If something is released under the GPL and I use it in my proprietary program, I am not taking away their right to use the GPLd code. I for one would have no problem with a less 'viral' GPL, for instance "Any changes made to this code must be released under this license or one with no more restrictions", but no, GPL says that even my code which is completely independant must be GPLd if I use their code.. for instance if I make a web browser and try to use a GPLd implementation of PNG support.
You won't get argument from me that someone shouldn't modify the PNG library, making it 10x faster or some such nonsense, then claim it as their own and not redistribute their changes. But you will get arguments from me when you claim that my 100k line program must be GPLd if I use 'readline'. Its not that the software must be kept free that people usually argue with the GPL, but that it takes away the right you have to do what you want with your OWN software, independant of the GPLd code.
Certain interpretations of the GPL can be taken as meaning a Windows version is impossible anyways (linking clause might be taken to mean other DLL source has to be included, such as the MFC source, availability of tools,etc)
What about the book publication of PGP? They printed out VOLUMES of PGP code, sent it oversees, and started scanning it in like mad. Hence, international PGP.
The difference is that while both Encryption and Nuclear Technology can be used productively (privacy, energy), only Nuclear Power can actually be used as a weapon. Encyrption's categorization as munition is completely bogus, it is only considered that to prevent it from being exported, because government likes the ability to find out what people are saying. In the end it just hurts business, because privacy is a NEED in international markets. You send contract negotiations in plain text, your competitor is going to win.
The N64 is also more powerful than the PSX (except for CD vs. Cartridges). The N64's lackluster performance can be attributed to one thing- Nintendo is a bunch of @#$@# that nobody wants to do business with (sorry, my experience). If Nintendo cleans up their act then MAYBE the system will do well, but if you are going to cheat and steal from the developers, they aren't going to develop on your system, no matter how kewl it is.
yes, but their current (annoyingly obfusciated and therefore unfixable) drivers have very poor performance. Its really a shame they don't take the clue from Matrox, if they released working code AND left it unobfusciated AND released specs I would buy from them until either they go out of business or I die. So far people are releasing either code or specs, and the code is all obfusciated and therefore unservicable.
Think of a license more like "I own all rights to this code, but I will allow you to do xxxx with it". They still own all rights to the more recent code. Technically, if you make a change based on the code for this version, you must either release your changes under GPL or contact TcX to negotiate other conditions on a personal level. Since their personal copy is owned by them, they don't have to agree to the license, so all changes they've made to the code are theirs, not the GPL virus's
Religious wars are faught over beliefs that cultures have held for thousands of years. I find these ridiculous in almost all cases (believing a cow to be a holy animal while your next-door neighbor is having bbqs everynight is one case that I can imagine where it may be justified).
So you can only imagine my feelings for people who fight OS religious wars. NT and linux have been around for what, eight years? Give it a rest, when you've gotten gray hairs fighting over the right to use emacs, there will be completely new systems on the battlefront. Best just to choose the right tools for the right jobs, and be willing to lose the fights that just plain don't matter worth shit.
probably more, since installing NT doesn't automatically make you a sysadmin like installing Linux does (anyone know how to get fetchmail working over ppp with Debian slink?)
yup, graphics are at kernel-level now, as illustrated by the blue screen I was faced with yesterday (perhaps an interrupt conflict? NT doesn't have plug-and-pray features)
What is the point? The fact that I use Microsoft's development environment does not mean I *like* their development environment (when I'm not at work, I use XEmacs and JDE). J-- is actually bastardized enough that it pretty much is the exact same thing as ATL and C++. Java interfaces mapped into COM objects, Java types mapped into variants. They basically took all the disadvantages of C++ (pointers, non-automatic memory deallocation) and made something like Visual Basic speed-wise. IF Microsoft manages to make a future version of J++ Not use pointers, Not use multi-inheiritance, and perhaps allow it to compile to native code (or at least allow redistibution of the @#$@# JVM, they required IE4 to be distributed last time I checked.. why use a hammer when a steamroller can do the same job?) then my employers and myself might consider it- but it would as a stepping-stone for a _pure_ java program later on.
1. Generic programming is NOT necessary, but it is a really nice feature. Templates are overglorified macros. 2. OO -geared programming is not a problem. It is useful for managing large projects- if you are going to write a ten line perl script then why the hell should you even bring up the subject? Just write the ten damn lines, and be done. Perl is perfect for this. C++ is muliparadigm, but also is rather low-level and has had a very long, painful, corporate-driven evolution to that point. It merges object-oriented ideas onto a procedural language, and does it badly. Not saying Java is the perfect OO language, but that C++ DEFINATELY isn't. 3. Access to system programming is a benefit. There is a distinct line between system-level programming and application programming. And java is meant more for applications, not hard disk defragmenters. How are you supposed to give access to low-level system features in a platform independant way? That makes no sense. You can use JNI to link in native code to do whatever tortures you want to your system, but you lose the platform independance. 4. If your goal is a one line perl script, then again, why the hell even bring the subject up? I agree, perl is better for a ONE LINE program. Now, when you get to about 150,000 lines, tell me again how much you like perl.
Thats a simple question to answer- They suck because they went from a good idea 'hey, lets play music on TV' to getting people in charge that decided that playing music on TV is bad for advertising $$$ I mean, if you are showing random music during an hour, what is to prevent someone from switching between videos? ("Oh cool, the newest xyz video is on, this kicks butt.. oh damnit, more rap, I'm changing") Shows lock you in until the end, and give four rounds of advertising guaranteed to be exposed to you. Music videos were the ideal and unfortunately MTV was too chickenshit to stick with it. They went to shows which fit into the Neilsons and allowed them to demographic the market, to get advertisers drooling. All in all, it is a complete piece of shit. I am waiting for someone to pick up on the idea for internet, once bandwidth gets cheap enough. www.video-online.com
I never heard of it called "JavaOS for Business" so I don't know. But yeah, you definately have JavaOS on there. I wish I could mess around with JavaOS.
Yes! I think I could write an ext2fs driver in two lines of perl code.. "Today PerlOS came out, written in an astounding 34 lines of code (with each line being approximately 80k characters long)
for document-based appications you could have 'pluggable menus', you could do a merge of predefined menus with customized ones.. like a 'File' menu could be
The programmer chooses which menus he would like to use (I would use all the above) and they are automatically pulled from the settings so you get the actual text to be displayed, the key combinations, etc.
Yes, but then the communication format would be documented- you could not have the stereo negotiate a connection with the speakers pretty much, because then someone could record the encrypted conversation. So basically there would have to be an encrypted audio file on the CD, with the decryption built into the speakers (and mounted in such a way tampering destroys the speaker), and an encrypted connection between the two based on a disk key, and individual keys negotiated from every speaker you have.
You could devise something like Macrovision for direct re-recording possibly (although I don't see how). But you would still have to deal with people knowing how the system works (giving the potential to crack it), you would still have the audio available in the clear at two points (recording-time and playback time- someone could run off with the master tapes if they wanted an unencrypted copy bad enough).
Even if you devised a perfect way to do it, it would be next to impossible to understand, expensive as anything (the speakers for such a system would probably have to be internally amplified, and all components and interconnections would need to be digital), and would cause a downright revolt among people who have gotten used to an in-the-open format and the violation of their 'implied' rights and freedoms they had before with an unsecure format.
Yes, but then the communication format would be documented- you could not have the stereo negotiate a connection with the speakers pretty much, because then someone could record the encrypted conversation. So basically there would have to be an encrypted audio file on the CD, with the decryption built into the speakers (and mounted in such a way tampering destroys the speaker), and an encrypted connection between the two based on a disk key, and individual keys negotiated from every speaker you have. You could devise something like Macrovision for direct re-recording possibly (although I don't see how). But you would still have to deal with people knowing how the system works (giving the potential to crack it), you would still have the audio available in the clear at two points (recording-time and playback time- someone could run off with the master tapes if they wanted an unencrypted copy bad enough). Even if you devised a perfect way to do it, it would be next to impossible to understand, expensive as anything (the speakers for such a system would probably have to be internally amplified, and all components and interconnections would need to be digital), and would cause a downright revolt among people who have gotten used to an in-the-open format and the violation of their 'implied' rights and freedoms they had before with an unsecure format.
Can you give me an example of how Multiple Inheiritance is a flaw? Since you are an AC, I can't mail you, but you can mail me (mass@ufl.edu).
I have written several large programs in C++, and have only used Multiple Inheiritance once. When I saw what I had done, I changed it and no longer used MI. It really isn't a great feature, and with interfaces and inner classes in java, I've yet to see a single example of it.
Sure Microsoft implemented multiple inheiritance in their 'J--' product, claiming that it was 'required, they couldn't implement things without it', but when I look at the bastardized code, it looks like ATL code- and my MFC programming experience tells me that this is the WRONG way to do things (object interfaces should be inner classes). the Multiple inheiritance way leads to namespace collisions.
In another country (for instance, Canada!) it may be possible to do this, but in America there is such a large, heavily armed military that chances are 90% of the population could not overthrow the government, with or without petty guns. Of course, the military is going to have a massive loss of morale like that occurs on our soil. At least the Civil war had sides, North vs. South.. a war like that would probably just cause utter chaos.
Man, now all they need to do is outlaw BOMBS! Culture is a strange thing. Different things tend to happen in different places. I would love to find a country where you didn't have to worry about shootings, or terrorists, riots, arson, or violence of any kind. Unfortunately, unless I am the only resident of that country, it isn't going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't get argument from me that someone shouldn't modify the PNG library, making it 10x faster or some such nonsense, then claim it as their own and not redistribute their changes. But you will get arguments from me when you claim that my 100k line program must be GPLd if I use 'readline'. Its not that the software must be kept free that people usually argue with the GPL, but that it takes away the right you have to do what you want with your OWN software, independant of the GPLd code.
Certain interpretations of the GPL can be taken as meaning a Windows version is impossible anyways (linking clause might be taken to mean other DLL source has to be included, such as the MFC source, availability of tools,etc)
What about the book publication of PGP? They printed out VOLUMES of PGP code, sent it oversees, and started scanning it in like mad. Hence, international PGP.
The difference is that while both Encryption and Nuclear Technology can be used productively (privacy, energy), only Nuclear Power can actually be used as a weapon. Encyrption's categorization as munition is completely bogus, it is only considered that to prevent it from being exported, because government likes the ability to find out what people are saying. In the end it just hurts business, because privacy is a NEED in international markets. You send contract negotiations in plain text, your competitor is going to win.
The N64 is also more powerful than the PSX (except for CD vs. Cartridges). The N64's lackluster performance can be attributed to one thing- Nintendo is a bunch of @#$@# that nobody wants to do business with (sorry, my experience). If Nintendo cleans up their act then MAYBE the system will do well, but if you are going to cheat and steal from the developers, they aren't going to develop on your system, no matter how kewl it is.
yes, but their current (annoyingly obfusciated and therefore unfixable) drivers have very poor performance. Its really a shame they don't take the clue from Matrox, if they released working code AND left it unobfusciated AND released specs I would buy from them until either they go out of business or I die. So far people are releasing either code or specs, and the code is all obfusciated and therefore unservicable.
Think of a license more like "I own all rights to this code, but I will allow you to do xxxx with it". They still own all rights to the more recent code. Technically, if you make a change based on the code for this version, you must either release your changes under GPL or contact TcX to negotiate other conditions on a personal level. Since their personal copy is owned by them, they don't have to agree to the license, so all changes they've made to the code are theirs, not the GPL virus's
be careful he doesn't shoot you when you misspell his name :)
So you can only imagine my feelings for people who fight OS religious wars. NT and linux have been around for what, eight years? Give it a rest, when you've gotten gray hairs fighting over the right to use emacs, there will be completely new systems on the battlefront. Best just to choose the right tools for the right jobs, and be willing to lose the fights that just plain don't matter worth shit.
probably more, since installing NT doesn't automatically make you a sysadmin like installing Linux does (anyone know how to get fetchmail working over ppp with Debian slink?)
yup, graphics are at kernel-level now, as illustrated by the blue screen I was faced with yesterday (perhaps an interrupt conflict? NT doesn't have plug-and-pray features)
What is the point? The fact that I use Microsoft's development environment does not mean I *like* their development environment (when I'm not at work, I use XEmacs and JDE). J-- is actually bastardized enough that it pretty much is the exact same thing as ATL and C++. Java interfaces mapped into COM objects, Java types mapped into variants. They basically took all the disadvantages of C++ (pointers, non-automatic memory deallocation) and made something like Visual Basic speed-wise. IF Microsoft manages to make a future version of J++ Not use pointers, Not use multi-inheiritance, and perhaps allow it to compile to native code (or at least allow redistibution of the @#$@# JVM, they required IE4 to be distributed last time I checked.. why use a hammer when a steamroller can do the same job?) then my employers and myself might consider it- but it would as a stepping-stone for a _pure_ java program later on.
1. Generic programming is NOT necessary, but it is a really nice feature. Templates are overglorified macros. 2. OO -geared programming is not a problem. It is useful for managing large projects- if you are going to write a ten line perl script then why the hell should you even bring up the subject? Just write the ten damn lines, and be done. Perl is perfect for this. C++ is muliparadigm, but also is rather low-level and has had a very long, painful, corporate-driven evolution to that point. It merges object-oriented ideas onto a procedural language, and does it badly. Not saying Java is the perfect OO language, but that C++ DEFINATELY isn't. 3. Access to system programming is a benefit. There is a distinct line between system-level programming and application programming. And java is meant more for applications, not hard disk defragmenters. How are you supposed to give access to low-level system features in a platform independant way? That makes no sense. You can use JNI to link in native code to do whatever tortures you want to your system, but you lose the platform independance. 4. If your goal is a one line perl script, then again, why the hell even bring the subject up? I agree, perl is better for a ONE LINE program. Now, when you get to about 150,000 lines, tell me again how much you like perl.
oooh! ooh! Its a trick Question, right? =P
Thats a simple question to answer- They suck because they went from a good idea 'hey, lets play music on TV' to getting people in charge that decided that playing music on TV is bad for advertising $$$ I mean, if you are showing random music during an hour, what is to prevent someone from switching between videos? ("Oh cool, the newest xyz video is on, this kicks butt.. oh damnit, more rap, I'm changing") Shows lock you in until the end, and give four rounds of advertising guaranteed to be exposed to you. Music videos were the ideal and unfortunately MTV was too chickenshit to stick with it. They went to shows which fit into the Neilsons and allowed them to demographic the market, to get advertisers drooling. All in all, it is a complete piece of shit. I am waiting for someone to pick up on the idea for internet, once bandwidth gets cheap enough. www.video-online.com
I never heard of it called "JavaOS for Business" so I don't know. But yeah, you definately have JavaOS on there. I wish I could mess around with JavaOS.
definately the monitor ;) Who needs more than 12" anyways?
Yes! I think I could write an ext2fs driver in two lines of perl code.. "Today PerlOS came out, written in an astounding 34 lines of code (with each line being approximately 80k characters long)
Hmm...
for document-based appications you could have 'pluggable menus', you could do a merge of predefined menus with customized ones..
like a 'File' menu could be
"New" (1)
"Open" (1)
"Save" (1)
"Save As" (1)
--------
Print Setup (2)
Print (2b)
--------
Preferences (3)
--------
Exit (4)
The programmer chooses which menus he would like to use (I would use all the above) and they are automatically pulled from the settings so you get the actual text to be displayed, the key combinations, etc.
Yes, but then the communication format would be documented- you could not have the stereo negotiate a connection with the speakers pretty much, because then someone could record the encrypted conversation. So basically there would have to be an encrypted audio file on the CD, with the decryption built into the speakers (and mounted in such a way tampering destroys the speaker), and an encrypted connection between the two based on a disk key, and individual keys negotiated from every speaker you have.
You could devise something like Macrovision for direct re-recording possibly (although I don't see how). But you would still have to deal with people knowing how the system works (giving the potential to crack it), you would still have the audio available in the clear at two points (recording-time and playback time- someone could run off with the master tapes if they wanted an unencrypted copy bad enough).
Even if you devised a perfect way to do it, it would be next to impossible to understand, expensive as anything (the speakers for such a system would probably have to be internally amplified, and all components and interconnections would need to be digital), and would cause a downright revolt among people who have gotten used to an in-the-open format and the violation of their 'implied' rights and freedoms they had before with an unsecure format.
Yes, but then the communication format would be documented- you could not have the stereo negotiate a connection with the speakers pretty much, because then someone could record the encrypted conversation. So basically there would have to be an encrypted audio file on the CD, with the decryption built into the speakers (and mounted in such a way tampering destroys the speaker), and an encrypted connection between the two based on a disk key, and individual keys negotiated from every speaker you have. You could devise something like Macrovision for direct re-recording possibly (although I don't see how). But you would still have to deal with people knowing how the system works (giving the potential to crack it), you would still have the audio available in the clear at two points (recording-time and playback time- someone could run off with the master tapes if they wanted an unencrypted copy bad enough). Even if you devised a perfect way to do it, it would be next to impossible to understand, expensive as anything (the speakers for such a system would probably have to be internally amplified, and all components and interconnections would need to be digital), and would cause a downright revolt among people who have gotten used to an in-the-open format and the violation of their 'implied' rights and freedoms they had before with an unsecure format.
Can you give me an example of how Multiple Inheiritance is a flaw? Since you are an AC, I can't mail you, but you can mail me (mass@ufl.edu).
I have written several large programs in C++, and have only used Multiple Inheiritance once. When I saw what I had done, I changed it and no longer used MI. It really isn't a great feature, and with interfaces and inner classes in java, I've yet to see a single example of it.
Sure Microsoft implemented multiple inheiritance in their 'J--' product, claiming that it was 'required, they couldn't implement things without it', but when I look at the bastardized code, it looks like ATL code- and my MFC programming experience tells me that this is the WRONG way to do things (object interfaces should be inner classes). the Multiple inheiritance way leads to namespace collisions.
-David Waite
In another country (for instance, Canada!) it may be possible to do this, but in America there is such a large, heavily armed military that chances are 90% of the population could not overthrow the government, with or without petty guns. Of course, the military is going to have a massive loss of morale like that occurs on our soil. At least the Civil war had sides, North vs. South.. a war like that would probably just cause utter chaos.
Man, now all they need to do is outlaw BOMBS! Culture is a strange thing. Different things tend to happen in different places. I would love to find a country where you didn't have to worry about shootings, or terrorists, riots, arson, or violence of any kind. Unfortunately, unless I am the only resident of that country, it isn't going to happen.
He is right though.. are you going to rob someone when odds are there are ten people with assault rifles in shouting distance?