I used to work with a guy who was a daft prick, on some database software. But he had to be, dealing with newbie programmers coming onto his project and declaring to make changes to his ancient, stable, code.
Point is, he had a point. Changes have side-effects. Doing txnlog recovery after a crash without propagating the data to the backing store might have implications for transaction consistency. Have you evaluated all the risks your changes pose? Have you even conceived of a valid series of test-cases to prove your fix isn't going to cause worse problems?
I can understand why your patches might just be sitting around forever. I've had to be in the unfortunate situation of rejecting code we paid many thousands of dollars for a consultant to right, because it made bad assumptions and broke our environment.
I'm not saying you're wrong, nor right, only that politics is sometimes used as a catch-all to say, "Hey, we want stable product. Work WITH us, and we can work together."
That said, a great many developers are daft pricks...
You are not the average user. By posting on slashdot you've already demonstrated that.
No, the average user will ask me at least two dozen times how to create a shortcut, where his my documents files are, how to get a file from one PC to another when a drive isn't mapped and a pretty little icon doesn't exist that says "Dick's PC" on the desktop.
Print to printer on another machine, requiring a network connection? Good god? DHCP is the only thing keeping me sane. Plug in cable/DSL router, plug in computer, drive. Holy shit, if I actually had to spend more than 3 minutes setting up the average cable/dsl connection, I'd have offed myself years ago.
The average user is an id10t. Even on windows. It's only the fact that there's a HUGE network of people out there who make their life's work support this piece of shit that it keeps propagating itself. If everyone on/. stopped giving grandma and mom, dad, Sister Suzi and Brother Billy support on their Windows PC, the whole fscking house of cards would finally come crashing down.
But no, because we're all a bunch of spineless hypocritical simpletons, we help them, and so wallow in our own Misery. BillG is laughing at us right now... And Ballmer is licking his feet...
Mkay, and by the time your supercomputer figures all those variables out, we'll by in Configuration Z, and care fuck-all about your simulation results.:-P Good idea, though.
Depends on the camera. Canon Powershots (up to and including the G2, for sure) don't support this. They do not show up as USB HDDs, stupid fscking Canon...:-/
Note, I never said BSD was failing. I'd never argue that point. The post I responded to claimed the GPL has lost. "Every" was a bad choice of word, but there are certainly plenty of GPLd projects that are progressing along mightily...
If someone wants to purchase Linux and sell it in a commercial project, they can offer monetary recompense to all the kernel contributors to relicense it to them in term favorable to said entity.
Qt has dual-use licenses, so do other projects.
So could Linux. Hell, Microsoft could conceivably license Linux to use underneath a Win32 API... The License does not remove rights the copyright owner already has.
Now I'm guessing you're trolling, because glibc is LGPLd which means you can link to it explicitly without fear of threat. Either that, or you came into this information from a friend-of-a-friend.
There was a time in the past, 1996, 1997 where this would have been an issue. Certainly not in the past five years...
No. GPLd code used in a project causes the viral aspect of the GPL to kick in on DISTRIBUTION only.
The LGPL is much less restrictive, and indeed can be used in non-GPLd and even closed source applications. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between static and dynamic linking, but there is a clause in section 6 of the LGPL that your program must offer the user the ability to replace the LGPLd component of your program dynamically.
So in practice, this would exclude static linking in general. If you wanted to present a full static executable for execution that didn't rely on external.sos, then you would have to provide some internal mechanism to convert the calls from static ones to dynamic if say lib_libname.so was present. Not worth the hassle. And this is only my opinion wrt static/dynamic linking.
But it's pretty clear that the LGPL allows this, or no commercial software could be built on Linux with glibc or gcc.
Developing on Linux is NOT costlier than developing on other platforms. Those same libraries that may have been GPLd or LGPLd on Linux will be available to you on Windows or BSD. The very act of reusing something someone else wrote already saves you time and money. It's only if you're ALTERING someone elses work that you have to be worried, and if that's the case, on any other platform, you're already paying for it.
How tough is it: oh, project be is GPLd, according to the Copyright or Readme.txt. Shit, time to find a new project. Oh wait, library b is LGPLd, sweet, free code.
It's FUD. No more difficult in maintaining complaince than assuring that all your BSD attribution notices show up in your manuals and Help dialogs.
Understood. Well, I look forward to seeing it when it hits the market. I too have been wondering a bit about this lately, and this company better enjoy their time on top. What with AJAX and it's ilk coming around, I imagine it's a short period of time before the OSS community gets it into their collective little head.
Part of me, composing this post, is wondering why we're still using non-WYSIWYG entry boxes to compose things on the web (/. posts, wiki's etc) and not direct editing of page content. There's really no reason for it now, IMHO. A few shortcomings in the Javascript model are all I can see.
Not really. Not when YOUR work is 10 lines of patch on my 10,000 lines of work. Nope. Not allowed. If you sell it or distribute it, I have to get those 10 lines of patches... sorry.
How the hell can ANYONE, nevermind all my fellow slashdot users, even pretend that the GPL somehow has LOST? When nearly every major project licensed under the GPL is growing, and at phenomenal rates?
I don't get it... it's like the whole "BSD is dying" crapflooding, it makes no sense, and the evidence proves otherwise.
If you're gonna pay someone, why not pay the GPL authors of your libraries/code 50% of what you'd pay in replacement costs, to simply have them LGPL it? Seems like a greater idea, you get all the benefits of the GPL and LGPL, and you don't even have to rewrite your code.
Why not find an LGPL image rendering library and link to it, statically or otherwise (which the LGPL allows, BTW).
Most libraries, true utilitarian libraries like this, are being licensed this way. It's not the concern you make it out to be.
Before LGPL, viral infection was a problem, and it still is, if the code you want to use isn't licensed as such. So I guess you could still argue that the GPL is a serious problem, while ignoring a whole other license that was invented to fix the problem of code REUSE, as opposed to code co-opting, while still staying true to the intent of the GPL.
So what's safer, jettisoning the ET while on top of it, or while under it? Because something of my physics knowledge tells me trying to drop it while under it will result in bad things happening to the orbiter.
When your launch costs $200 million in hardware costs alone, nevermind another $300+ million in refurbishment costs, you don't deliberately "test" abort methods...
But I can only imagine why booster separation would be a bad thing, and that's that the boosters would scream right by the orbiter, baking it in fiery rocket exhaust. In theory I guess you could do it, but when 40-70 percent of your thrust comes from two Roman candles... eep.
And I would surmise that there were so called "doctors" in the 19th century who let living people get buried alive. Looking for links tho... I'll be back!
I've got a $60 PS2, no spare controllers, a multitap (go figure?) and 4 games, all purchased used @ less than 1/2 original retail, and two new memory cards.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work with a guy who was a daft prick, on some database software. But he had to be, dealing with newbie programmers coming onto his project and declaring to make changes to his ancient, stable, code.
Point is, he had a point. Changes have side-effects. Doing txnlog recovery after a crash without propagating the data to the backing store might have implications for transaction consistency. Have you evaluated all the risks your changes pose? Have you even conceived of a valid series of test-cases to prove your fix isn't going to cause worse problems?
I can understand why your patches might just be sitting around forever. I've had to be in the unfortunate situation of rejecting code we paid many thousands of dollars for a consultant to right, because it made bad assumptions and broke our environment.
I'm not saying you're wrong, nor right, only that politics is sometimes used as a catch-all to say, "Hey, we want stable product. Work WITH us, and we can work together."
That said, a great many developers are daft pricks...
You are not the average user. By posting on slashdot you've already demonstrated that.
/. stopped giving grandma and mom, dad, Sister Suzi and Brother Billy support on their Windows PC, the whole fscking house of cards would finally come crashing down.
No, the average user will ask me at least two dozen times how to create a shortcut, where his my documents files are, how to get a file from one PC to another when a drive isn't mapped and a pretty little icon doesn't exist that says "Dick's PC" on the desktop.
Print to printer on another machine, requiring a network connection? Good god? DHCP is the only thing keeping me sane. Plug in cable/DSL router, plug in computer, drive. Holy shit, if I actually had to spend more than 3 minutes setting up the average cable/dsl connection, I'd have offed myself years ago.
The average user is an id10t. Even on windows. It's only the fact that there's a HUGE network of people out there who make their life's work support this piece of shit that it keeps propagating itself. If everyone on
But no, because we're all a bunch of spineless hypocritical simpletons, we help them, and so wallow in our own Misery. BillG is laughing at us right now... And Ballmer is licking his feet...
Troll on.
Rich? I look at my investment in VMWare as $200 I don't have to spend on 4 computers and the power to run them for the next 4 years.
Pretty cheap investment, actually.
As if the little bit about the GNAA at the end wasn't clue enough?
Mkay, and by the time your supercomputer figures all those variables out, we'll by in Configuration Z, and care fuck-all about your simulation results. :-P Good idea, though.
Depends on the camera. Canon Powershots (up to and including the G2, for sure) don't support this. They do not show up as USB HDDs, stupid fscking Canon... :-/
Pot, meet Kettle...
Pot: Dude you're black!
Kettle: na-uh! You are!
Who's the freeloader?
A bit combative aren't we, MoneyT?
Note, I never said BSD was failing. I'd never argue that point. The post I responded to claimed the GPL has lost. "Every" was a bad choice of word, but there are certainly plenty of GPLd projects that are progressing along mightily...
If someone wants to purchase Linux and sell it in a commercial project, they can offer monetary recompense to all the kernel contributors to relicense it to them in term favorable to said entity.
Qt has dual-use licenses, so do other projects.
So could Linux. Hell, Microsoft could conceivably license Linux to use underneath a Win32 API...
The License does not remove rights the copyright owner already has.
Now I'm guessing you're trolling, because glibc is LGPLd which means you can link to it explicitly without fear of threat. Either that, or you came into this information from a friend-of-a-friend.
There was a time in the past, 1996, 1997 where this would have been an issue. Certainly not in the past five years...
No. GPLd code used in a project causes the viral aspect of the GPL to kick in on DISTRIBUTION only.
.sos, then you would have to provide some internal mechanism to convert the calls from static ones to dynamic if say lib_libname.so was present. Not worth the hassle. And this is only my opinion wrt static/dynamic linking.
The LGPL is much less restrictive, and indeed can be used in non-GPLd and even closed source applications. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between static and dynamic linking, but there is a clause in section 6 of the LGPL that your program must offer the user the ability to replace the LGPLd component of your program dynamically.
So in practice, this would exclude static linking in general. If you wanted to present a full static executable for execution that didn't rely on external
But it's pretty clear that the LGPL allows this, or no commercial software could be built on Linux with glibc or gcc.
Developing on Linux is NOT costlier than developing on other platforms. Those same libraries that may have been GPLd or LGPLd on Linux will be available to you on Windows or BSD. The very act of reusing something someone else wrote already saves you time and money. It's only if you're ALTERING someone elses work that you have to be worried, and if that's the case, on any other platform, you're already paying for it.
How tough is it: oh, project be is GPLd, according to the Copyright or Readme.txt. Shit, time to find a new project. Oh wait, library b is LGPLd, sweet, free code.
It's FUD. No more difficult in maintaining complaince than assuring that all your BSD attribution notices show up in your manuals and Help dialogs.
Understood. Well, I look forward to seeing it when it hits the market. I too have been wondering a bit about this lately, and this company better enjoy their time on top. What with AJAX and it's ilk coming around, I imagine it's a short period of time before the OSS community gets it into their collective little head.
Part of me, composing this post, is wondering why we're still using non-WYSIWYG entry boxes to compose things on the web (/. posts, wiki's etc) and not direct editing of page content. There's really no reason for it now, IMHO. A few shortcomings in the Javascript model are all I can see.
Anyhow, good luck to 'em. And thanks anyway.
Not really. Not when YOUR work is 10 lines of patch on my 10,000 lines of work. Nope. Not allowed. If you sell it or distribute it, I have to get those 10 lines of patches... sorry.
How the hell can ANYONE, nevermind all my fellow slashdot users, even pretend that the GPL somehow has LOST? When nearly every major project licensed under the GPL is growing, and at phenomenal rates?
I don't get it... it's like the whole "BSD is dying" crapflooding, it makes no sense, and the evidence proves otherwise.
If you're gonna pay someone, why not pay the GPL authors of your libraries/code 50% of what you'd pay in replacement costs, to simply have them LGPL it? Seems like a greater idea, you get all the benefits of the GPL and LGPL, and you don't even have to rewrite your code.
If the odds of me landing on Mars were 50/50, but getting back to earth would be 0%, I'd go in a heartbeat.
Why not find an LGPL image rendering library and link to it, statically or otherwise (which the LGPL allows, BTW).
Most libraries, true utilitarian libraries like this, are being licensed this way. It's not the concern you make it out to be.
Before LGPL, viral infection was a problem, and it still is, if the code you want to use isn't licensed as such. So I guess you could still argue that the GPL is a serious problem, while ignoring a whole other license that was invented to fix the problem of code REUSE, as opposed to code co-opting, while still staying true to the intent of the GPL.
8. Design to ensure that the damn camera-bot doesn't impact the orbiter and cause it's own damage.
So what's safer, jettisoning the ET while on top of it, or while under it? Because something of my physics knowledge tells me trying to drop it while under it will result in bad things happening to the orbiter.
When your launch costs $200 million in hardware costs alone, nevermind another $300+ million in refurbishment costs, you don't deliberately "test" abort methods...
But I can only imagine why booster separation would be a bad thing, and that's that the boosters would scream right by the orbiter, baking it in fiery rocket exhaust. In theory I guess you could do it, but when 40-70 percent of your thrust comes from two Roman candles... eep.
As opposed to what they're supposed to do, sit on a bench and keep it warm?
Care to name this magical editor?
And if we can use snopes to disprove theories, we can use it for the reverse. I present unto you:
www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.htm
So I say, if doctors can be fooled, your centurion surely is no better expert.
And I would surmise that there were so called "doctors" in the 19th century who let living people get buried alive. Looking for links tho... I'll be back!
I've got a $60 PS2, no spare controllers, a multitap (go figure?) and 4 games, all purchased used @ less than 1/2 original retail, and two new memory cards.
:-P
I buy all your used shit....