You are aware that there are many BitTorrent clients out there that will need to be updated, right? BittTorrent is not like Notepad, which can be upgraded with one party.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
So you are saying that the FSF somehow forced Apple and other coorporations to given them the code and te rights on it to change the license. At gun point, I imagine?
I am not defending China. I am simply saying that even if you are going to use the term `communist' in a derogatory way like in the message I was responding to (which is debatable), you have at least to make sure that it applies to whatever you are being derogatory about!
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
And you know this how, exactly? Have you made experiments which show that multithreading would actually improve this, or have some other real information? In that case, I am absolutely sure the Xorg developers would love to heard from you and our data (and your code, of course!). If, on the other hand, you are saying this because you somehow believe that adding multithreading automagically makes things better, then you are not answering my question.
Take for example your third point... In what way, exactly, does multithreading help with that, in a context when you have a compositing manager, mediumly sane toolkits, and apps mediumly sanely written so as not to block the gui?
You have to wait for the update to be done. You can of course do something else in the meantime, like brewing a nice cup of tea, but that does not mean that the update is done any sooner.
Otherwise, in the general sense in which you took my post, one could even say that unless you are the last human alive, others can probably do whatever it is you needed the update for in case you die while waiting for the update, so there is really no hurry.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Let me put it this way. If we were to come up with say, a new open standard for a window system API, and all the associated drivers necessary for it, etc., and we were to submit that to ISO, we would call it something like the Open Window Standard or somesuch. X.Org would rename themselves to "Open X.Org." X is as much a defacto standard as.doc, but that doesn't make it good. And anyone whose ever had X break on them can testify to the fact that it's just not an elegant solution for how to do things. It's inefficient, it's monolithic, it doesn't play well with multiple processors, it has all these flaws. I didn't think I had to bring those things up: this is Slashdot, we know the flaws are there. Dammit, we should be complaining about them shouldn't we?
Actually, here in slashdot what we get is lots of people, much as yourself, mentioning flaws. But very few people have any real idea of what they are talking and about one third (being generous!) of the posters are probably among those that think that KDE is a window manager, that QT and GTK are part of X, and that have some very mystical and completely misguided understanding of how the SELECTION protocol works.
There are flaws. This is obvious from reading the mailing lists of the X developers. But your blowing hot air about `flaws' in no way is comparable to any positive action with regards to their solution---let alone their identification.
But for desktop users we have a monolithic window system that breaks, all the damn time, and has fallen so far behind the competition that it's only recently become usable and with an enormous investment of effort into hacking 3d rendering into it.
When does it break, exactly, and all that frequently, for desktop users? In what way does its being monolithic affect anyone apart from its own developers? Are you really not aware of the reasons why accelerated 3d rendering goes at somewhat glacial speed?
I shouldn't need to say those things though, as I said, this is Slashdot. People here know what the problems with X are, dammit, I'm announcing my dissatisfaction. People reply with "You don't like it, code your own," ok. Let's start. Let's make a development program for a replacement for X that will correctly process the hooks for a few popular toolkits (QT,GTK+) and work from there.
Ah. I see. You are going to be in charge of the management of such a project...
And I imagine you'll want to participate in the critique part, too! We will contact you.
If we can get QT4 and GTK+2 working on something -other- than X, that will be major progress.
Both work on top of things other than X, on top of several different things in fact.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
What `issues' would you describe as crippling?
In what way being multithreaded would help? Do you know or are you simply repeating something you heard?
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
configuring it still sucks
That's less and less the case. The whole of my xorg.conf was written automatically without my participation. The only thing I was asked was the layout of my keyboard.
Sucking was when you had to invoke the help of the mightier gods in order to protect you from having your monitor burst in flames and/or emit very acute noises when you were trying modelines and sync rates...
...assuming you do like seeing gcc lines go by for extended periods of time, no?
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
And you dodge the point that the developer is pretty much always also the distributor. The fact that there are other distributors too doesn't change this. Thus, the developer is for all intents and purposes bound by the GPL.
Of course a person can assume many roles.
As long as the developer is only a developer, he can do whatever he pleases with the GPL code written by others he got for free. Now, as soon as he wants to distribute it, there are terms he has to accept. For example, there is quite a lot of modified GPL code in my computer, which I modified from sources I got from others---yet I have not distributed them, so I am 100% unbound by the GPL. Were I to distribute the modified code, thereby becoming a distributor for derived works of thr GPL code I got from others, then yes, qua distributor, I have to comply with the GPL.
Great anaytical powers are not required to make the distinction, and your trying to make it go away is, well, silly.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I guess Apple was not just an user, then...
Well, the fact that most users are not going to be using a compiler applies to Fedora and other distros too. It is quite irrelevant. Fedora is very different from OS X. Most Linux software packages are designed from the start to be easy to install by compiling../configure --prefix=/usr/local/nut --with-usb; make; make install. Most distros are moving to a system where you use pre-built packages nowadays however even my Ubuntu servers i end up having to compile at least one package by hand to get it where i want it. I don't think I've ever compiled anything on a mac OS X system and the user base apple is targeting is not going to be using the compiler. The user base Fedora and Ubuntu target will be using a compiler its a fact of life with linux.
That's not true, really. Neither of those distros install a compiler or gmake by default even. Of course, if you want development tools, you can get them trivially., and they are very much designed to be able to dogfood in a trivial way. But I would never call F8 a distro targetted for developers... I would not be using it otherwise.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Your point was that, since the GPL binds the developer, a license such as BSD is freer. Now, the GPL does not bind the developer, so that argument carries absolutely no weight. There are other arguments to be made, but yours does not take you anywhere.
After that you said:
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".
I cannot make any sense of this. As I said before, there is no total order on liberties. You appear to believe that `protecting the user' means `less free', while `protecting the developer' means `more free': this is a meaningless statement. As I said, unless you specify who it provides that extra freedom and what that freedom allows the recipient to do, `comparing freeness' does not mean anything.
You have yet to produce something apart from `sigh's and `stop playing semantic games'. This is quite tiresome...
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, the fact that most users are not going to be using a compiler applies to Fedora and other distros too. It is quite irrelevant.
Apple can take a GPL-licensed compiler, modify it to their pleasure, use it to compile whatever applications they want, and distribute the resulting binaries. As long as they are not distributing the modified compiler, they are not---I repeat--they are NOT bound by the GPL. There is very little that can be described as "more free" than that.
Now, if they want to distribute the compiler too, then yes, they become distributors of a derivative work and have to comply with the GPL.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user.
I have never said that the user is bound by the license, as that would be absurdly idiotic, as the license says so itself in the first couple of paragraphs. The developer, too, is not bound by the license. The distributor is who is bound by the license, because it is a copyright license. It is not that hard.
Still playing silly semantic games. The fact that there is a second group of distributors makes no difference to the actual argument. That second group is not "users", either.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You asked "And in how many cases is the developer not the distributor?" and I pointed you to the easily established fact that most people do not get GPL code from the developers, but from distributors who are not the developers.
I do not think "semantic games" means what you think it means. From what you write, you seem to think that it means "LALALALALALALALAAL". It doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The misunderstanding about the meaning of the word law in `Godwin's law' (essentially, `observation') that one can see in this sight is distressing...
You are aware that there are many BitTorrent clients out there that will need to be updated, right? BittTorrent is not like Notepad, which can be upgraded with one party.
So you are saying that the FSF somehow forced Apple and other coorporations to given them the code and te rights on it to change the license. At gun point, I imagine?
You really, really, really think that Obama is the same as Bush?
And that makes it OK in your mind?
I am not defending China. I am simply saying that even if you are going to use the term `communist' in a derogatory way like in the message I was responding to (which is debatable), you have at least to make sure that it applies to whatever you are being derogatory about!
And you know this how, exactly? Have you made experiments which show that multithreading would actually improve this, or have some other real information? In that case, I am absolutely sure the Xorg developers would love to heard from you and our data (and your code, of course!). If, on the other hand, you are saying this because you somehow believe that adding multithreading automagically makes things better, then you are not answering my question.
Take for example your third point... In what way, exactly, does multithreading help with that, in a context when you have a compositing manager, mediumly sane toolkits, and apps mediumly sanely written so as not to block the gui?
As opposed to the US, which has brought so much good to the world lately, I guess.
(By the way, China is as communist as the US is a free market...)
If you picked portage because you think other distros make you wait six months for updates, well, you made a very misguided decision.
You have to wait for the update to be done. You can of course do something else in the meantime, like brewing a nice cup of tea, but that does not mean that the update is done any sooner.
Otherwise, in the general sense in which you took my post, one could even say that unless you are the last human alive, others can probably do whatever it is you needed the update for in case you die while waiting for the update, so there is really no hurry.
Actually, here in slashdot what we get is lots of people, much as yourself, mentioning flaws. But very few people have any real idea of what they are talking and about one third (being generous!) of the posters are probably among those that think that KDE is a window manager, that QT and GTK are part of X, and that have some very mystical and completely misguided understanding of how the SELECTION protocol works.
There are flaws. This is obvious from reading the mailing lists of the X developers. But your blowing hot air about `flaws' in no way is comparable to any positive action with regards to their solution---let alone their identification.
But for desktop users we have a monolithic window system that breaks, all the damn time, and has fallen so far behind the competition that it's only recently become usable and with an enormous investment of effort into hacking 3d rendering into it.When does it break, exactly, and all that frequently, for desktop users? In what way does its being monolithic affect anyone apart from its own developers? Are you really not aware of the reasons why accelerated 3d rendering goes at somewhat glacial speed?
I shouldn't need to say those things though, as I said, this is Slashdot. People here know what the problems with X are, dammit, I'm announcing my dissatisfaction. People reply with "You don't like it, code your own," ok. Let's start. Let's make a development program for a replacement for X that will correctly process the hooks for a few popular toolkits (QT,GTK+) and work from there.Ah. I see. You are going to be in charge of the management of such a project... And I imagine you'll want to participate in the critique part, too! We will contact you.
If we can get QT4 and GTK+2 working on something -other- than X, that will be major progress.Both work on top of things other than X, on top of several different things in fact.
What `issues' would you describe as crippling?
In what way being multithreaded would help? Do you know or are you simply repeating something you heard?
That's less and less the case. The whole of my xorg.conf was written automatically without my participation. The only thing I was asked was the layout of my keyboard.
Sucking was when you had to invoke the help of the mightier gods in order to protect you from having your monitor burst in flames and/or emit very acute noises when you were trying modelines and sync rates...
How bad can a review be? This provides no useful information, except that the reviewer seems to have liked it a lot.
you have to wait, though...
You are fun in a way only sci.math cranks are fun...
Of course that can be ignored in so far as you are discussing the GPL because the GPL is a distribution license which only affects distribution.
Do those machines have several cores?
...assuming you do like seeing gcc lines go by for extended periods of time, no?
Of course a person can assume many roles.
As long as the developer is only a developer, he can do whatever he pleases with the GPL code written by others he got for free. Now, as soon as he wants to distribute it, there are terms he has to accept. For example, there is quite a lot of modified GPL code in my computer, which I modified from sources I got from others---yet I have not distributed them, so I am 100% unbound by the GPL. Were I to distribute the modified code, thereby becoming a distributor for derived works of thr GPL code I got from others, then yes, qua distributor, I have to comply with the GPL.
Great anaytical powers are not required to make the distinction, and your trying to make it go away is, well, silly.
I guess Apple was not just an user, then...
Well, the fact that most users are not going to be using a compiler applies to Fedora and other distros too. It is quite irrelevant. Fedora is very different from OS X. Most Linux software packages are designed from the start to be easy to install by compiling.That's not true, really. Neither of those distros install a compiler or gmake by default even. Of course, if you want development tools, you can get them trivially., and they are very much designed to be able to dogfood in a trivial way. But I would never call F8 a distro targetted for developers... I would not be using it otherwise.
nonce-sense: n. a sense that is used exactly one time.
What is an illegal picture?
Your point was that, since the GPL binds the developer, a license such as BSD is freer. Now, the GPL does not bind the developer, so that argument carries absolutely no weight. There are other arguments to be made, but yours does not take you anywhere.
After that you said:
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".I cannot make any sense of this. As I said before, there is no total order on liberties. You appear to believe that `protecting the user' means `less free', while `protecting the developer' means `more free': this is a meaningless statement. As I said, unless you specify who it provides that extra freedom and what that freedom allows the recipient to do, `comparing freeness' does not mean anything.
You have yet to produce something apart from `sigh's and `stop playing semantic games'. This is quite tiresome...
Well, the fact that most users are not going to be using a compiler applies to Fedora and other distros too. It is quite irrelevant.
Apple can take a GPL-licensed compiler, modify it to their pleasure, use it to compile whatever applications they want, and distribute the resulting binaries. As long as they are not distributing the modified compiler, they are not---I repeat--they are NOT bound by the GPL. There is very little that can be described as "more free" than that.
Now, if they want to distribute the compiler too, then yes, they become distributors of a derivative work and have to comply with the GPL.
Your point was literally:
the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user.I have never said that the user is bound by the license, as that would be absurdly idiotic, as the license says so itself in the first couple of paragraphs. The developer, too, is not bound by the license. The distributor is who is bound by the license, because it is a copyright license. It is not that hard.
Still playing silly semantic games. The fact that there is a second group of distributors makes no difference to the actual argument. That second group is not "users", either.I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You asked "And in how many cases is the developer not the distributor?" and I pointed you to the easily established fact that most people do not get GPL code from the developers, but from distributors who are not the developers.
I do not think "semantic games" means what you think it means. From what you write, you seem to think that it means "LALALALALALALALAAL". It doesn't.