Don't you hate it? I used to get sucked in on Usent quite regularly, cause between time-zones and propogation delays, I wouldn't get the article until the 3rd. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"Look at them, they can't even agree on a name, how can they code a decent OS." I agree with you. "Windows. Everyone shall move to NT5. No wait, let's call that Win2000. Not wait, everyone we'll let you stick with your consumer level windows for a while yet" That sort of indecision is what we poke fun at. Yet the Free Software community is falling into the ame trap. People can and will call the Free OS built on the Linux kernel whatever they like. But you have to be aware that arguing over it creates a certain impression in the mainstream, and I'm not sure its one we want. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Maybe it was due to the exact point being made earlier. "read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said" Of course the other message was only 2 minutes earlier, so it's hardly fair, nor do I think it is within the moderation guidelines. However if the idea is to have moderation pick out those articels which are really good, then having duplication is annoying. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
So if my system contains something non-free (like a non-free Netscape) does that mean I'm now NOT allowed to call it GNU/Linux anymore? GNU/Linux implies "Free Software" My system is not "Free Software" Therefore my system cannot be GNU/Linux. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Whether it costs money or not, it's still proprietry. $100 is a fair bit, but appropriate for the 3D market. BUT some people want truly free software, whether they can use it how they want, including making changes.
What would be good is for Tom to release the source to the Free Version, and sell proprietry extentions. People would still complain of course, but it would be a better solution. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"How many programs did Tim O'Reilly write last week?" And your point is? What is with this constant insistance that goes on, that only people who write software can have opinions? If free software is really in the interests of users, then the opinions of the users must count. That fact that you wrote two GPL'd programs last week doesn't make your opinions any more worthwhile, except with regards to those programs. And the fact that you turn irrational and start raving on when someone posts something about Tim O'Reilly, does a lot to discredit those opinions.
Chill out dude. So you disagree strongly with Tim. I think we've all noticed that by now. There's no need to go slamming him at every opportunity.
- Zod "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
OpenSource / Debian Free
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
The definitions are the same. The difference is the judge. Bruce & Debain think the APSL fails the guidlines (Both Debian Free, and OpenSource) ESR thinks it passes both. RMS thinks it's not free, but he doesn't refer speicially to any defined set of guidelines.
So we have a unfortunate position where something can have the "OpenSource" mark, but not be allowed to be part of Debian. Ultimately it doesn't matter what any figure-head decides. They will make their points (and should) and the users will way up the pros/cons and decide whether to use/deveop the APSL stuff. I don't think I would. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"is this just an irrational hatred of Apple" Not it's an entirely rational critisim of a comapany that excepts to be heralded for giving back the changes. Sure the BSD licence never required them to, but its hardly a great revolution now they have. Apple took stuff under a very liberal licence, modified for their needs, and then re-relesed it under a very restrictive licence. They can't expect applause for that. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Would BSD -really- be fine without GNU?
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
"NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD depend on GCC, do they not?"
Nope. They rely on a compiler. That is currently gcc. GNU/FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the name just because their stuff is used.
Part of Free Software is not re-creating what already exists.
No one has seen a need to replace gcc. So they haven't.
GNU provides the compiler that they use (at the moment). But the system is BSD. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"I don't think anyone really asks for your overly-pessimistic unsubstantiated opinions." Gee, I thought that was the whole pont of this poll. To get people's opinions. Or did you miss that point? "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Well I have nothing against POSIX. But, people argue that it is "The one true API" when it isn't. The POSIX standard came about as a way to standardise UNIX APIs. A good "Standard API" should not be based upon a particular OS (family). Be attempts to be posix compatible (hasn't succeeded yet) but that doesn't mean a whole heap. It just means it provides some nice functions that have been well thought out through the UNIX years. But they're far from perfect. I'm all for a standard OS API, but ANSI C isn't it, and neither is POSIX. They don't provide enough features, and way too UNIX-centric. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Huh? An API is just an API, I could write a complete OS, and make it totally Free [speech] and use my own API. Would that make it better? Be's API is documented. That really is all you get even in OpenSource Please tell me what great open API Linux provides? Posix? Well Be provides that too (not yet there, but improving) And it's hardly a great API, just a defined set of functions from UNIX (which was proprietry) X? It's horrible, ugly and deserves to die. I would never write for an OS that designed its interface system around the X API "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
He really should get his facts straight before complaining. It doesn't do wonders for you argument if you litter it with fallacies like
All official developers have that library
When infact the Beta seeding for r4.1 was very small. I for one do not have a copy of it, despite being a registered developer, and having released products. Be is looking after the interests of the OS by not allowing ITS beta library to be released as a separate component just to keep one developer happy. "Hey Be, I'm writing an app that requires feature XXX in the OS - wanna add it for me and ship it tomorrow?" Tom really needs to pull his head in. If all he wants is beta testing then he has access to all the same beta testers that Be is using, since they all have 4.1 IMHO he sounds like a spoilt brat. I doubt he's even checked whether the new libGL works on r4 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
BUT Alpha support only came out with 2.1, which only came out on the 9th. The same day this was published. So at the time of writing they were not an Alpha Linux distributor. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Acutally Ghostscript is very free. It's not scrictly OpenSource though. Ghostscript is one of those unusual products that IHVs are willing to pay licencing for. "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
The GNU tools example is bogus. The Metrowerks tools are very good. They just didn't have a good x86 version at the time. The PowerPC version is very good. It produces good code and runs faster than gnuPro tools do. I prefer the GNU ones myself, but the gnu tools are not orders of magnitude better.
Actually, one of the biggest issues he tries to solve (at least in the printed version) is run-time efficiency. I think that one has still yet to be solved in Java.
"Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software.
They don't say their illegal, just "not authorized" ie, Nintendo don't want you doing it. Strictly all they're saying is "We don't want you doing it and you don't need to anyway" Of course it doesn't sound that way when your first read it. Very nicely done (in a damn corp way)
I am currently debugging a windows app remotely from my Mac. The MAC is crashing when the windows box gets an error. Development work on the Mac, which is what JC was primarily talking about, sux hardcore. chug chug chug BOOM! If only my boss would let me turn this 'puter into a BeOS machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Im running YellowDog Linux on my G-3 boxes now (it is wonderful). plan to buy a 500MHz G-4 as soon as they are commonly available.
Don't you hate it?
I used to get sucked in on Usent quite regularly, cause between time-zones and propogation delays, I wouldn't get the article until the 3rd.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"Look at them, they can't even
agree on a name, how can they code a decent OS."
I agree with you.
"Windows. Everyone shall move to NT5. No wait, let's call that Win2000. Not wait, everyone we'll let you stick with your consumer level windows for a while yet"
That sort of indecision is what we poke fun at. Yet the Free Software community is falling into the ame trap.
People can and will call the Free OS built on the Linux kernel whatever they like. But you have to be aware that arguing over it creates a certain impression in the mainstream, and I'm not sure its one we want.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Maybe it was due to the exact point being made earlier.
"read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply
duplicating what has already been said"
Of course the other message was only 2 minutes earlier, so it's hardly fair, nor do I think it is within the moderation guidelines.
However if the idea is to have moderation pick out those articels which are really good, then having duplication is annoying.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
So if my system contains something non-free (like a non-free Netscape) does that mean I'm now NOT allowed to call it GNU/Linux anymore?
GNU/Linux implies "Free Software"
My system is not "Free Software"
Therefore my system cannot be GNU/Linux.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Whether it costs money or not, it's still proprietry.
$100 is a fair bit, but appropriate for the 3D market.
BUT some people want truly free software, whether they can use it how they want, including making changes.
What would be good is for Tom to release the source to the Free Version, and sell proprietry extentions. People would still complain of course, but it would be a better solution.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"How many programs did Tim O'Reilly write last week?"
And your point is?
What is with this constant insistance that goes on, that only people who write software can have opinions?
If free software is really in the interests of users, then the opinions of the users must count.
That fact that you wrote two GPL'd programs last week doesn't make your opinions any more worthwhile, except with regards to those programs.
And the fact that you turn irrational and start raving on when someone posts something about Tim O'Reilly, does a lot to discredit those opinions.
Chill out dude. So you disagree strongly with Tim. I think we've all noticed that by now. There's no need to go slamming him at every opportunity.
- Zod
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
The definitions are the same. The difference is the judge.
Bruce & Debain think the APSL fails the guidlines (Both Debian Free, and OpenSource)
ESR thinks it passes both.
RMS thinks it's not free, but he doesn't refer speicially to any defined set of guidelines.
So we have a unfortunate position where something can have the "OpenSource" mark, but not be allowed to be part of Debian.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what any figure-head decides. They will make their points (and should) and the users will way up the pros/cons and decide whether to use/deveop the APSL stuff.
I don't think I would.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"is this just an irrational hatred of Apple"
Not it's an entirely rational critisim of a comapany that excepts to be heralded for giving back the changes.
Sure the BSD licence never required them to, but its hardly a great revolution now they have.
Apple took stuff under a very liberal licence, modified for their needs, and then re-relesed it under a very restrictive licence. They can't expect applause for that.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Nope. They rely on a compiler. That is currently gcc.
GNU/FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the name just because their stuff is used.
Part of Free Software is not re-creating what already exists.
No one has seen a need to replace gcc. So they haven't.
GNU provides the compiler that they use (at the moment). But the system is BSD.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
"I don't think anyone really asks for your overly-pessimistic unsubstantiated opinions."
Gee, I thought that was the whole pont of this poll. To get people's opinions.
Or did you miss that point?
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Well I have nothing against POSIX.
But, people argue that it is "The one true API" when it isn't.
The POSIX standard came about as a way to standardise UNIX APIs.
A good "Standard API" should not be based upon a particular OS (family).
Be attempts to be posix compatible (hasn't succeeded yet) but that doesn't mean a whole heap. It just means it provides some nice functions that have been well thought out through the UNIX years. But they're far from perfect.
I'm all for a standard OS API, but ANSI C isn't it, and neither is POSIX.
They don't provide enough features, and way too UNIX-centric.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Huh?
An API is just an API, I could write a complete OS, and make it totally Free [speech] and use my own API.
Would that make it better?
Be's API is documented. That really is all you get even in OpenSource
Please tell me what great open API Linux provides?
Posix? Well Be provides that too (not yet there, but improving) And it's hardly a great API, just a defined set of functions from UNIX (which was proprietry)
X? It's horrible, ugly and deserves to die. I would never write for an OS that designed its interface system around the X API
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
It doesn't do wonders for you argument if you litter it with fallacies like When infact the Beta seeding for r4.1 was very small. I for one do not have a copy of it, despite being a registered developer, and having released products.
Be is looking after the interests of the OS by not allowing ITS beta library to be released as a separate component just to keep one developer happy.
"Hey Be, I'm writing an app that requires feature XXX in the OS - wanna add it for me and ship it tomorrow?"
Tom really needs to pull his head in. If all he wants is beta testing then he has access to all the same beta testers that Be is using, since they all have 4.1
IMHO he sounds like a spoilt brat. I doubt he's even checked whether the new libGL works on r4
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
BUT Alpha support only came out with 2.1, which only came out on the 9th. The same day this was published.
So at the time of writing they were not an Alpha Linux distributor.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Acutally Ghostscript is very free. It's not scrictly OpenSource though.
Ghostscript is one of those unusual products that IHVs are willing to pay licencing for.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
The GNU tools example is bogus.
The Metrowerks tools are very good. They just didn't have a good x86 version at the time.
The PowerPC version is very good. It produces good code and runs faster than gnuPro tools do.
I prefer the GNU ones myself, but the gnu tools are not orders of magnitude better.
" something that can do SSL "
You mean they way NetPositive 2.0.1 can?
Get it from BeDepot.
Actually, one of the biggest issues he tries to solve (at least in the printed version) is run-time efficiency.
I think that one has still yet to be solved in Java.
Of course it doesn't sound that way when your first read it.
Very nicely done (in a damn corp way)
Oh man, that cracked me up. /. at 3am
I guess I shouldn't read
I am currently debugging a windows app remotely from my Mac.
The MAC is crashing when the windows box gets an error.
Development work on the Mac, which is what JC was primarily talking about, sux hardcore.
chug chug chug BOOM!
If only my boss would let me turn this 'puter into a BeOS machine.