grave, they last longer, but they still decay. Skeletons don't last a million years, so obviously there are no skeletons of early man/ape.
There are, however, fossils. Fossilisation is a very rare process where the bones are gradually replaced by rock. How many fossils of humans are there? No more proportionally than earlier species.
But go ahead if you want your 10^1000th great grandfather to be a chimp. Be my guest. My oldest ancestor had no belly button and named chimps.
I don't think it's a matter of "want" on my part. More that it's a fact of life. The majority of the evidence points toward me having an ape-like ancestor. Of course, I'm not directly descended from chimps, and nor do I believe that's the case. However, the overwhelming evidence points to me and the
That was kinda my point to begin with. I haven't looked at Qt in a while, so I could be wrong, but Qt uses the QString class, I think.
Anyway, is it possible to pass a string to a Qt class and have is implicitly changed to a QString? If not, then Qt's incompatable with the STL, by my definition. It's compatable with standard C++, but, as I say, that was my point all along.
You people keep proving my point: Trolltech
needs to come clean on exactly what their
relationship is with Canopy, Ralph Yarro
and SCO.
Huh? What does it matter? Canopy can't tell Trolltech to do anything the employees don't want. So the Canopy owning stock issue is moot; it all depends on what the Trolltech employees want to do. You might as well ask Trolltech to come clean on exactly what their relationship is with William Shatner. He can exert as much influence on Trolltech policy as Canopy can; i.e. none.
The scary part is this : Canopy and SCO may
have warrants on Trolltech ( that is the ability
to buy Trolltech at a later date).
That is how outsiders can take control of a
company.
Uhuh. And who, exactly, would care? I mean firstly, it's highly unlikely to be bought by Canopy, and astronomically unlikely to be bought by SCO. But even if it were bought? So what?
Qt is GPL.
If the Qt library goes in a direction that the Open Source community doesn't like, it can be forked. Simple as that.
Whilst it's commendable you care so much about Trolltech, the Qt library is fully GPL. So if, heaven forbid, the Trolltech ship goes down, it won't take Qt with it. That all said, I personally think Trolltech's doing a great job so far.
"Canopy has no control" The guy that runs Canopy
sits on the board of directors of Trolltech !!!
That sounds like control to me.
Since you don't understand how the board of directors works, let me explain. One share equals one vote. Canopy has 5.7% of the votes. Trolltech employees have 64.7% of the votes. They control the company. No-one else matters because they control the majority of the votes. Canopy can't tell them to do anything, because they're outvoted.
This is how people retain control of PLCs. As long as the original owners retain 51% of the shares, it doesn't matter who owns the rest. Trolltech has nothing to say upon this matter because Canopy has absolutely no say in the running of Trolltech.
I thought the Qt string class was incompatable with STL string class.
Canopy bought stock in Trolltech. Such things happen all the time. Canopy clearly had no control over the company at all, nor any real influence.
That answered your question enough?
It's incompatable with the STL. But not standard C++.
Perl and Python are WORA as well. They're often faster to develop in than Java, and have toolkits such as Qt and wxWindows. Personally, if I wanted a WORA application, I'd use Python/wxWindows to do it. It would be slower to run, but for most applications that doesn't so much matter.
If you want speed, then compile your software. Qt's GUI library is better than any for Java. No, really. I can't comprehend of anyone who has used both systems of prefering Java. Likewise, Python is a better language than Java is. I'd say this is all my opinion and whatnot, but, well, I can't believe that anyone that has used both Java and Python extensively could possibly think the former was better for client application development.
The only time you'd need Java for a desktop application, is if you need speed desperately, and you really, really don't want to have to compile it to get that speed.
1) C++ (Because I can do everything in C) :)
You can do everything in assembly too.
2) Qt
Then why read this article at all? I don't go to say, cheese-rolling.com and talk about how I'm not interested in rolling cheeses.
wxWindows isn't as nice in my opinion, but it does have the advantage of running on windows without the need to get, or use, Visual C++.
So why would inserting a PGP key into one of the captchas help?
Which means, in case you're wondering, that no, they couldn't create a script to circumvent it.
Why not? I can't see anything in that license which forbids having script download the file, open it, and then create a symbolic link from the dll to the MPlayer codec directory. After all, if a human can do those things, why not an automated script? And even if they forbid automation (which would be pointless for them), MPlayer could still put up a script on its site; there's no DMCA in Hungary.
In any case, I don't particularly believe that it's advantageous for Apple's Quicktime, or any other companies, to forbid MPlayer to supply the dlls. After all, Apple wants users to have its codec. The more the better. That's why it's giving it away, so that people will use Quicktime to actually encode movies because lots of people have the codec to decode the thing. It wouldn't be in Apple's interests to ask MPlayer to stop.
If they did ask MPlayer to stop, I'd imagine they would, straight away. Then Maplyer would put a link to the Quicktime codec up, so that users could download it themselves. Then the users could either put the dll in the MPlayer codec directory, or symbolic link it. The effect would be the same, just more difficult for the user. So this is illegal such that it removes the step of going to a load of difference websites.
As for a script, well, the installer could be tricky, I suppose. I guess someone would have to come up with something using WINE, or just figure out how to unzip the data without touching the install (done in a country where reverse engineering is legal). Or just not use Quicktime.
So Apple benefits from this. It wants people to have its codec. MPlayer provides that. It could ask them to take it down, in which case MPlayer would certainly do so, but that would only harm Apple.
So no, Mplayer is completely in the wrong, legally and otherwise. That's just one example. Feel free to track down the license agreements for their other codecs to check for yourself.
"Legally and otherwise"? I can see it legally being in the wrong, assuming that Hungarian law doesn't trump the right parts of Apple's license, but otherwise? What's morally wrong about it? Apple benefits by having more people having the Quicktime codec. The users benefit, as they can see Quicktime movies. I suppose the lawyers don't benefit, but then unless MPlayer refused to take down the copyrighted material, they wouldn't benefit much anyway. So although this may, and I stress the may, be legally wrong, it benefits all parties involved.
On the other hand, MPlayer, the actual program, contains no known copyright violations. KISS does, and this copyright violation does not benefit the original authors in any way.