MSI/MSP files are notorious for the problems they cause due to the crappy shit the InstallShield produces and Microsoft uses.
I've spent the last few years moving all the apps our company produces off of MSI files just so we can cut down on installation issues like silly shit that happens when an MSI depends on an MSI that depends on running an EXE during installation or even worse when an MSI calls a EXE wrapper for another MSI instead of referencing the MSI file directly.
Guess what, you can still deploy them with a script or ActiveDirectory! MSI files are not required for centralized deployment, just a clue about what you are doing.
In short, if you think MSI files are great, you have must not have any experience dealing with them in a large installation.
Microsoft Update handles pretty much all MS apps at this point, once you visit it and install the required bits Windows Update turns into Microsoft Update and the problem is solved... for MS updates.
And yes, its fairly common for some people to be using software products before release. Ever heard of beta testing? Its pretty common to let some of your customers have an early crack at something so you can find out how well its going to work and find bugs you didn't otherwise predict or see.
Just because a lot of people use Word (or Java) does not mean they are good at it. The application really has a difficult time fixing stupid, regardless of application or language. The harder you try to fix stupid programmers, the more complex and more difficult it becomes to actually write secure software.
Everytime someone comes up with some way to 'make it easier' the end result is more often than not something thats simply more complex and just as broken and far more difficult to effectively understand. Garbage collection being a perfect example of something thats supposed to make it 'easier' but in almost every instance makes it more complex and more prone to errors since the developer really has NO CLUE whats actually going on.
However, newbies and those ignorant see marketing speak and think its true because they have no experience to know otherwise. Hence, Java is popular.
On that note however, as a former Java hater who had to start doing Java development, I came to realize that shitty buggy java apps are generally the fault of the shitty developer who made them, not Java. I blame code completing IDEs for letting people who THINK they are developers right software using methods that they assume do what they want based on the name, when in reality that is rarely if ever the case. Simple things like MIN/MAX are often used incorrectly by blathering idiots. Thats not the languages fault.
Right, because thats totally different than using SSH over your standard connection. Theres no way they can tap the tower and see your SSHing or anything!
The Egyptians didn't use violence, the lesson other dictators learned is to use more violence.
Probably because the Egyptians weren't nearly as bad off as the others.
Perhaps the fact that the leader realized he wasn't going to last, and backed of rather than making it a blood bath.
I realize I don't know jack shit about the guy or what he's done to them, but it would appear to me that he wasn't trying all that hard (in an evil way) to stop what happened. We've certainly seen FAR FAR worse done to people in the last 10 years for the exact same reasons.
One could also argue that the fact that the people protested in a (mostly) sane way might have something to do with the lack of bloodshed as well.
Its the difference between a sit in and a riot. Look at blacks in america. Sitins, non-violent protesting worked. Riots just got their own sections of towns burned to the ground by their own people. If you want peace you rarely get it by using violence. Rarely, not always, sometimes war and fighting is all you can do, but thats the last resort, not the first... at least for anyone who actually values the lives of others rather than just claiming they do in order to push their own agenda.
Facebook played little role in what happened, for some retarded reason, the same reason as the Google guy, it gets publicized like it brought down the evil Egyption dictator.
The reality of it is, it was the people who actually got off their asses and made their feeling known that changed Eygpt. Not Facebook, not some Google talking head who happens to live there.
Facebook doesn't even deserve an honorable mention. More people showed up because of telephone calls from friend than anything Facebook did, its retarded to attribute it to having an effect.
Actually, if you replaced the word 'allow' everytime you use it with 'require' then your post would actually be accurate.
“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use,
See that word... 'requiring' followed by 'as a condition of use'
See Unix.
The source code to UNIX is not open, never has been.
Linux != UNIX
The source code to UNIX has been available, for a fee (soemtimes free, depends on your agreement), under NDA forever, but it has never been open, which you should know after the whole SCO fiasco.
It bans libraries that require you to redistribute them if you use them. It doesn't ban any library for instance that you are not allowed to redistribute outside of your app, or any library you aren't allowed to redistribute at all.
You are, for instance, not allowed to redistribute the.NET runtime or DirectX layers for Windows Phone, so therefore they are not excluded.
It bans things that require MS to redistribute something other than the app in order to comply with the license.
there's plenty of popular high-quality GPL-licensed libraries in use
Thats not really a big issue, for any library that is sufficiently popular and common then there are alternatively licensed OSS packages that do the same thing without a viral license.
Those of us who dislike GPL and prefer BSD have simply written the libraries ourselves with a proper OSS license and just completely ignore GPL. Its far easier than worrying about meeting the demands of the cult of Stallman. Its not as if there is a GPLd library that does something entirely unique, pretty much all of it is rehashes of something that was already done under a different license. I challenge you to show me something GPL'd that is an original work, not a clear copy of someone elses previous work or idea.
And if the contributors don't, MS is legally responsible still.
And either way, why bother? Its just easier to say no. None of their customers are going to care.
Being realistic, no GPL zealot was going to buy a MS phone anyway, so this entire article and thread are amazingly silly and just a bunch of BS name calling.
If you don't like the situation and that your favorite license is constantly cutting itself out of potential places then I suggest you pick a new license to fanboy for, this one is working exactly as intended even if you don't want to admit to it.
This is not about lawsuit trolls, but about keeping an iron grip on the distribution channel.
Actually, this is more along the lines of you wanting to tell MS how to run their business, which you don't get to do.
You don't get to tell someone how to run their business, even if its against your idealogical view of the world. You get the choice to not use what they offer, but you don't get to define what they offer.
The only problem here is that people don't like the way MS (and Apple) have decided to run their stores, and the fact that the GPLv3 was intentionally designed to not be allowed in these situations. So go piss up a rope and see how far that gets you.
If you think GPLv3 is so great, you don't get to bitch about things like this when GPLv3 does exactly what it was intended to do. Its not MS or Apples problem, its yours.
Exactly what part of the GPLv3 prevents distribution via an "app store"?
Off the top of my head? Putting it on their store makes them a distributor, distribution requires that you grant the person you're giving the software too the rights to use the software regardless of any infringment it may do on YOUR patents.
So... if you are infringing on an MS patent, and they distribute it, then realize you're using their patents, they can't do anything about it.
At which point any intelligent company then preceeds to tell you to go fuck yourself, like Apple and Microsoft have done, to protect their own interests.
GPLv3 is very clearly and intentionally designed to fuck over anyone trying to use it in any sort of commercial setting. That was the intention from day one, no one anywhere tried to hide the fact, it was the reason that GPL was updated.
only way to distribute any applications that is the problem.
Its not really a problem for anyone but GPLv3 fanboys really. There isn't a single 'must have' GPL'd software package as 99.9% of them are just remakes of existing commercial software packages. End result? Instead of using GPL license software, people just use software under a more restrictive license since even though the license is more restrictive, it actually provides them what they want rather than requiring the user to believe in the authors idealogical bullshit.
This isn't a problem for anyone that matters, just zealots who cut off their own nose to spite their face. You got exactly what you wanted out of GPLv3, now STFU.
it is a success for GPLv3, they have made a company with many software patents paranoid and defensive.
You and I have different definitions of success.
To me, successful is not limiting yourself to obscurity, which is more or less what GPLv3 does. It ensures the code isn't going to be touched with someone elses 10 foot pole when companies start getting involved.
Retarded shit like the VLC incident on the Apple store reenforce that fact. Anyone with something to lose just stays away from GPL software, the companies who adopt it are typically ones that have already lost and are struggling to come up with a survival plan.
And I'm sorry for bringing communism into it, I know the GPL isn't a commie plot
Actually, GPL pretty much fits the definition of communism.
There is nothing wrong with communism, never has been, never will be. The reason America 'hates communism' is because some other countries that we were 'against' used it as the basis for their government, so that gave us something to hate... communism.
Pretty much every government service offered falls under a communist/socialist style, not capitalism.
The only problem with communism is when those in power use it with corruption to maintain/increase power and luxuries for themselves. The idea isn't flawed, but its practically impossible to implement. To implement it properly would require that everyone participating in it was actually dedicated to the common good, but that isn't the way people are hardwired. We're hardwired, thanks to evolution, to try to take control over others and be the leader, so communism simply can't work due to human instinct.
Communism can't work until humans hit some sort of civilization changing realization like in StarTrek where people stop caring about money and power and start working towards something greater for the good of all. Socialism is in the same boat for the same reason. Both great ideas that simply can't be implemented by humans.
No, its not, only licenses that have clauses relating to distribution. But hey, reading comprehension is hard and its easy to act like MS is the evil bad dude, why let a little thing like the truth or accuracy stand in your way.
Even BSD is self-perpetuating, so that's not strictly true either.
Wrong. 100%.
The BSD license requires copyright notices remain intact, thats it. You can relicense the code under any other license as long as you leave the copyright notice, not the license. It isn't self perpetuating considering you can take BSD code, relicense it as GPL and remove all reference to the BSD license except the copyright notice... which is not license related anyway.
A bunch of GPL fanyboys are pissed off that the license worked as intended and they were too stupid to realize this when they jumped on the fanboy wagon?
This is a common myth that companies and people have.
True, its just GPL that acts like a virus.
If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code? You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!
Funny, I distribute several libraries under closed source terms... they do nothing of the kind. You are more than welcome to redistribute the source to my libraries with your project... assuming the person you're distributing too has a license as well. GPL more or less requires you to change your license to GPL to be compatible with it. No closed source licenses that have ever seen have that restriction, its simply not profitable.
You're making up things and situations that simply don't exist in order to argue a point that isn't in contention by even anyone with a clue, including the guys who wrote it.
Slashdot Mirror
MSI/MSP files are notorious for the problems they cause due to the crappy shit the InstallShield produces and Microsoft uses.
I've spent the last few years moving all the apps our company produces off of MSI files just so we can cut down on installation issues like silly shit that happens when an MSI depends on an MSI that depends on running an EXE during installation or even worse when an MSI calls a EXE wrapper for another MSI instead of referencing the MSI file directly.
Guess what, you can still deploy them with a script or ActiveDirectory! MSI files are not required for centralized deployment, just a clue about what you are doing.
In short, if you think MSI files are great, you have must not have any experience dealing with them in a large installation.
2005 called, they want their feature back.
Windows Update only updates Windows issues.
Microsoft Update handles pretty much all MS apps at this point, once you visit it and install the required bits Windows Update turns into Microsoft Update and the problem is solved ... for MS updates.
So you want Sparkle/WinSparkle to be an OS library.
Sparkle might have happened previous to the OS X AppStore since the guy who writes it is an Apple employee but thats probably shot now.
I wouldn't expect anyone to make much effort in this direction though, it offers no profits and requires extra work.
You do realize 1994 was 17 years ago ... right?
And yes, its fairly common for some people to be using software products before release. Ever heard of beta testing? Its pretty common to let some of your customers have an early crack at something so you can find out how well its going to work and find bugs you didn't otherwise predict or see.
Just because a lot of people use Word (or Java) does not mean they are good at it. The application really has a difficult time fixing stupid, regardless of application or language. The harder you try to fix stupid programmers, the more complex and more difficult it becomes to actually write secure software.
Everytime someone comes up with some way to 'make it easier' the end result is more often than not something thats simply more complex and just as broken and far more difficult to effectively understand. Garbage collection being a perfect example of something thats supposed to make it 'easier' but in almost every instance makes it more complex and more prone to errors since the developer really has NO CLUE whats actually going on.
However, newbies and those ignorant see marketing speak and think its true because they have no experience to know otherwise. Hence, Java is popular.
On that note however, as a former Java hater who had to start doing Java development, I came to realize that shitty buggy java apps are generally the fault of the shitty developer who made them, not Java. I blame code completing IDEs for letting people who THINK they are developers right software using methods that they assume do what they want based on the name, when in reality that is rarely if ever the case. Simple things like MIN/MAX are often used incorrectly by blathering idiots. Thats not the languages fault.
DING!
We have a winner.
Couldn't have said it better myself, and I tried.
Right, because thats totally different than using SSH over your standard connection. Theres no way they can tap the tower and see your SSHing or anything!
The Egyptians didn't use violence, the lesson other dictators learned is to use more violence.
Probably because the Egyptians weren't nearly as bad off as the others.
Perhaps the fact that the leader realized he wasn't going to last, and backed of rather than making it a blood bath.
I realize I don't know jack shit about the guy or what he's done to them, but it would appear to me that he wasn't trying all that hard (in an evil way) to stop what happened. We've certainly seen FAR FAR worse done to people in the last 10 years for the exact same reasons.
One could also argue that the fact that the people protested in a (mostly) sane way might have something to do with the lack of bloodshed as well.
Its the difference between a sit in and a riot. Look at blacks in america. Sitins, non-violent protesting worked. Riots just got their own sections of towns burned to the ground by their own people. If you want peace you rarely get it by using violence. Rarely, not always, sometimes war and fighting is all you can do, but thats the last resort, not the first ... at least for anyone who actually values the lives of others rather than just claiming they do in order to push their own agenda.
Apparently, neither does the new gaurd.
Facebook played little role in what happened, for some retarded reason, the same reason as the Google guy, it gets publicized like it brought down the evil Egyption dictator.
The reality of it is, it was the people who actually got off their asses and made their feeling known that changed Eygpt. Not Facebook, not some Google talking head who happens to live there.
Facebook doesn't even deserve an honorable mention. More people showed up because of telephone calls from friend than anything Facebook did, its retarded to attribute it to having an effect.
So BSD, Apache, MIT, X11, MPL and countless others who are considered OSI friendly licenses aren't Open Source (with capitals) ?
You need to jump off of Stallman's dick long enough to breath some air and get a clue.
Actually, if you replaced the word 'allow' everytime you use it with 'require' then your post would actually be accurate.
“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,
See that word ... 'requiring' followed by 'as a condition of use'
See Unix.
The source code to UNIX is not open, never has been.
Linux != UNIX
The source code to UNIX has been available, for a fee (soemtimes free, depends on your agreement), under NDA forever, but it has never been open, which you should know after the whole SCO fiasco.
“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,
If you could read, you would see that the ban is on things that REQUIRE not ALLOW.
Public domain requires absolutely nothing and allows everything. It would certainly be allowed.
Now back up to the words RIGHT BEFORE what you decided to quote, here I'll do it for you:
“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,
Nice try though, but you suck and misleading people who can actually read for themselves.
You can't read apparently.
“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,
The word used is REQUIRING, not ALLOWING.
No it doesn't.
It bans libraries that require you to redistribute them if you use them. It doesn't ban any library for instance that you are not allowed to redistribute outside of your app, or any library you aren't allowed to redistribute at all.
You are, for instance, not allowed to redistribute the .NET runtime or DirectX layers for Windows Phone, so therefore they are not excluded.
It bans things that require MS to redistribute something other than the app in order to comply with the license.
there's plenty of popular high-quality GPL-licensed libraries in use
Thats not really a big issue, for any library that is sufficiently popular and common then there are alternatively licensed OSS packages that do the same thing without a viral license.
Those of us who dislike GPL and prefer BSD have simply written the libraries ourselves with a proper OSS license and just completely ignore GPL. Its far easier than worrying about meeting the demands of the cult of Stallman. Its not as if there is a GPLd library that does something entirely unique, pretty much all of it is rehashes of something that was already done under a different license. I challenge you to show me something GPL'd that is an original work, not a clear copy of someone elses previous work or idea.
And if the contributors don't, MS is legally responsible still.
And either way, why bother? Its just easier to say no. None of their customers are going to care.
Being realistic, no GPL zealot was going to buy a MS phone anyway, so this entire article and thread are amazingly silly and just a bunch of BS name calling.
If you don't like the situation and that your favorite license is constantly cutting itself out of potential places then I suggest you pick a new license to fanboy for, this one is working exactly as intended even if you don't want to admit to it.
This is not about lawsuit trolls, but about keeping an iron grip on the distribution channel.
Actually, this is more along the lines of you wanting to tell MS how to run their business, which you don't get to do.
You don't get to tell someone how to run their business, even if its against your idealogical view of the world. You get the choice to not use what they offer, but you don't get to define what they offer.
The only problem here is that people don't like the way MS (and Apple) have decided to run their stores, and the fact that the GPLv3 was intentionally designed to not be allowed in these situations. So go piss up a rope and see how far that gets you.
If you think GPLv3 is so great, you don't get to bitch about things like this when GPLv3 does exactly what it was intended to do. Its not MS or Apples problem, its yours.
Exactly what part of the GPLv3 prevents distribution via an "app store"?
Off the top of my head? Putting it on their store makes them a distributor, distribution requires that you grant the person you're giving the software too the rights to use the software regardless of any infringment it may do on YOUR patents.
So ... if you are infringing on an MS patent, and they distribute it, then realize you're using their patents, they can't do anything about it.
At which point any intelligent company then preceeds to tell you to go fuck yourself, like Apple and Microsoft have done, to protect their own interests.
GPLv3 is very clearly and intentionally designed to fuck over anyone trying to use it in any sort of commercial setting. That was the intention from day one, no one anywhere tried to hide the fact, it was the reason that GPL was updated.
only way to distribute any applications that is the problem.
Its not really a problem for anyone but GPLv3 fanboys really. There isn't a single 'must have' GPL'd software package as 99.9% of them are just remakes of existing commercial software packages. End result? Instead of using GPL license software, people just use software under a more restrictive license since even though the license is more restrictive, it actually provides them what they want rather than requiring the user to believe in the authors idealogical bullshit.
This isn't a problem for anyone that matters, just zealots who cut off their own nose to spite their face. You got exactly what you wanted out of GPLv3, now STFU.
it is a success for GPLv3, they have made a company with many software patents paranoid and defensive.
You and I have different definitions of success.
To me, successful is not limiting yourself to obscurity, which is more or less what GPLv3 does. It ensures the code isn't going to be touched with someone elses 10 foot pole when companies start getting involved.
Retarded shit like the VLC incident on the Apple store reenforce that fact. Anyone with something to lose just stays away from GPL software, the companies who adopt it are typically ones that have already lost and are struggling to come up with a survival plan.
Actually, GPL pretty much fits the definition of communism.
There is nothing wrong with communism, never has been, never will be. The reason America 'hates communism' is because some other countries that we were 'against' used it as the basis for their government, so that gave us something to hate ... communism.
Pretty much every government service offered falls under a communist/socialist style, not capitalism.
The only problem with communism is when those in power use it with corruption to maintain/increase power and luxuries for themselves. The idea isn't flawed, but its practically impossible to implement. To implement it properly would require that everyone participating in it was actually dedicated to the common good, but that isn't the way people are hardwired. We're hardwired, thanks to evolution, to try to take control over others and be the leader, so communism simply can't work due to human instinct.
Communism can't work until humans hit some sort of civilization changing realization like in StarTrek where people stop caring about money and power and start working towards something greater for the good of all. Socialism is in the same boat for the same reason. Both great ideas that simply can't be implemented by humans.
No, its not, only licenses that have clauses relating to distribution. But hey, reading comprehension is hard and its easy to act like MS is the evil bad dude, why let a little thing like the truth or accuracy stand in your way.
Even BSD is self-perpetuating, so that's not strictly true either.
Wrong. 100%.
The BSD license requires copyright notices remain intact, thats it. You can relicense the code under any other license as long as you leave the copyright notice, not the license. It isn't self perpetuating considering you can take BSD code, relicense it as GPL and remove all reference to the BSD license except the copyright notice ... which is not license related anyway.
Then what's the point of this article?
A bunch of GPL fanyboys are pissed off that the license worked as intended and they were too stupid to realize this when they jumped on the fanboy wagon?
This is a common myth that companies and people have.
True, its just GPL that acts like a virus.
If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code?
You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!
Funny, I distribute several libraries under closed source terms ... they do nothing of the kind. You are more than welcome to redistribute the source to my libraries with your project ... assuming the person you're distributing too has a license as well. GPL more or less requires you to change your license to GPL to be compatible with it. No closed source licenses that have ever seen have that restriction, its simply not profitable.
You're making up things and situations that simply don't exist in order to argue a point that isn't in contention by even anyone with a clue, including the guys who wrote it.