Errrrr, no. Reading the manual is a waste of time because default behaviour is being made up on-the-fly - as always.
nohup, screen etc. have always persisted beyond the end of a session and this has been expected behaviour for the past thirty years or so. Anything that changes that is a bug and needs to be fixed. Default behaviour already cleans up on logout if processes aren't detached from their parent process so this shouldn't be a problem.
Fucking up expected and long-standing behaviour because Gnome can't clean up after itself, and where this is the 'fix', is total nonsense. God knows what other behaviour this will fuck up.
Here's the problem with your idea. These processes are already killed when you log out if you haven't done something to detach them from their PPID. That's already the default. Now the problem is that systemd will kill even processes you have done that to, unless you reconfigure systemd. That is not arduous, but changing the default behavior should not be the default. I am Jack's total lack of surprise that the systemd developers would change default behavior, since that's what they have been up to all along. I am also unsurprised that many slashdotters who lack perspective are willing to share their utterly worthless opinions with the rest of us. It's not that these guys are trying to make improvements that rankles. It's the slipshod quality of their efforts, and their arrogant insistence that they know better than the giants of computing history that figured this stuff out to begin with.
My mod points have gone sadly, but that sums things up perfectly. The problem here is not killing on logout, it's that even with nohup it is still going to kill them. I mean, that's why you use bloody nohup, and I'm also suspicious as to what other further problems this might cause when you want to run long running processes under a user under other circumstances. Screen is heavily used by administrators, me included.
These things have evolved and are the way they are for a reason.
Even if this were true*,.NET runs on powerful, modern commodity hardware. If you were to start a software project from scratch, it would cost orders of magnitude more to build it using a mainframe system than a.NET based system with similar performance characteristics.
Factoring in rewriting millions of lines of code for no reason? I don't think so.
So be it, if that is what these companies desire. But they should keep in mind that it will become increasingly expensive to keep their software running on newer machines (and their old ones will fail, eventually), and if they even require new features, it might be very hard and expensive to find someone who is willing and able to implement them.
Still not going to change anything. That's why virtualisation got popular as well. You can still run old operating systems in virtual machines, so the failing machines argument that people used to use to get paid doesn't work either.
How is JavaScript even remotely comparable to a dead languages like VB or COBOL?
It shows you the inertia in legacy languages and technology. Lots of people would like to replace JavaScript but there is just too much code written in it.
Indeed. Even those who do have large tech departments, like large banks, used VB extensively for desktop apps and still have decades old COBOL code. Legacy stuff like COBOL, VB, JavaScript and other things don't disappear because some people have an idealistic notion that there is always money available for a migration project not to mention the inertia.
The already kind of are. We have Bash integration and a lot of integration for things like Rails. When they do that, and few are writing Windows applications any more, what is the point of Windows? The reason why is because they flushed the Windows API away and forced developers on to other alternatives. Getting rid of VB will be seen as a pivotal moment in Microsoft's history. Few moved on to.Net and the Windows API ceased to matter for anything new that was developed.
BUT the compiler and lack of real OO certainly isn't..
Everybody, including me, thought full OO in VB would be a good thing. As it turns out, it wasn't. All you really asked of VB was for it to handle memory management and keep all of the complex bits of OO away from you and leave that to C# or something. What they should have done was built VB.Net as a development environment on top of.Net, with backwards compatibility, so you could at least take existing code and recompile it with perhaps some small modifications.
Yeah,.NET has only been around since 2002. If only you had started slowly converting individual components 10 years ago, you wouldn't have this problem now. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Not going to happen, and it never was. The rules that applied then apply now. Companies do not pay to rewrite all their applications in the latest new technology which does all the same stuff their old one did - and nothing more. In fact,.Net applications generally run slower. Great. It makes *zero* sense. Only a developer living in an idealistic fantasy world thinks that, which is exactly how Microsoft thought with.Net and VB.Net.
I'm afraid you're simply someone with no knowledge or experience of what happens with legacy applications and why they simply don't get rewritten in the latest and coolest technology. There are fundamental reasons why we are still talking about classical VB and why we still talk about COBOL. Hell, we're still talking about bloody JavaScript after all these years. Your idealistic and simplistic notion of how organisations operate will not change that.
"People" aren't passionate about VB6. Businesses who don't want to get their production code out of the 20th century, and they're out there, are passionate about VB6.
Look at COBOL. People do not rewrite their business applications just because you happen to think they should, nor will they spend money on developing a new application......that does exactly the same thing. Sorry, but that's not how the real world works.
It is not going to die I'm afraid. There are still countless applications written in it that will simply never be rewritten. Microsoft lost the backwards compatibility religion some time ago, as Joel Spolsky pointed out over ten years ago. People who say "Let it die" have absolutely no idea what is written in it, and what they actually depend on themselves if they've never even written a line of VB.
Using a compatible language or interfaces is not copying.
The laughable thing is, if Dalvik is an implementation, up to a point, then without at least some of the same interfaces and the ability to use the same code.....it ceases to be an implementation.
What Google did is create an equivalent to Java's runtime that didn't use any Sun IP, and a tool "dx" that translates Java bytecode into Dalvik bytecode. Did they have the right to do that?
This is done by various developer tools every day of the week.
All this is only relevant to the question of APIs because Oracle had to focus on the one thing they could prove Google took from Java. The rest of the toolchain is clearly NOT based on Sun's technology, so Oracle would have no case.
Indeed not. They hoped to find unlicensed implementation code in Java and didn't find any, so they switched to the ridiculous notion of APIs.
You've responded and come up with nothing other than repeating the same debunked tripe because it is all you have. Ditto Oracle in this trial. Their lawyers have done exactly the same thing - repeat the word 'copy' multiple times. Maybe Google should copyright it?;-)
Errrrr, no, they didn't, and desperately repeating this won't make it true I'm afraid.
They fully admit that. It's not even a question in court.
No, they haven't. Wishing this won't make it true.
1) Were the copied parts protected under copyright?
No actually, and I'm afraid the Supreme Court ruling is going to be continually questioned here - because it is so obviously wrong. For another thing Sun open sourced *Java* and is relying on hearsay and the vague opinions of developers on mailing lists to attempt to say this doesn't apply.
2) Were the copied parts allowed as fair use?
Obviously. What Google has done as been done in the compiler and developer tools market since time immemorial.
Oracle love trying to avoid the elephants in the room and continually reframing things with questions that have no relation to reality regarding how software actually works. Even when you apply their own questions, they still fail.
You're blowing ignorance out your fingers now. You hate Oracle.....
Blah, blah, blah. You've told us all everything we need to know right from the start there. Woe is me, everybody hates me!
They didn't copy anything from Java? Really?
Nope, they didn't. You need to learn what an implementation is. They attempted to license a Java implementation which fell through, and that was that.
No, you're wrong, Joshua Bloch wrote code in both Android and in Sun's version of Java. If you have the same person writing code in both places, that's the sloppiest "clean room" implementation ever.
I'm not sure what this pile of drivel is supposed to mean. It means nothing, but by implication, we're supposed to derive something from it. Like Oracle's whole case. I suppose someone at Oracle went to a Bat Mitzvah and heard something?;-)
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
You can't *copy* APIs. They are *interfaces*, nothing more. It's like that because someone has created their own power system with a compatible three pin plug system that they owe you money. Totally ridiculous. Are you getting this yet? Throwing "Wait, I though you just said?!" questions out like that is just internet forum type desperation.
Every company is not going to have to go to court to prove fair use, you're letting your emotions carry you away again.
Yes they are, and I'm afraid it's you who are emotional here. There is simply too much money for copyright trolls to make here.
And it doesn't matter what 'version' Oracle 'makes,' it matters how the courts rule. The lawyers are supposed to present several arguments to support their case, that's what lawyers do.
It does. Oracle's idea of 'fair use' and what constitutes interoperability is simply ridiculous. Courts have already shown they are totally out of their depth.
In what case have APIs ever been treated as non-copyrightable?
Errrr, since software started? The developer tools market collapses without it for one.
Again, calm down, don't let your emotions carry you away, you will think more clearly.
ROTFL. The only desperate people here are Oracle - because they actually need revenue out of this.
What will end up happening, if Oracle wins this, is that every troll company in existence will claim copyright over various APIs. The whole thing will get so ridiculous and the software industry so paralysed that fair use will simply be ruled across the board. APIs might still be copyrightable, but it won't matter because fair use will automatically be assumed. However, that won't happen before we've gone through ridiculous charades like this one.
No it hasn't, throughout the decades copyright of software has been upheld.
Yes it has. Software implementations, yes, APIs no. Not sure if you're just ignorant or are deliberately painting over that. The developer tools market is built on this and has been since the year dot.
Nah, because there is a strong interoperability defense, that allows you to copy copyrighted APIs (which is what your friend dr dos did).
Nope, because every company is now going to have to go to court to prove 'fair use'', which Oracle has made various versions of as it has gone along. If you can't prove that then there are billions in free money waiting for everyone who can claim copyright over APIs. At the time of DR DOS APIs were certainly not copyrightable and haven't been deemed to be so until recently. There is no *strong* fair use defence. That was shoehorned in when the people making the laughable ruling realised what trouble it would cause, but it creates a nice walled garden nonetheless.
1) They didn't make a clean-room copy.
Yes they did, and it's not a copy. Dalvik isn't a Java.
2) They didn't make their copy for interoperability reasons.
Yes they did. They wanted a familiar language where developers could reuse *their* code and port over. There are developer tools that have been on the market for decades that will do exactly that. Oracle's idea that because Android isn't 100% compatible with Java, and they didn't copy *all* the APIs, so therefore it can't be about interoperability is absolutely laughable.
3) They didn't use any of the licenses that were available for Java. Google has now switched to the GPL for their Java, so there is no more problem for them going forward.
They didn't need a license because they didn't copy anything from Java and what they implemented isn't Java. What code you could write for Android looks like Java, as a language, but that's all.
It's a distinction Oracle are rather desperate to muddy because they'd like to make some money out of this case because they failed to develop anything remotely useful people wanted. A lot of their customers are starting jump ship as well. Revenue-wise this is quite important to Oracle, and you see that in how desperate their lawyers get.
Indeed so. Anyone who wants to sell software of any kind is going to have to be pretty aware of this, especially those writing developer tools. However, getting into corporate law won't help anyone. Smaller software companies simply don't have the money to argue fair use in a court.
On the other, Google just did what got Microsoft in trouble with msjvm.dll, but people just didn't like Microsoft, while people like Google, even though Google has taken far more control from people than Microsoft ever gave (before it too went cloudy). On balance, then, fuck the whole collective of spunkpuffins.
No. Microsoft licensed a JVM implementation from Sun and Sun argued that what Microsoft did contravened that deal. They settled out of court.
Slashdot Mirror
Errrrr, no. Reading the manual is a waste of time because default behaviour is being made up on-the-fly - as always.
nohup, screen etc. have always persisted beyond the end of a session and this has been expected behaviour for the past thirty years or so. Anything that changes that is a bug and needs to be fixed. Default behaviour already cleans up on logout if processes aren't detached from their parent process so this shouldn't be a problem.
Fucking up expected and long-standing behaviour because Gnome can't clean up after itself, and where this is the 'fix', is total nonsense. God knows what other behaviour this will fuck up.
Here's the problem with your idea. These processes are already killed when you log out if you haven't done something to detach them from their PPID. That's already the default. Now the problem is that systemd will kill even processes you have done that to, unless you reconfigure systemd. That is not arduous, but changing the default behavior should not be the default. I am Jack's total lack of surprise that the systemd developers would change default behavior, since that's what they have been up to all along. I am also unsurprised that many slashdotters who lack perspective are willing to share their utterly worthless opinions with the rest of us. It's not that these guys are trying to make improvements that rankles. It's the slipshod quality of their efforts, and their arrogant insistence that they know better than the giants of computing history that figured this stuff out to begin with.
My mod points have gone sadly, but that sums things up perfectly. The problem here is not killing on logout, it's that even with nohup it is still going to kill them. I mean, that's why you use bloody nohup, and I'm also suspicious as to what other further problems this might cause when you want to run long running processes under a user under other circumstances. Screen is heavily used by administrators, me included.
These things have evolved and are the way they are for a reason.
They've also regurgitated this crap before years ago: https://www.publicknowledge.or...
Even if this were true*, .NET runs on powerful, modern commodity hardware. If you were to start a software project from scratch, it would cost orders of magnitude more to build it using a mainframe system than a .NET based system with similar performance characteristics.
Factoring in rewriting millions of lines of code for no reason? I don't think so.
So be it, if that is what these companies desire. But they should keep in mind that it will become increasingly expensive to keep their software running on newer machines (and their old ones will fail, eventually), and if they even require new features, it might be very hard and expensive to find someone who is willing and able to implement them.
Still not going to change anything. That's why virtualisation got popular as well. You can still run old operating systems in virtual machines, so the failing machines argument that people used to use to get paid doesn't work either.
How is JavaScript even remotely comparable to a dead languages like VB or COBOL?
It shows you the inertia in legacy languages and technology. Lots of people would like to replace JavaScript but there is just too much code written in it.
Indeed. Even those who do have large tech departments, like large banks, used VB extensively for desktop apps and still have decades old COBOL code. Legacy stuff like COBOL, VB, JavaScript and other things don't disappear because some people have an idealistic notion that there is always money available for a migration project not to mention the inertia.
The already kind of are. We have Bash integration and a lot of integration for things like Rails. When they do that, and few are writing Windows applications any more, what is the point of Windows? The reason why is because they flushed the Windows API away and forced developers on to other alternatives. Getting rid of VB will be seen as a pivotal moment in Microsoft's history. Few moved on to .Net and the Windows API ceased to matter for anything new that was developed.
I'm pretty sure I've had it running under 7.
Come on. We're on to camelCase now.
BUT the compiler and lack of real OO certainly isn't..
Everybody, including me, thought full OO in VB would be a good thing. As it turns out, it wasn't. All you really asked of VB was for it to handle memory management and keep all of the complex bits of OO away from you and leave that to C# or something. What they should have done was built VB.Net as a development environment on top of .Net, with backwards compatibility, so you could at least take existing code and recompile it with perhaps some small modifications.
Yeah, .NET has only been around since 2002. If only you had started slowly converting individual components 10 years ago, you wouldn't have this problem now. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Not going to happen, and it never was. The rules that applied then apply now. Companies do not pay to rewrite all their applications in the latest new technology which does all the same stuff their old one did - and nothing more. In fact, .Net applications generally run slower. Great. It makes *zero* sense. Only a developer living in an idealistic fantasy world thinks that, which is exactly how Microsoft thought with .Net and VB.Net.
I'm afraid you're simply someone with no knowledge or experience of what happens with legacy applications and why they simply don't get rewritten in the latest and coolest technology. There are fundamental reasons why we are still talking about classical VB and why we still talk about COBOL. Hell, we're still talking about bloody JavaScript after all these years. Your idealistic and simplistic notion of how organisations operate will not change that.
If you're still running COBOL code you're probably part of the 50% of the economy that will be replaced by robots in the next 20 years. Change or die.
Dream on.
Such is life
Not going to happen. Such is life I'm afraid.
"People" aren't passionate about VB6. Businesses who don't want to get their production code out of the 20th century, and they're out there, are passionate about VB6.
Look at COBOL. People do not rewrite their business applications just because you happen to think they should, nor will they spend money on developing a new application......that does exactly the same thing. Sorry, but that's not how the real world works.
It is not going to die I'm afraid. There are still countless applications written in it that will simply never be rewritten. Microsoft lost the backwards compatibility religion some time ago, as Joel Spolsky pointed out over ten years ago. People who say "Let it die" have absolutely no idea what is written in it, and what they actually depend on themselves if they've never even written a line of VB.
The laughable thing is, if Dalvik is an implementation, up to a point, then without at least some of the same interfaces and the ability to use the same code.....it ceases to be an implementation.
What Google did is create an equivalent to Java's runtime that didn't use any Sun IP, and a tool "dx" that translates Java bytecode into Dalvik bytecode. Did they have the right to do that?
This is done by various developer tools every day of the week.
All this is only relevant to the question of APIs because Oracle had to focus on the one thing they could prove Google took from Java. The rest of the toolchain is clearly NOT based on Sun's technology, so Oracle would have no case.
Indeed not. They hoped to find unlicensed implementation code in Java and didn't find any, so they switched to the ridiculous notion of APIs.
You've responded and come up with nothing other than repeating the same debunked tripe because it is all you have. Ditto Oracle in this trial. Their lawyers have done exactly the same thing - repeat the word 'copy' multiple times. Maybe Google should copyright it? ;-)
Perhaps existing words in existing dictionaries, but words in general can be copyrighted.
No, they can't. This is the case as everything would get completely ridiculous - even by copyright standards.
No. In this case, Google definitely copied Java.
Errrrr, no, they didn't, and desperately repeating this won't make it true I'm afraid.
They fully admit that. It's not even a question in court.
No, they haven't. Wishing this won't make it true.
1) Were the copied parts protected under copyright?
No actually, and I'm afraid the Supreme Court ruling is going to be continually questioned here - because it is so obviously wrong. For another thing Sun open sourced *Java* and is relying on hearsay and the vague opinions of developers on mailing lists to attempt to say this doesn't apply.
2) Were the copied parts allowed as fair use?
Obviously. What Google has done as been done in the compiler and developer tools market since time immemorial.
Oracle love trying to avoid the elephants in the room and continually reframing things with questions that have no relation to reality regarding how software actually works. Even when you apply their own questions, they still fail.
You're blowing ignorance out your fingers now. You hate Oracle.....
Blah, blah, blah. You've told us all everything we need to know right from the start there. Woe is me, everybody hates me!
They didn't copy anything from Java? Really?
Nope, they didn't. You need to learn what an implementation is. They attempted to license a Java implementation which fell through, and that was that.
No, you're wrong, Joshua Bloch wrote code in both Android and in Sun's version of Java. If you have the same person writing code in both places, that's the sloppiest "clean room" implementation ever.
I'm not sure what this pile of drivel is supposed to mean. It means nothing, but by implication, we're supposed to derive something from it. Like Oracle's whole case. I suppose someone at Oracle went to a Bat Mitzvah and heard something? ;-)
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
You can't *copy* APIs. They are *interfaces*, nothing more. It's like that because someone has created their own power system with a compatible three pin plug system that they owe you money. Totally ridiculous. Are you getting this yet? Throwing "Wait, I though you just said?!" questions out like that is just internet forum type desperation.
Every company is not going to have to go to court to prove fair use, you're letting your emotions carry you away again.
Yes they are, and I'm afraid it's you who are emotional here. There is simply too much money for copyright trolls to make here.
And it doesn't matter what 'version' Oracle 'makes,' it matters how the courts rule. The lawyers are supposed to present several arguments to support their case, that's what lawyers do.
It does. Oracle's idea of 'fair use' and what constitutes interoperability is simply ridiculous. Courts have already shown they are totally out of their depth.
In what case have APIs ever been treated as non-copyrightable?
Errrr, since software started? The developer tools market collapses without it for one.
Again, calm down, don't let your emotions carry you away, you will think more clearly.
ROTFL. The only desperate people here are Oracle - because they actually need revenue out of this.
What will end up happening, if Oracle wins this, is that every troll company in existence will claim copyright over various APIs. The whole thing will get so ridiculous and the software industry so paralysed that fair use will simply be ruled across the board. APIs might still be copyrightable, but it won't matter because fair use will automatically be assumed. However, that won't happen before we've gone through ridiculous charades like this one.
Copyrighting words in dictionary isn't possible.
No it hasn't, throughout the decades copyright of software has been upheld.
Yes it has. Software implementations, yes, APIs no. Not sure if you're just ignorant or are deliberately painting over that. The developer tools market is built on this and has been since the year dot.
Nah, because there is a strong interoperability defense, that allows you to copy copyrighted APIs (which is what your friend dr dos did).
Nope, because every company is now going to have to go to court to prove 'fair use'', which Oracle has made various versions of as it has gone along. If you can't prove that then there are billions in free money waiting for everyone who can claim copyright over APIs. At the time of DR DOS APIs were certainly not copyrightable and haven't been deemed to be so until recently. There is no *strong* fair use defence. That was shoehorned in when the people making the laughable ruling realised what trouble it would cause, but it creates a nice walled garden nonetheless.
1) They didn't make a clean-room copy.
Yes they did, and it's not a copy. Dalvik isn't a Java.
2) They didn't make their copy for interoperability reasons.
Yes they did. They wanted a familiar language where developers could reuse *their* code and port over. There are developer tools that have been on the market for decades that will do exactly that. Oracle's idea that because Android isn't 100% compatible with Java, and they didn't copy *all* the APIs, so therefore it can't be about interoperability is absolutely laughable.
3) They didn't use any of the licenses that were available for Java. Google has now switched to the GPL for their Java, so there is no more problem for them going forward.
They didn't need a license because they didn't copy anything from Java and what they implemented isn't Java. What code you could write for Android looks like Java, as a language, but that's all.
It's a distinction Oracle are rather desperate to muddy because they'd like to make some money out of this case because they failed to develop anything remotely useful people wanted. A lot of their customers are starting jump ship as well. Revenue-wise this is quite important to Oracle, and you see that in how desperate their lawyers get.
Yep, you're going to see a ton of stuff coming out the woodwork. There is just simply too much money to be made here not to.
Indeed so. Anyone who wants to sell software of any kind is going to have to be pretty aware of this, especially those writing developer tools. However, getting into corporate law won't help anyone. Smaller software companies simply don't have the money to argue fair use in a court.
On the other, Google just did what got Microsoft in trouble with msjvm.dll, but people just didn't like Microsoft, while people like Google, even though Google has taken far more control from people than Microsoft ever gave (before it too went cloudy). On balance, then, fuck the whole collective of spunkpuffins.
No. Microsoft licensed a JVM implementation from Sun and Sun argued that what Microsoft did contravened that deal. They settled out of court.