Not to sound too harsh, but really, cry me a river. Thanks to the rather strict requirements of the GPL, it's really
not too hard to come up with something, even in good faith, that doesn't play with the GPL. Witness the QPL or old BSD licenses.
Now of course breaking compatability w/ the LGPL is an entirely different story. Since I glanced through the MS license, I will go ahead and stupidly ask (since Mr. Perens didn't quite explain in his article): exactly how does said license not allow one to link a module created using the MS license with other modules created under the LGPL? I can't find anything that would kill this. Even section 3.3 doesn't seem to apply since LGPL modules don't place restrictions on other modules, and thus don't cause $(MS_MODULE) to come under $(IPR_IMPAIRING_LICENSE). Hell, where is Mr. Perens getting the statement "The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the General Public License, commonly known as the GPL" from? I don't see any mention of (L)GPL in the document.
Does this whole furor stem from the fact that the license covers the documentation?
Lastly, of course, is this the part where I say how I'm writing this from a Linux box and work with GPL software, or should I just go hide behind some asbestos? Obviously I misled myself *somewhere*..
I've heard this is quite untrue if you're using, say, conformance to c++ language standards as a criteria. Of course, g++ itself wasn't anywhere *close* to conformant until the egcs series.. and,
The stock market is completely screwed up these days. Instead of being a way for people to invest in a company that they think deserves support, it has become little more than a government-regulated lottery.
These days? I feel confident that many of the speculators of 1929 would paint you the same picture, except that there was less government regulation.
That child was suprisingly coordinated and, uh, flexible. If I tried to kick somebody in the nose in a school bus (assuming it was crowded and moving), I doubt I'd hit his nose. Chances are I'd overbalance and fall on my ass instead.
Unfortunately, the crowds mistook it for a personal lubricant
Personally, I could't get the old Slip'NSlide commercial's song out of my head. Adding in a nice mardi gras orgy does wonders for the visual image though. Thx man.
Like Intel's extension of x86 from 8 bit to 16 and later 32 bitness.
*cough* nitpick: x86 began as a 16-bit architecture; when you say "8-bit" you're probably thinking of the 8088 which had an 8-bit external data bus and which IBM used in their PC because, basically, they were doing their motherboards on the cheap.
Unless everybody starts using OBSD (not due this week, unfortunatly), it would be nice if they would share their knowledge so that other platforms like, say, Linux, could benefit.
As if they'd pay attention. And before you mod that as flamebait, ask yourself why strlcpy() still isn't part of glibc..
less ambitious jobs are often more physically/mentally exhausting for less money.
In my low-income experience (delicatessen drone), I was physically tired but mentally hadn't exercised all day; I had no problem whipping up code in the evenings. That bit was fun, but there's no getting around the fact that working in a deli sucks.
It's better to land a more-skilled -> better-paying job where not much is expected of you (good luck.. any decent manager, upon seeing how productive you can be, will rely on you to be that productive), or a challenging yet fun job where you don't mind being mentally drained in the evenings because you're learning so much.
Seriously though, are you SURE that it says ALL your code (intellectual property) belongs to them?
Yes, 'cept previous work. I managed to include a project in that exception, but I stopped working on it awhile back.
Supposedly these guys are pretty flexible and it's "just" their legal docs that suck. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't care if I distributed LinuxTicTacToe or some crap.. I'm also sure they'd go after me if I released something that competed with them (which I wouldn't do, I think that's unethical).. the question is, would they try to claim ownership of/make money from something that was of general interest but unrelated to work. My gut feeling is "why take chances", so before it came to that I would get with a lawyer.
This falls apart if you work for a company (like mine) where the standard pre-nuptial states pretty clearly that all your code are belong to them. Of course they showed me this document *after* I quit my other job.. I would take a 5k paycut, easy, just to get rid of that stipulation. 10k if I was actually working on something.
The real bitch is when you find yourself re-implementing the same generally-useful routines you did at home for work. Then you're like, "if I ever *did* actually release project X, would company Y sue me because some of the code looks superficially the same?"
The cost savings also applies to the motherboard (and the motherboard design) since you don't have two (real) cpus contending for resources.
Last I checked (couple years ago), the price between a dual-proc mobo and the single-proc equivalent was approx $100, a significant fraction of their cost.
The problem comes from the MIPS idea of having the next instruction execute no matter what
Awww, it's not that bad. If the compiler can't schedule an extra instruction in there, it just puts a nop in, and once you get the idea of how it works it's not so hard to mentally swap the instructions. Course it did throw me for a loop when I was coming from x86 asm. "How the f*ck is it doing *that*?"
Granted, it's a performance hack (and since I'm merely a software weenie, I'm not even sure it's useful in the age of speculative execution) but I believe a couple of other RISC architectures share this particular, uh, "feature".
And if you choose to sell the disc later, what happens if the purchaser decides to use it illegally?
Who said you would be allowed to sell your dvd in the first place? Hell, who said you would actually *own* this new dvd in the first place? Witness divx and any number of eulas...
All of the altruistic arguments for adoption you raise apply to *any* would-be parents. The additional benefit to those who can't reproduce normally is the (potential) practicality. Last I checked, the decision to bear a child was not a practical one, unless of course you needed the free labor to help out on the farm...
AOL can help break that monopoly into a duopoly by introducing a user-friendly version of RH
Uh, I think that's called (Linux-)Mandrake.:-)
Right now, Microsoft is (for all intents and purposes) the only operating system out there aimed for middle-income home users
Tell me again how a company who currently develops zero software for linux (I'd love to be corrected on that) is going to make Linux a "contender"? AOL (unlike HP) knows where their bread and butter is.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to sound too harsh, but really, cry me a river. Thanks to the rather strict requirements of the GPL, it's really not too hard to come up with something, even in good faith, that doesn't play with the GPL. Witness the QPL or old BSD licenses.
Now of course breaking compatability w/ the LGPL is an entirely different story. Since I glanced through the MS license, I will go ahead and stupidly ask (since Mr. Perens didn't quite explain in his article): exactly how does said license not allow one to link a module created using the MS license with other modules created under the LGPL? I can't find anything that would kill this. Even section 3.3 doesn't seem to apply since LGPL modules don't place restrictions on other modules, and thus don't cause $(MS_MODULE) to come under $(IPR_IMPAIRING_LICENSE). Hell, where is Mr. Perens getting the statement "The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the General Public License, commonly known as the GPL" from? I don't see any mention of (L)GPL in the document.
Does this whole furor stem from the fact that the license covers the documentation?
Lastly, of course, is this the part where I say how I'm writing this from a Linux box and work with GPL software, or should I just go hide behind some asbestos? Obviously I misled myself *somewhere*..
I've heard this is quite untrue if you're using, say, conformance to c++ language standards as a criteria. Of course, g++ itself wasn't anywhere *close* to conformant until the egcs series.. and,
(MSVC) produces smaller and faster code
I could believe that, in the general case.
These days? I feel confident that many of the speculators of 1929 would paint you the same picture, except that there was less government regulation.
That child was suprisingly coordinated and, uh, flexible. If I tried to kick somebody in the nose in a school bus (assuming it was crowded and moving), I doubt I'd hit his nose. Chances are I'd overbalance and fall on my ass instead.
Personally, I could't get the old Slip'NSlide commercial's song out of my head. Adding in a nice mardi gras orgy does wonders for the visual image though. Thx man.
"Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide! Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide!.."
*cough* nitpick: x86 began as a 16-bit architecture; when you say "8-bit" you're probably thinking of the 8088 which had an 8-bit external data bus and which IBM used in their PC because, basically, they were doing their motherboards on the cheap.
As if they'd pay attention. And before you mod that as flamebait, ask yourself why strlcpy() still isn't part of glibc..
You mean like the, uh, Russians?
In my low-income experience (delicatessen drone), I was physically tired but mentally hadn't exercised all day; I had no problem whipping up code in the evenings. That bit was fun, but there's no getting around the fact that working in a deli sucks.
It's better to land a more-skilled -> better-paying job where not much is expected of you (good luck.. any decent manager, upon seeing how productive you can be, will rely on you to be that productive), or a challenging yet fun job where you don't mind being mentally drained in the evenings because you're learning so much.
taco beat ya awhile back with his stuff-that-antimatters dept. tagline.
Yes, 'cept previous work. I managed to include a project in that exception, but I stopped working on it awhile back.
Supposedly these guys are pretty flexible and it's "just" their legal docs that suck. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't care if I distributed LinuxTicTacToe or some crap.. I'm also sure they'd go after me if I released something that competed with them (which I wouldn't do, I think that's unethical).. the question is, would they try to claim ownership of/make money from something that was of general interest but unrelated to work. My gut feeling is "why take chances", so before it came to that I would get with a lawyer.
The real bitch is when you find yourself re-implementing the same generally-useful routines you did at home for work. Then you're like, "if I ever *did* actually release project X, would company Y sue me because some of the code looks superficially the same?"
I thought the whole thing was too dark. Then I turned up my monitor. Now it's even more actual.
The cost savings also applies to the motherboard (and the motherboard design) since you don't have two (real) cpus contending for resources. Last I checked (couple years ago), the price between a dual-proc mobo and the single-proc equivalent was approx $100, a significant fraction of their cost.
Awww, it's not that bad. If the compiler can't schedule an extra instruction in there, it just puts a nop in, and once you get the idea of how it works it's not so hard to mentally swap the instructions. Course it did throw me for a loop when I was coming from x86 asm. "How the f*ck is it doing *that*?"
Granted, it's a performance hack (and since I'm merely a software weenie, I'm not even sure it's useful in the age of speculative execution) but I believe a couple of other RISC architectures share this particular, uh, "feature".
Hey, there's still plenty of time left..
Agreed, for instance.. "Christian cheerleaders are skilled athletes and should never take a back seat to anyone else in their excellence"
I wouldof *liked* (some of) them to take a back seat in the presence of my 'excellence'..
Who said you would be allowed to sell your dvd in the first place? Hell, who said you would actually *own* this new dvd in the first place? Witness divx and any number of eulas...
Explain that? I could always use a little extra spring in my step at the track, methinks..
Some do. Some succumb to dementia, and some just make the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
That helps? 'Course now that I think about it, it would help *my* chest.. (I work out, but not bench press)
Good luck finding that geek!
All of the altruistic arguments for adoption you raise apply to *any* would-be parents. The additional benefit to those who can't reproduce normally is the (potential) practicality. Last I checked, the decision to bear a child was not a practical one, unless of course you needed the free labor to help out on the farm...
Yeah, I can see it now..
"sir, the comet images are extremely close range!".. "how close?" .. "inside the comet, sir"
It's "galileo", btw..
Yeah, like uh.. the 8086? :-)
(sorry, couldn't resist. I know what you meant)
Uh, I think that's called (Linux-)Mandrake. :-)
Right now, Microsoft is (for all intents and purposes) the only operating system out there aimed for middle-income home users
Tell me again how a company who currently develops zero software for linux (I'd love to be corrected on that) is going to make Linux a "contender"? AOL (unlike HP) knows where their bread and butter is.