No financial firm puts important things on NT. Their financial stuff (ya know, the core business) is based on a mainframe. [...]These companies shouldn't want to risk running anything on a box where the tech could have been playing
Oh yeah? Excuse me, but a big fat what the fsck?!?
Don't you think those companies have any mainframe techs, then?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Anders credentials are based more on luck than skill.
Yeah, right... Anders is THE Borland Pascal god, you numbskull -- if it weren't for Nicklaus Wirth (hallowed be thy name in eternity) himself, he'd probably be THE Pascal god, period.
When Anders took over as the Borland Pascal Chief Architect (note: Delphi didn't exist yet).
What do you think he did before that? (Hint: Who do you think was the Turbo Pascal "Chief Architect"?) What do you mean "took over" -- whom do you think he replaced?
Then, one day, Anders gets this "brilliant idea" to take the BP language and put a visual interface on it!
Fifteen or eighteen years earlier, someone in a little Danish software company had another brilliant idea: "Hey, let's build an easy-to-use Pascal compiler for PCs!" Philippe Kahn saw it, bought it, brought it (and the guy who came up with it) to America, and turned it into Turbo Pascal. Turbo Pascal later became Borland Pascal, and finally Delphi.
The Danish "someone" who came up with it in the first place was... Anders! "More luck than skill", my ass.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
So either the documents are still with the lawyers, or Dale Fuller has changed his mind.
Personally I hope ISC gets going, perhaps even with some borland ownership, as the original founders of interbase they are in a MUCH better position to support the product. And have supported the product through several poor owners including Borland.
Also after them investing 6months of hard work getting IB this far it would really piss them off if something doesn't happen along this line. And that would be pretty bad news for the product.
OK, call it "speculation" in stead of "theory"...:-)
I've seen some rather pissed-off posts on IB mailing lists today, for this very reason. And if it really were a case of Borland "ripping ISC off", then I'd be right there beside them, spewing venom.
But basically, I think it was, as you say, "the lawyers" who made them change their plans. You see, the plan of "first give away, then let the recipient (ISC) open it" implies that there is a monetary value to the code -- why else would a commercial entity like ISC want it? That's a legal no-no; Borland would just be giving their share-holders' money away.
Opening up source code, OTOH, is another thing entirely. Borland can do that, mumbling about "goodwill from the developer community" and intangible stuff like that, and carefully avoid ascribing any direct monetary value to the source code they're freeing up -- "giving away" -- to the whole community.
Normally, the company that does this would then be the one that tries to make at least some money from support, documentation, services like that. But there's nothing that says they'd have to; and, as someone pointed out in the mini-license-flamewar above, there's nothing to stop somebody else from doing it in stead.
See where I'm going with this? Yes, I think this was the only way they could do it -- give the code away not to a company, but "the community", to avoid lawsuits from share-holders. Then, when Borland just "doesn't happen to" go into the InterBase-support business, ISC can do so; they didn't get anything from Borland, but are using "the whole community's" open-sourced code.
Maybe I'm giving Borland too much of a "benefit of the doubt", here, I dunno, but I hope (and think) not... They've always been a developer-friendly company, in my experience. But I'll check the mailing lists again, later tonight (Finnish time) and get back to y'all.
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Likewise, if a store wishes to only reveal prices when the item is bought, like some jewlery stores or some auto shops (due to complicated pricing) they are allowed to.
Heh... Sorry, but that's pretty dreadfully naive, IMAO.
Those jewelry stores and auto shops don't hide their prices unless you're really buying "due to complicated pricing" -- no way!
It's just so you won't be able to comparison-shop.
(So yes, I guess there really *is* a parallel...)
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
for a site to really be slashdotted, by definition, the recipient site must have less hardware and bandwidth than slashdot itself.
Naah. It must just be overwhelmed by requests referred from slashdot.
And that can depend on what it is itself trying to serve up: If a tiny slashdot piece (say, a "normal-length" intro plus less than ten comments) contains a link to some site's fancy-schmancy page with heaps o'graphics and stuff, then a bunch of/.-ers who were all able to get the original/. page may well happen to overwhelm the referred site's servers, even if they are a lot bigger than the one/. served the reference from.
And Apple, with all those prominent QuickTime links on almost every page... well, in that respect it's being its own worst enemy.
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
"I don't want to learn pascal. I'd far prefer they brought out the C++ version first. They didn't, because they're sickos. In any case, C++ will prove to be far more useful throughout my life than pascal."
How bloody nice for you.
For *me*, OTOH, a sane and reasonable language like Pascal will probably prove to be far more useful throughout my life than C++.
Lucky for me, Borland is there to provide it for me.
You can run out and buy Visual C++ or Visual C# or something.
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
"Kylix creates software that can only be compiled with non-free software."
Yeah, so?
You buy AutoCAD, you can use CAD drawings that I can't. I buy Quattro Pro, I can use spreadsheet files you can't. That's how it goes with proprietary software.
Should we campaign to abolish AutoCAD and Quattro Pro, whining about how some people can use some files and not others?!? Not even Linus wants to, AFAIK.
You don't think buying and installing Kylix will necessarily *remove* GCC from your system, do you?
Or that the kernel developers are going to start accepting patches that won't compile under GCC?
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
"Kylix will be sold [...] GCC will be used by developers." "Kylix will be sold [...] GCC is for developers." "Kylix will be used [...] CGG is used by developers."
Hey, WTF, over...?
Delphi (and thus, Kylix) programmers ARE developers.
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
You mean COM interfaces? COM interfaces on COM objects? When Kylix isn't doing COM? Riiight
"Riiight" indeed -- NOT!
No, he doesn't mean COM interfaces. He means OBJECT interfaces, like in Java. (You think that uses COM, too...?)
1: 'record' types. POD types. Can be created on stack, or I can 'allocmem' & assign pointer for heap-based records. But no member functions, and certainly no inheritance, unless I want to start contstructing function pointer tables myself, which seems a little excessive.
Yes, a "little" excessive indeed...
You'd basically be reinventing OOP. That's what the 'class' syntax is FOR, already.
2: 'class' types. Delphi's own object type, which I can't create on stack. All must be on heap, and must be explicitly '.free'd at end of use. They do have member functions though, and can use inheritance.
Why are you so hung up on where in memory they reside? Who gives a shit if they're "on stack" or "on heap"?
Just create them, use them, and free them -- how stupid does one have to be, not to be able to manage that? Oh, OK, for those who are, there are a couple shortcuts:
A) Assign them to an "Owner" object, which will take care of 'Free'-ing them when it is itself destroyed; or
B) Reference them (*only*!) _through an interface_, in which case the built-in reference counter takes care of them for you.
Neither should be necessary, but if you think you are too stupid to call 'Free', they're there for you to use. You don't *have* to, though.
3: 'component' types. Based on COM. True object type that is _not_ garbage collected, it is reference counted. Objects created on heap, and free themselves when ref count drops to zero. Must be careful not to make circular references, which will cause objects to stay around for ever.
No, *no*, NOOO! Sheesh, how fucking wrong can one be...?
There are no "separate 'component' types", and they aren't "Based on COM". They're just like "2: 'class' types", because they ARE ordinary defined-as-class objects.
You just declare them as, and *reference* them through, an _interface_ type in stead of through the class' native methods and properties, if you think you are too stupid to handle them the ordinary "class object" way; then they're 'Free'-d by the RTL when they aren't referenced any more.
Yeah, so you can't indulge in circular references and shit like that... So what? The type of moron who can't be expected to clean up after himself isn't very likely to get into any "advanced" stuff like that anyway. You gotta have *some* self-discipline, somewhere -- that's the price of using a powerful language where you, the programmer, are in ultimate control.
(The type of behaviour you seem to miss in Delphi, that you apparently have in C++, seems pretty VB-ish to me -- an interesting contrast for all the fuckwits who claim that it is Pascal that is the "toy language"...)
This is hampered by the fact that it is impossible to create weak references to objects. Also, all object must be inherited from TComponent,
Dunno what you mean by "weak references to objects" (unless it is what interfaces do?), but you're certtainly wrong again: No, they don't have to be inherited from TComponent.
They only *have to* implement some interfaces; if you write the objects, then *you* get to decide what interfaces you build into them. Sure, if you want them to implement IUnknown and, uh, whatever the other two basic reference-handling ones are called, then the easiest way is to inherit from TInterfacedObject. That's basically just TObject plus the implementations of those three interfaces.
(And yes, those interfaces ARE called the same as in COM; and no, that's probably not a coincidence. But that's just so *you* can easily build COM "objects" *from* them -- it doesn't mean that *they* NEED any COM stuff at all.)
and all must have v-tables, as well as the ref count and the ref-counting overhead, which I don't neccessarily want for tiny little objects I might have millions of.
Of course they have v-tables; that's what objects are all about! If you want pure dumb data, use an array of records or something.
And if you can't build a clean enough design that your "millions of little objects" keep track of themselves, use one of the built-in container classes, bung them into a TList or something.
I'm sorry, but that's a horrible mish-mash of ways to do things.
Yeah, sure, it might seem that way.
If one hasn't a fucking clue about what one is talking about.
I've found the features, I just don't like the way they seem to have evolved. I think they'd have been better if they'd been _designed_ with some type of consistency in mind
I'm sorry, but I think you have demonstrated that you aren't quite qualified to make that judgement.
Christian R. Conrad My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Yes, it's a shame he let himself be seduced by filthy lucre... Oh well, can't really hold it against the guy; he probably didn't get really rich in all his years with Borland, and then Micro$$$$oft probably gave him more at a stroke than he'd managed to put aside for those 15? 20? years.
But are you sure calling him "the last competent architect of Delphi at Borland" isn't overdoing it a bit?
The guys there now (e. g, Chuck Jadzewski and Danny Thorpe) seem to be pretty sharp too.
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Delphi has had accessors (a.k.a. "REAL properties") since forever (i.e, as long as it has existed -- Delphi 1 went on sale in early 1995), and
C-Crash was developed by Anders Hejlsberg, the erstwhile Chief Architect of Delphi and the most prominent of the developers Microsoft poached off Borland back in 1997 (or possibly -98?),
I'd say it's no big wonder that C-Hashhish has them too.
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Just wait until they actually DO package the VCLs with a distro and Delphi programmers from Windows start coming over to Linux... I'll be surprised if something as extreme as a firebombing doesn't happen.
Is that why there was that big firebomb attack in Norway, where TrollTech HQ was blown to cinders and all the staff burnt to death, after all those distros started including QT long before it was even as "open" as it is now?
And why was this attack never reported in the news media?
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... If anybody knows what they're talking about, it has to be her, donchathink?
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... So this is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
(And she's pretty goddarn funny too, in this post! Wild, you say? Aah, too sad I was too young to have been there with you and the rest of those "wild women"... Oh well, you were probably all married anyway.:-)
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... How could it *get* any more "informative" than that, if I may ask?
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
I have to use Visual C++ to code the clients, so I can comment on using RAD tools in a working environment.
Uh...
Are you trying to imply that the latter follows from the former? That "Visual" [Ha!] C++ is a RAD tool? That's... just not true.
And Delphi is even worse than Visual C++ for usability and bloat.
For "bloat", maybe.
If a ~250 K executable that does basically nothing -- say, displays "Hello, World!" -- is too "bloated" for you. But you're missing two things:
Since the Forms and Controls units have so much of the Win32 API coded into them, your app grows only very slowly as you add functionality to that empty window.
you can always code raw-API instead -- IIRC, the do-nothing example from Herbert Schildt's Windows programming book (probably very similar to Petzold's simplest example) compiled to 6.5 K in Delphi 2, and a bit more -- 8 K? 10? -- in Delphi 3.
And "worse usability" ?!? Come on, man! That's just so way-out-in-the-blue...
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
These [BSDi's] developers have managed to keep a closed-source BSD competitive with its open source cousins--no mean feat.
Huh?
How is that a "feat"? AFAICS, it just illustrates the weakness of the BSD license: Anyone could easily keep a closed-source OS competitive with an open-source template that was free for the taking. What was that somebody said about "Microsoft's" implementation of DNS (or whatever it was) in Windows 2000...?
And before you call me a "zealot" again, Arandir, let me say I'm not. (Not much, anyway!:-) It's just that IMnshO, there's such a thing as too "free" -- if you want something to remain free, you better not give away the "freedom" to make it non-free. And if something can't remain free longer than it takes the first "entrepreneur" to grab it and lock it up, how "free" is it really?
Linux is now the second-most-widely-used PC operating system in the world, firm proof that the open source concept is completely commercially viable.
But which "open source concept" is it that is "completely commercially viable"?
I'm not sure about the commercial aspect -- maybe BSDi has been making money like hay, and much of the current Linux boom is just artificial stock-exchange valuations that seem totally out of whack with the real world -- but I am pretty sure that precisely this fact -- that Linux, not *BSD, is now the second-most-widely-used PC OS in the world -- says something about which licensing scheme it is that is more "viable" as an "open source concept".
Christian R. Conrad MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you think those companies have any mainframe techs, then?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
The Danish "someone" who came up with it in the first place was... Anders! "More luck than skill", my ass.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Or Xerxes.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
That's all I had to say, so why the F do I *have* to put something here!?!
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
I've seen some rather pissed-off posts on IB mailing lists today, for this very reason. And if it really were a case of Borland "ripping ISC off", then I'd be right there beside them, spewing venom.
But basically, I think it was, as you say, "the lawyers" who made them change their plans. You see, the plan of "first give away, then let the recipient (ISC) open it" implies that there is a monetary value to the code -- why else would a commercial entity like ISC want it? That's a legal no-no; Borland would just be giving their share-holders' money away.
Opening up source code, OTOH, is another thing entirely. Borland can do that, mumbling about "goodwill from the developer community" and intangible stuff like that, and carefully avoid ascribing any direct monetary value to the source code they're freeing up -- "giving away" -- to the whole community.
Normally, the company that does this would then be the one that tries to make at least some money from support, documentation, services like that. But there's nothing that says they'd have to; and, as someone pointed out in the mini-license-flamewar above, there's nothing to stop somebody else from doing it in stead.
See where I'm going with this? Yes, I think this was the only way they could do it -- give the code away not to a company, but "the community", to avoid lawsuits from share-holders. Then, when Borland just "doesn't happen to" go into the InterBase-support business, ISC can do so; they didn't get anything from Borland, but are using "the whole community's" open-sourced code.
Maybe I'm giving Borland too much of a "benefit of the doubt", here, I dunno, but I hope (and think) not... They've always been a developer-friendly company, in my experience. But I'll check the mailing lists again, later tonight (Finnish time) and get back to y'all.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
That's all I had to say, so why the F do I *have* to put something here?!?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Those jewelry stores and auto shops don't hide their prices unless you're really buying "due to complicated pricing" -- no way!
It's just so you won't be able to comparison-shop.
(So yes, I guess there really *is* a parallel...)
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
And that can depend on what it is itself trying to serve up: If a tiny slashdot piece (say, a "normal-length" intro plus less than ten comments) contains a link to some site's fancy-schmancy page with heaps o'graphics and stuff, then a bunch of
And Apple, with all those prominent QuickTime links on almost every page... well, in that respect it's being its own worst enemy.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
...do you? That is, in case you missed it, the AC above just explained why your post is just plain stupid.
Bloss dass du's woisch, gel?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
"I don't want to learn pascal. I'd far prefer they brought out the C++ version first.
They didn't, because they're sickos.
In any case, C++ will prove to be far more useful throughout my life than pascal."
How bloody nice for you.
For *me*, OTOH, a sane and reasonable language like Pascal will probably prove to be far more useful throughout my life than C++.
Lucky for me, Borland is there to provide it for me.
You can run out and buy Visual C++ or Visual C# or something.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
'jjc' writes:
"Kylix creates software that can only be compiled with non-free software."
Yeah, so?
You buy AutoCAD, you can use CAD drawings that I can't. I buy Quattro Pro, I can use spreadsheet files you can't. That's how it goes with proprietary software.
Should we campaign to abolish AutoCAD and Quattro Pro, whining about how some people can use some files and not others?!? Not even Linus wants to, AFAIK.
You don't think buying and installing Kylix will necessarily *remove* GCC from your system, do you?
Or that the kernel developers are going to start accepting patches that won't compile under GCC?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
'Spudley' writes:
"Kylix will be sold [...] GCC will be used by developers."
"Kylix will be sold [...] GCC is for developers."
"Kylix will be used [...] CGG is used by developers."
Hey, WTF, over...?
Delphi (and thus, Kylix) programmers ARE developers.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
No, he doesn't mean COM interfaces. He means OBJECT interfaces, like in Java. (You think that uses COM, too...?)
Yes, a "little" excessive indeed...
You'd basically be reinventing OOP. That's what the 'class' syntax is FOR, already.
Why are you so hung up on where in memory they reside? Who gives a shit if they're "on stack" or "on heap"?
Just create them, use them, and free them -- how stupid does one have to be, not to be able to manage that? Oh, OK, for those who are, there are a couple shortcuts:
A) Assign them to an "Owner" object, which will take care of 'Free'-ing them when it is itself destroyed; or
B) Reference them (*only*!) _through an interface_, in which case the built-in reference counter takes care of them for you.
Neither should be necessary, but if you think you are too stupid to call 'Free', they're there for you to use. You don't *have* to, though.
No, *no*, NOOO! Sheesh, how fucking wrong can one be...?
There are no "separate 'component' types", and they aren't "Based on COM". They're just like "2: 'class' types", because they ARE ordinary defined-as-class objects.
You just declare them as, and *reference* them through, an _interface_ type in stead of through the class' native methods and properties, if you think you are too stupid to handle them the ordinary "class object" way; then they're 'Free'-d by the RTL when they aren't referenced any more.
Yeah, so you can't indulge in circular references and shit like that... So what? The type of moron who can't be expected to clean up after himself isn't very likely to get into any "advanced" stuff like that anyway. You gotta have *some* self-discipline, somewhere -- that's the price of using a powerful language where you, the programmer, are in ultimate control.
(The type of behaviour you seem to miss in Delphi, that you apparently have in C++, seems pretty VB-ish to me -- an interesting contrast for all the fuckwits who claim that it is Pascal that is the "toy language"...)
Dunno what you mean by "weak references to objects" (unless it is what interfaces do?), but you're certtainly wrong again: No, they don't have to be inherited from TComponent.
They only *have to* implement some interfaces; if you write the objects, then *you* get to decide what interfaces you build into them. Sure, if you want them to implement IUnknown and, uh, whatever the other two basic reference-handling ones are called, then the easiest way is to inherit from TInterfacedObject. That's basically just TObject plus the implementations of those three interfaces.
(And yes, those interfaces ARE called the same as in COM; and no, that's probably not a coincidence. But that's just so *you* can easily build COM "objects" *from* them -- it doesn't mean that *they* NEED any COM stuff at all.)
Of course they have v-tables; that's what objects are all about! If you want pure dumb data, use an array of records or something.
And if you can't build a clean enough design that your "millions of little objects" keep track of themselves, use one of the built-in container classes, bung them into a TList or something.
Yeah, sure, it might seem that way.
If one hasn't a fucking clue about what one is talking about.
I'm sorry, but I think you have demonstrated that you aren't quite qualified to make that judgement.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Yes, it's a shame he let himself be seduced by filthy lucre... Oh well, can't really hold it against the guy; he probably didn't get really rich in all his years with Borland, and then Micro$$$$oft probably gave him more at a stroke than he'd managed to put aside for those 15? 20? years.
But are you sure calling him "the last competent architect of Delphi at Borland" isn't overdoing it a bit?
The guys there now (e. g, Chuck Jadzewski and Danny Thorpe) seem to be pretty sharp too.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
- Delphi has had accessors (a.k.a. "REAL properties") since forever (i.e, as long as it has existed -- Delphi 1 went on sale in early 1995), and
- C-Crash was developed by Anders Hejlsberg, the erstwhile Chief Architect of Delphi and the most prominent of the developers Microsoft poached off Borland back in 1997 (or possibly -98?),
I'd say it's no big wonder that C-Hashhish has them too.Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Or a split-personality aspect of me that I was hitherto unaware of?
Yours truly,
"Good_CRC"
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
JBuilder is even available for Linux nowadays, AFAIK.
HTH!
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
And why was this attack never reported in the news media?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
I very nearly fell for that, you know.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... If anybody knows what they're talking about, it has to be her, donchathink?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... So this is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
:-)
(And she's pretty goddarn funny too, in this post! Wild, you say? Aah, too sad I was too young to have been there with you and the rest of those "wild women"... Oh well, you were probably all married anyway.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... How could it *get* any more "informative" than that, if I may ask?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
At least according to David I, who promises "More Antique Software Coming Soon To The Museum" on Borland's developer community Web site.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Are you trying to imply that the latter follows from the former? That "Visual" [Ha!] C++ is a RAD tool? That's... just not true.
For "bloat", maybe.If a ~250 K executable that does basically nothing -- say, displays "Hello, World!" -- is too "bloated" for you. But you're missing two things:
And "worse usability" ?!? Come on, man! That's just so way-out-in-the-blue...
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
How is that a "feat"? AFAICS, it just illustrates the weakness of the BSD license: Anyone could easily keep a closed-source OS competitive with an open-source template that was free for the taking. What was that somebody said about "Microsoft's" implementation of DNS (or whatever it was) in Windows 2000...?
And before you call me a "zealot" again, Arandir, let me say I'm not. (Not much, anyway! :-) It's just that IMnshO, there's such a thing as too "free" -- if you want something to remain free, you better not give away the "freedom" to make it non-free. And if something can't remain free longer than it takes the first "entrepreneur" to grab it and lock it up, how "free" is it really?
But which "open source concept" is it that is "completely commercially viable"?I'm not sure about the commercial aspect -- maybe BSDi has been making money like hay, and much of the current Linux boom is just artificial stock-exchange valuations that seem totally out of whack with the real world -- but I am pretty sure that precisely this fact -- that Linux, not *BSD, is now the second-most-widely-used PC OS in the world -- says something about which licensing scheme it is that is more "viable" as an "open source concept".
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.