> What is a good thing. So you don#t have to implement everything new
> every few years just because the CPU vendor decides to implement a
new
> fance CPU mode...

That's one of the things I like about Linux / free software - it gives
CPU vendors more freedom because there's an operating system and
applications ready to take advantage of whatever the CPU vendors come
out with.

Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017

<spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:ce2475$lkq@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> > What is a good thing. So you don#t have to implement everything new
> > every few years just because the CPU vendor decides to implement a
> new
> > fance CPU mode...
>
> That's one of the things I like about Linux / free software - it gives
> CPU vendors more freedom because there's an operating system and
> applications ready to take advantage of whatever the CPU vendors come
> out with.

That makes utterly no sense. It would take about as much effort to port
Linux as it would any proprietary operating system out there. The only
advantage I can see is that Linux can be ported by anyone willing as opposed
to a proprietary OS where the only platforms supported are those the company
wishes to support. This advantage is the advantage of open source, not free
software.

-Matt

> That makes utterly no sense. It would take about as much effort to port
> Linux as it would any proprietary operating system out there. The only
> advantage I can see is that Linux can be ported by anyone willing as opposed
> to a proprietary OS where the only platforms supported are those the company
> wishes to support. This advantage is the advantage of open source, not free
> software.

That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
whatever to their CPU.  They can port Linux and it's applications
themselves.  By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
not price.

Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017

Matt Taylor wrote:
> <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:ce2475$lkq@odbk17.prod.google.com...
>>> What is a good thing. So you don#t have to implement everything new
>>> every few years just because the CPU vendor decides to implement a
>> new
>>> fance CPU mode...
>>
>> That's one of the things I like about Linux / free software - it
>> gives CPU vendors more freedom because there's an operating system
>> and applications ready to take advantage of whatever the CPU vendors
>> come out with.
>
> That makes utterly no sense. It would take about as much effort to
> port Linux as it would any proprietary operating system out there.
> The only advantage I can see is that Linux can be ported by anyone
> willing as opposed to a proprietary OS where the only platforms
> supported are those the company wishes to support. This advantage is
> the advantage of open source, not free software.

He is not (solely) talking about the OS but also the
applications that run on it.

It's still not entirely true because a lot of software is written
badly so 64 bit is not just a recompile away.

But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.

-- 
GCP

"Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
> 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.

Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support & development
in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally DEC) Alpha chip.

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

Alex McDonald wrote:
> "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
>> 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
>
> Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
> possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support &
> development in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally
> DEC) Alpha chip.

We probably have a different definition of "all important things".

How many native 64 bit Alpha/Windows apps were there?

-- 
GCP

Alex McDonald wrote:
> "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
>> 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
>
> Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
> possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support &
> development in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally
> DEC) Alpha chip.

I have a box here, AMD64, with Windows 64 bit on it.

That doesn't mean it actually has applications for it. Luckily,
I can run the 32 bit stuff through an emulation layer.  But a new
architecture without the backwards compatibility of AMD64 would
not be so lucky.

Linux has less problems because most important things *can* be
recompiled if needed, and mostly without too much problems.

-- 
GCP

> That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
> Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
> whatever to their CPU.

Sure, just like they don't have to perform any marketing at all ;)

> They can port Linux and it's applications
> themselves.

How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support? 
Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it 
has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux is 
normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux on a 
home PC?) ;)

> By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> not price.

That's called 'open source'.

-- 
Ivan

"Alex McDonald"  <spamtrap@crayne.org> writes:

> "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
> > 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
> 
> Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. 

Whilst it's true that the Alpha doesn't have such a thing as 
a separate 32-bit mode, in the same way that x86s have different
compatability modes, it's nevertheless true that MS Windows NT 
on Alpha is best described as a 32-bit OS. It certainly had 
nothing about it that could be described as 64-bit. (All address
spaces were 32-bit, for example.)

You could diddle around with 64-bit integer registers in 
userland if you liked, sure, but that doesn't mean the OS is 
64-bit.

Phil
-- 
1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp
2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c
Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:49:45 +0000 (UTC)
Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote:

:any guys here who run Linux on a home PC?

Nothing but Linux in this household -- even my wife, whose talents lie far
more in the artistic realm than the technical, still speaks of the happy
day when she was finally able to get off of Windows!

"Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:1syNc.196552$r_6.9950343@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> Alex McDonald wrote:
> > "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> > news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >>
> >> But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
> >> 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
> >
> > Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
> > possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support &
> > development in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally
> > DEC) Alpha chip.
>
> I have a box here, AMD64, with Windows 64 bit on it.
>
> That doesn't mean it actually has applications for it. Luckily,
> I can run the 32 bit stuff through an emulation layer.  But a new
> architecture without the backwards compatibility of AMD64 would
> not be so lucky.

On the server side, Windows 2003 64 bit on the Itanium has been out for a
while. SQL Server is 64 bit on this platform.

>
> Linux has less problems because most important things *can* be
> recompiled if needed, and mostly without too much problems.

True. My post was meant to indicate that there were Windows 64bit on 64bit
architectures before Linux got there; I was disagreeing with your "not
possible with Windows today" statement.

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87bri1ayxh.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
> "Alex McDonald"  <spamtrap@crayne.org> writes:
>
> > "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> > news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
> > > 64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
> >
> > Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s.
>
> Whilst it's true that the Alpha doesn't have such a thing as
> a separate 32-bit mode, in the same way that x86s have different
> compatability modes, it's nevertheless true that MS Windows NT
> on Alpha is best described as a 32-bit OS. It certainly had
> nothing about it that could be described as 64-bit. (All address
> spaces were 32-bit, for example.)
>
> You could diddle around with 64-bit integer registers in
> userland if you liked, sure, but that doesn't mean the OS is
> 64-bit.
>

I was too terse. It's the case that Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits
in the late 1990s; currently all of the MS development for 64bit is done on
Alphas (comp.arch has just had a recent thread on the subject). What I
didn't say (and should have) was that it wasn't commercially available; MS
and Compaq pulled the plug on their joint development. I also said that
Compaq binned the Alpha; I meant to say that Compaq binned NT on the Alpha.

Mea culpa.

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

Alex McDonald wrote:

> "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> 
>>But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
>>64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
> 
> 
> Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
> possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support & development
> in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally DEC) Alpha chip.
> 

What the heck are you guys on about ? I have 64 bit Windows XP running on my
system now (a 64 bit AMD Athalon).

-- 
Samiam is Scott A. Moore

Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185 Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas

Being right is more powerfull than large corporations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.

"Ivan Korotkov" <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in message
news:opsbtfl7qc75ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru...
>
> > By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> > not price.
>
> That's called 'open source'.

Actually, "Open Source" does *not* imply free.
It just means that the source is available for end-users
to observe and, possibly play with. This doesn't imply
they can release changes to the code.

FSF's "free" and open source evolved separate.
FSF's GPL stuff is certainly open source, but open source
isn't necessarily free.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

Ivan Korotkov wrote:
>> That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
>> Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
>> whatever to their CPU.
> 
> 
> Sure, just like they don't have to perform any marketing at all ;)
> 
>> They can port Linux and it's applications
>> themselves.
> 
> 
> How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support? 
> Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it 
> has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux 
> is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux 
> on a home PC?) ;)

I am using linux right now, as my home PC. The only reason for windows 
is Starcraft.

>> By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
>> not price.
> 
> 
> That's called 'open source'.
> 

I consider "free software" open source.

Percival

Ivan Korotkov schrieb:
> Linux 
> is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux 
> on a home PC?) ;)

For my router(K6-2@500) i use Debian 3 at home.

Dirk

Ivan Korotkov wrote:

.....
> (any guys here who run Linux on a
> home PC?) ;)

Yes.
 
> > By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> > not price.
> 
> That's called 'open source'.

There are a number of definitions of "free". The politicians tell me
"liberty is not license". How about the "license license"? :)

Best,
Frank

Randall Hyde wrote:
> FSF's "free" and open source evolved separate.
> FSF's GPL stuff is certainly open source, but open source
> isn't necessarily free.

GPL looks quite free to me. I mean, the basic restriction is to keep the 
code free, right? I know it isn't as free as you probably want (seeing 
you are always in the PD anyway) but that is much more free than most 
software. Basically anyone on the bandwagon can use it.

Percival

"Scott Moore" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:YIDNc.170002$a24.43063@attbi_s03...
> Alex McDonald wrote:
>
> > "Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> > news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> >>But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
> >>64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
> >
> >
> > Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
> > possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support &
development
> > in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally DEC) Alpha chip.
> >
>
> What the heck are you guys on about ? I have 64 bit Windows XP running on
my
> system now (a 64 bit AMD Athalon).

Currently the version of Windows XP that supports AMD-64 natively is only
available in beta. They're talking about Alpha which is completely
different.

-Matt

"Percival" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:2mon56Fok377U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ivan Korotkov wrote:
> >> That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
> >> Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
> >> whatever to their CPU.
> >
> >
> > Sure, just like they don't have to perform any marketing at all ;)
> >
> >> They can port Linux and it's applications
> >> themselves.
> >
> >
> > How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support?
> > Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it
> > has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux
> > is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux
> > on a home PC?) ;)
>
> I am using linux right now, as my home PC. The only reason for windows
> is Starcraft.

Friends of mine have had success playing Starcraft under wine. My
experiences have not been so great. Your mileage may vary.

> >> By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> >> not price.
> >
> >
> > That's called 'open source'.
> >
>
> I consider "free software" open source.

That is a misnomer. "Free" and "open source" are very distinct, even if most
open source licenses marry the two. A few years back I poked around the
source to an old game called Descent which was open-sourced as the authors
felt it was about that time. It was open source, but it was not free.

-Matt

> > > By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> > > not price.
> >
> > That's called 'open source'.
> 
> There are a number of definitions of "free".

Right. Some softwares may be freely reverse-engineered, altered, and of
course redistributed, but the source code is not open. Just look at license
terms of some free-of-charge softwares on DOS/Windows. 

========================================================================
(Mr.) IIJIMA Hiromitsu,                  mailto:delmonta@ht.sakura.ne.jp
           aka Delmonta            http://www.ht.sakura.ne.jp/~delmonta/

"Percival" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:2mooupFpeckhU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
> > FSF's "free" and open source evolved separate.
> > FSF's GPL stuff is certainly open source, but open source
> > isn't necessarily free.
>
> GPL looks quite free to me. I mean, the basic restriction is to keep the
> code free, right? I know it isn't as free as you probably want (seeing
> you are always in the PD anyway) but that is much more free than most
> software. Basically anyone on the bandwagon can use it.

By RMS' definition (which is debatable), GPL is free.
However, the definition of Open Source does not require the
code to be "free" (in any sense of the term). Open source just means
that the source code is available for the software for end users to
view. Their may be tons of restrictions on what they can do with
the source code.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

Matt Taylor wrote:
> "Percival" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:2mon56Fok377U1@uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>Ivan Korotkov wrote:
>>
>>>>That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
>>>>Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
>>>>whatever to their CPU.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, just like they don't have to perform any marketing at all ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>>They can port Linux and it's applications
>>>>themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support?
>>>Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it
>>>has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux
>>>is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux
>>>on a home PC?) ;)
>>
>>I am using linux right now, as my home PC. The only reason for windows
>>is Starcraft.
> 
> 
> Friends of mine have had success playing Starcraft under wine. My
> experiences have not been so great. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, no sound + no B.NET == no Starcraft. Well, i don't expect much from 
WINE, but if it actually starts to work 100%... :)

Percival

Okay, okay, ther're some of you who really run Linux at home (and, what's 
more amazing, are satisfied! ;)) but there are still lots of people who 
don't think so and use Windows and Wickets. I do it just because 1) 
Windows exists in few versions only, unlike Linux, and 2) many  programs 
are written in Windows versions only. But everyone has his own opinion. I 
know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are _totally_ satisfied with 
it (funny, isn't it?) and don't want to move to something newer, 2000 at 
least, at all.

Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and 
all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the 
ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change, 
redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright? Maybe 
'public domain'?

-- 
Ivan

"Ivan Korotkov" <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in message
news:opsbvanbdb75ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru...
> Okay, okay, ther're some of you who really run Linux at home (and, what's
> more amazing, are satisfied! ;)) but there are still lots of people who
> don't think so and use Windows and Wickets. I do it just because 1)
> Windows exists in few versions only, unlike Linux, and 2) many  programs
> are written in Windows versions only. But everyone has his own opinion. I
> know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are _totally_ satisfied with
> it (funny, isn't it?) and don't want to move to something newer, 2000 at
> least, at all.
>
> Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and
> all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the
> ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change,
> redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright? Maybe
> 'public domain'?
>
> -- 
> Ivan
>

See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php or
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html; more licences than you can
shake a stick at.

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> writes:

> > That's my whole point.  CPU Vendor X doesn't have to wait for
> > Microsoft or Apple's good graces to port Windows, Office, MacOS, or
> > whatever to their CPU.
> 
> Sure, just like they don't have to perform any marketing at all ;)
> 
> > They can port Linux and it's applications
> > themselves.
> 
> How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not
> support? Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only
> because it has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written
> for it. Linux is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys
> here who run Linux on a home PC?) ;)

I truly, from the sub-cockle-region, detest using windows. I buy 
all hardware on the understanding that it works in linux (or that 
linux works on it). Day-to-day I use 4 'desktop' machines (one's my 
laptop), 3 of which use linux, the other OpenBSD. I've not used a 
windows machine as anything apart from a dumb X terminal for 6 years.
(and the last time I did that was 3 years ago). A fair proportion
of those with whom I work are like-minded, but I'm probably the 
most absolute.

And how am I supposed to know which of the boxes here are 'workstations' 
and which are 'home PCs'? Is 'workstation' simply some criterion you 
will apply to my home PCs in order that they not be counterexamples to 
your claim?

> > By "free software" I am referring to free as in freedom
> > not price.
> 
> That's called 'open source'.

Are you unable to imagine the concept of source code being made 
available with restrictions placed on it? If so, wake up.

Phil
-- 
1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp
2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c
Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)

Ivan Korotkov wrote:
> Okay, okay, ther're some of you who really run Linux at home (and, 
> what's more amazing, are satisfied! ;)) but there are still lots of 
> people who don't think so and use Windows and Wickets. I do it just 
> because 1) Windows exists in few versions only, unlike Linux, and 2) 
> many  programs are written in Windows versions only. But everyone has 
> his own opinion. I know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are 
> _totally_ satisfied with it (funny, isn't it?) and don't want to move to 
> something newer, 2000 at least, at all.

Ya, those are my main concerns too. But i figured that apt-get was a lot 
easier and i liked linux from then on.

> Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and 
> all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the 
> ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change, 
> redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright? 
> Maybe 'public domain'?
> 

I *THINK* LGPL allows all that except changing copyright. BSD seems like 
it has all those, the only thing it seems that BSD licence can't do is 
go public domain.

Percival

Matt Taylor wrote:
> "Scott Moore" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:YIDNc.170002$a24.43063@attbi_s03...
> 
>>Alex McDonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Gian-Carlo Pascutto" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
>>>news:0%wNc.196477$PT6.9816212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>>
>>>
>>>>But you can have a Linux system with all important things native
>>>>64 bit (most drivers, too) now - not possible with Windows today.
>>>
>>>
>>>Windows was running on Alpha in 64bits in the late 1990s. So it was
>>>possible -- and long before yesterday too. MS dropped support &
> 
> development
> 
>>>in late 1999 when Compaq decided to bin the (originally DEC) Alpha chip.
>>>
>>
>>What the heck are you guys on about ? I have 64 bit Windows XP running on
> 
> my
> 
>>system now (a 64 bit AMD Athalon).
> 
> 
> Currently the version of Windows XP that supports AMD-64 natively is only
> available in beta. They're talking about Alpha which is completely
> different.
> 
> -Matt
> 

Was the port to Alpha a beta ? Or was the Alpha an alpha ? Could you
get an Alpha at Alphabeta ?

My bad :-)

-- 
Samiam is Scott A. Moore

Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185 Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas

Being right is more powerfull than large corporations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.

"Percival" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:2mqu89Fpka1vU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ivan Korotkov wrote:
> > Okay, okay, ther're some of you who really run Linux at home (and,
> > what's more amazing, are satisfied! ;)) but there are still lots of
> > people who don't think so and use Windows and Wickets. I do it just
> > because 1) Windows exists in few versions only, unlike Linux, and 2)
> > many  programs are written in Windows versions only. But everyone has
> > his own opinion. I know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are
> > _totally_ satisfied with it (funny, isn't it?) and don't want to move to
> > something newer, 2000 at least, at all.
>
> Ya, those are my main concerns too. But i figured that apt-get was a lot
> easier and i liked linux from then on.
>
> > Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and
> > all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the
> > ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change,
> > redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright?
> > Maybe 'public domain'?
> >
>
> I *THINK* LGPL allows all that except changing copyright. BSD seems like
> it has all those, the only thing it seems that BSD licence can't do is
> go public domain.

LGPL is still viral like the GPL. AFAIK you are right about the BSD license.
The copyright holder keeps the copyright, but the code is freely usable:


 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
 AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
 ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
 LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
 CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
 SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
 INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
 CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
 ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
 POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

-Matt

"Ivan Korotkov" <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in message
news:opsbvanbdb75ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru...
> Okay, okay, ther're some of you who really run Linux at home (and, what's
> more amazing, are satisfied! ;)) but there are still lots of people who
> don't think so and use Windows and Wickets. I do it just because 1)
> Windows exists in few versions only, unlike Linux, and 2) many  programs
> are written in Windows versions only. But everyone has his own opinion. I
> know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are _totally_ satisfied with
> it (funny, isn't it?) and don't want to move to something newer, 2000 at
> least, at all.

There are also those of us who use both and are satisfied with a
middle-of-the-road approach. I have a Linux box and a Windows box, and I'd
also have a FreeBSD box if the box I'd tried to install it on hadn't died.
I'd like to mess around with ReactOS as well. (Yay! Non-Unix open source
OS!)

Running 9x is akin to masochism.

> Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and
> all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the
> ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change,
> redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright? Maybe
> 'public domain'?

Why is changing the copyright necessary? The BSD license is otherwise pretty
flexible. You have no obligations (except the reasonable act of not holding
the author liable) by using BSD-licensed code. GPL/LGPL packages are good if
you need tools. LGPL is plausible for source -- LGPL came about primarily
because the inclusion of GPL code requires that the entire application be
GPL'd. There is a note on the MinGW home page that cautions that profiled
binaries cannot be distributed because the profiling code is GPL and not
LGPL.

I had a long conversation about open source licenses with a fellow who works
at Microsoft. Initially he tried to tell me that open source stifles
commercial activity. In the end I think he realized that he was talking
about the GPL/LGPL, not open source.

As others have pointed out, there are a wide variety of recognized
open-source licenses, and there is nothing to stop anyone from creating a
new one.

-Matt

> See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php or
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html; more licences than you can
> shake a stick at.

Yep, more licences than I could ever imagine... I think I like BSD licence 
best. ;)

-- 
Ivan

> Are you unable to imagine the concept of source code being made
> available with restrictions placed on it? If so, wake up.

Heh heh. As you may see, I am a Russian so my understanding of software 
licensing should be vague. ;) Though it is a joke, I thought indeed 
(before looking closer at some common licenses) that the only thing the 
open source license can disallow is forging F5-right or changing code 
while preserving program open-source. Actually, any license really _can't_ 
disallow anything else because if I add some code distibuted under GPL to 
my own program (not open-source) and distribute it for huge money, nobody 
can really guess and proof that I used GPL code.
	I think that it's useless and is a bad form at all to write in software 
license "you can't do that and you can't do that as well, etc." If you 
don't want the user of you program to e.g. redistribute or 
reverse-engineer your program, don't write tons of junk readme's, just 
apply brute force! Obfuscate a program with a good packer (seems that 
there is no good automatical unpacker for ASProtect and PECompact 2 yet 
;), Armadillo is hard to defeat but it slows down the program and requires 
additional resources) and add a good (better self-designed) protection 
mechanism to it. This is just as in real life: when you leave your house, 
you don't unconditionally rely on the law, right? You lock the door. If 
someonce steals something you can ask the police to find him but ther're 
is no 100% guarantee they will manage that. With sofware, the problem is 
even bigger: a crack can be relatively easy found on some Chinese server, 
for example, and there's no way against that. _Any_ program can 
potentially be cracked and the crack can be distributed over net.
	Seriously, it's very funny that most commercial programs nowadays have a 
very weak protection. Some protections are really hard to break but, once 
broken, they momentarily become useless. Some are hard to conceal (i.e. 
hard to find the serial # or some kind of that) but can be patched in not 
more than 10 bytes. ;)

P.S. Sorry for offtopic...

-- 
Ivan

> There are also those of us who use both and are satisfied with a
> middle-of-the-road approach. I have a Linux box and a Windows box

By box you are referring to an emulator? So your native OS is something 
else?

> There is a note on the MinGW home page that cautions that profiled
> binaries cannot be distributed because the profiling code is GPL and not
> LGPL.

:) :) :) Who can proof that one used this profiler for his app? :)

P.S. This thread has begun with x86 design and ended up with OSes and 
licenses. ;)

-- 
Ivan

"Ivan Korotkov" <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in message
news:opsbwtchr275ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru...
> > There are also those of us who use both and are satisfied with a
> > middle-of-the-road approach. I have a Linux box and a Windows box
>
> By box you are referring to an emulator? So your native OS is something
> else?

Box is a slang term for computer. My desktop OS is Windows NT (XP) because
I'm not too fond of XFree. My Linux box functions more as a server, though
at times I have SSH'd into it to develop code. If ReactOS were a suitable
replacement for Windows, then I would switch today.

> > There is a note on the MinGW home page that cautions that profiled
> > binaries cannot be distributed because the profiling code is GPL and not
> > LGPL.
>
> :) :) :) Who can proof that one used this profiler for his app? :)

I'm sure one could prove with enough confidence for a court that the
profiling code was part of an app.

> P.S. This thread has begun with x86 design and ended up with OSes and
> licenses. ;)

True enough.

-Matt

"Ivan Korotkov" <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in message
news:opsbwtclxa75ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru...
> > Are you unable to imagine the concept of source code being made
> > available with restrictions placed on it? If so, wake up.
>
> Heh heh. As you may see, I am a Russian so my understanding of software
> licensing should be vague. ;) Though it is a joke, I thought indeed
> (before looking closer at some common licenses) that the only thing the
> open source license can disallow is forging F5-right or changing code
> while preserving program open-source. Actually, any license really _can't_
> disallow anything else because if I add some code distibuted under GPL to
> my own program (not open-source) and distribute it for huge money, nobody
> can really guess and proof that I used GPL code.
[...]

This is only sometimes true. The FSF persues violators of the GPL/LGPL, but
because they are limited, they can't persue everyone. Linksys open-sourced
the firmware to their 802.11g WAP/router because it was discovered that they
had used GPL'd code. (I hope this serves as a precedent, too; now a number
of custom firmwares are available for that model, and I plan to buy it
because I can modify it.)

Of course, the BSD license suffers no such problem; how can one steal
something that is free? ;-)

-Matt

>I know (personally) peope who run Windows 98, are _totally_ satisfied with 
>it (funny, isn't it?)

No, it isn4t - 9x still runs on a less-than-pentium-class machine,
and, even more interesting, Win9x is the best DOS existing
(similar to the position of OS/2 in the early 90s, where it often used
for running multiple mailbox apps at once...) for many situations.
However, I4d prefer 95b to 98something in that case...

>Now about licenses. Is there some kind of official license (like GPL and 
>all that stuff) that gives the programmer absolute freedom, i.e. the 
>ability to disassemble and recompile image, view source, change, 
>redistribute, use in commercial software and even change copyright? Maybe 
>'public domain'?

That is "public domain", but AFAK "public domain" is not a license ;)
Wouldn4t make much sense anyway, since if its really public domain you
may even change the license for your copy of it...

Ivan Korotkov wrote:
 > How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support?

Lots. Fujitsu, Sun, IBM, Motorola, ARM*, AMD**, Intel** etc are still
happily making CPUs that aren't supported by Windows.

* OK, so WinCE supports ARM processors, but that's really not much like
the Windows end-users are used to, at least not the version of WinCE
I've used. Which is actually a bit of a pain, since you try to use it
like windows.

**Windows 64bit isn't stable yet, but SGI now sell very large Itanium
boxes running properly in 64 bit mode unser IRIX and Linux. IIRC, SGI
have scaled Linux up to 256 processors, which is more than Windows will
support. There's also Opteron computers in the top500, runnning, I
expect in 64 bit mode under Linux.

So, in conclusion, there is a market for good CPUs that aren't supported
by Windows.

 > Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too).

Or Macs :-)

 > That's not only because it
 > has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it.

Well, I'd debate that, but you probably want to debate that as little as
I do.

 > Linux is normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who 
run Linux  on a home PC?) ;)

Yep, Linux (me) and FreeBSD (my SO)

-Ed



-- 
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.)       (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

> This is only sometimes true. The FSF persues violators of the GPL/LGPL, 
> but
> because they are limited, they can't persue everyone. Linksys 
> open-sourced
> the firmware to their 802.11g WAP/router because it was discovered that 
> they
> had used GPL'd code. (I hope this serves as a precedent, too; now a 
> number
> of custom firmwares are available for that model, and I plan to buy it
> because I can modify it.)

Well, ok, if they expose that one has used GPL'd code it is possible to 
prove this; but how do they expose that? Today's software market is so big 
that they can't investigate every program. And even if they do, without 
looking at sources it isn't obvious that
GPL'd code was used to create the program. As every compiler generates his 
own version of binary code, comparing parts of binaries won't help. And 
the programmer might have changed 'stolen' code a litlle.

-- 
Ivan

Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@zteldot.ru> wrote:
> Well, ok, if they expose that one has used GPL'd code it is
> possible to prove this; but how do they expose that? Today's
> software market is so big that they can't investigate every
> program. And even if they do, without looking at sources
> it isn't obvious that GPL'd code was used to create the
> program. As every compiler generates his own version of
> binary code, comparing parts of binaries won't help. And
> the programmer might have changed 'stolen' code a litlle.

Of course.  Proving improper copying of source code isn't
easy or obvious.  But it is possible -- moreso in a court
of law where the source can be discovered [subpoena'd].

On a purely technical basis, first you must have some suspicions
because the validating copying is difficult.  Usually these are
obvious from things like features.  The you RE the potentially
infringing code, determining what compiler was used.  Drop orig
source into compiler and run block compares.  Long match outside
startup indicates possible copying.

-- Robert

"E. Rosten" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:4109557D.40500@my.sig...
[...]
> * OK, so WinCE supports ARM processors, but that's really not much like
> the Windows end-users are used to, at least not the version of WinCE
> I've used. Which is actually a bit of a pain, since you try to use it
> like windows.

Windows CE is not entirely dissimilar in certain configurations. (It is
worth pointing out that CE can be configured as minimally as a kernel +
drivers to a full-blown GUI.) I wouldn't want to use it as a desktop OS,
however.

> **Windows 64bit isn't stable yet, but SGI now sell very large Itanium
> boxes running properly in 64 bit mode unser IRIX and Linux. IIRC, SGI
> have scaled Linux up to 256 processors, which is more than Windows will
> support. There's also Opteron computers in the top500, runnning, I
> expect in 64 bit mode under Linux.

I think you're equivocating the two different 64-bit versions of Windows -- 
probably because the names are so ridiculous that they are impossible to
remember. The Itanium version of Windows has been out for quite some time.
The AMD-64 version is the one that is still in beta.

> So, in conclusion, there is a market for good CPUs that aren't supported
> by Windows.

Okay, and how many of the CPUs you alluded to are actually used on the
desktop? I think it is fairly obvious that that is what Ivan was referring
to. There are a myriad of applications for embedded CPUs where the Windows
kernel wouldn't even fit into memory. The other chips you mentioned mostly
fit into the workstation/server space.

On the desktop, Windows is undeniably hegemonous.

>  > Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too).
>
> Or Macs :-)
[...]

I hope you're kidding. Dell quite literally has 10 times more market share
than Apple in the US, and that doesn't even take other PC vendors into
account. Abroad Apple isn't even a competitor. Statistically end-users do
not prefer Mac.

>From a more technical point of view, all versions of MacOS prior to OS X
used cooperative multitasking. I would use Windows 95 again before I used a
cooperative multitasking system.

-Matt

Percival  <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in
news:2mooupFpeckhU1@uni-berlin.de: 

> Randall Hyde wrote:
>> FSF's "free" and open source evolved separate.
>> FSF's GPL stuff is certainly open source, but open source
>> isn't necessarily free.
> 
> GPL looks quite free to me. I mean, the basic restriction is to keep
> the code free, right? I know it isn't as free as you probably want

They actually mean software with rights. IE software that shouldn't be 
yelled upon and so on. They didn't mean free as a free chocolade.

GPL is split of FSF. They are somewhat simillar, but differ in more than 
one way. 

> (seeing you are always in the PD anyway) but that is much more free
> than most software. Basically anyone on the bandwagon can use it.

Yes everyone with effective lawyers and willing to challenge GPL. IIRC 
directly translated GPL is illegal in this country, but It might be 
interesting to see if it has any weigth in countries as US or Great 
Britain (and northen Ireland). Some freeware programmers like a choice if 
they'd have theirs work in GPL licence, or some other possibly less 
restrictive licence, so "don't touch it" is intelligent aproach towards 
GPL. 
(As a sidenote LGPL, or BSD licence are much better than GPL.)

-- 
Kizutsuite 'ta ano hi kara 

Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@ztelDOT.ru> wrote in
news:opsbwtclxa75ztla@news.zebratelecom.ru: 

>> Are you unable to imagine the concept of source code being made
>> available with restrictions placed on it? If so, wake up.
> 
> Heh heh. As you may see, I am a Russian so my understanding of
> software licensing should be vague. ;) Though it is a joke, I thought

Do you care to elaborate quite a bit? I listened one of US judges walked 
around a people that sold a pirated software without notice. (It was in 
process about some violation of author rights.) Also there are a big 
markets full of pirated software around the word. IIRC Korea was a nice 
example. (or was it more south?)

> indeed (before looking closer at some common licenses) that the only
> thing the open source license can disallow is forging F5-right or
> changing code while preserving program open-source. Actually, any
> license really _can't_ disallow anything else because if I add some
> code distibuted under GPL to my own program (not open-source) and
> distribute it for huge money, nobody can really guess and proof that I
> used GPL code. 
>      I think that it's useless and is a bad form at all to write in
>      software 
> license "you can't do that and you can't do that as well, etc." If you
> don't want the user of you program to e.g. redistribute or 
> reverse-engineer your program, don't write tons of junk readme's, just
> apply brute force! Obfuscate a program with a good packer (seems that 
> there is no good automatical unpacker for ASProtect and PECompact 2
> yet ;), Armadillo is hard to defeat but it slows down the program and
> requires additional resources) and add a good (better self-designed)
Slaps myself to the face. I didn't do enough crackmes to play with copy
protections. Lessons earned from the Java say.
1 Obfuscation could make your program run slower, or poorly.
2 Obfuscation could make your program don't run on improved JVM.
(Because they repaired that bug that was abused by obfuscator.) 3
Obfuscation destroy possible optimisations by JVM. 4 Obfuscation could
hurt you if you lose your original source file. 

Last program I played with was MOO3. If I had a protection active, it
wont run becose it would be considered a dropper. (Aka installed
programs shouldn't drop executable files.) 

Packers need unpacking, thus increase memory footprint. OS with NX bits
could make old programs difficult/impossible to run. 


> protection mechanism to it. This is just as in real life: when you
> leave your house, you don't unconditionally rely on the law, right?
> You lock the door. If someonce steals something you can ask the police
Yes I lock the door, they would come by window. Another great idea? 

> to find him but ther're is no 100% guarantee they will manage that.
1/10 is much better estimate.

> With sofware, the problem is even bigger: a crack can be relatively
> easy found on some Chinese server, for example, and there's no way

On the other hand a simple police raid could find a quite a few
programs. Cracks are illegal in majority of countries. Illegaly copied
software is a reason for computer removal as well. BTW how much is
illegaly on a common computer? I would estimate software worth of $1.5
million. 

> against that. _Any_ program can potentially be cracked and the crack
> can be distributed over net. 
>      Seriously, it's very funny that most commercial programs nowadays

It's rather funny games needn't anymore numbers from manuals before 
start. 
~_^

> have a very weak protection. Some protections are really hard to
> break but, once broken, they momentarily become useless. Some are hard
> to conceal (i.e. hard to find the serial # or some kind of that) but
> can be patched in not more than 10 bytes. ;)
> 

Creating custom copy protection cost 3 times more time than breaking it. 
Basically only companies that create copy protection have considerable 
gains from it. (With some possible exceptions.)


-- 
Kizutsuite 'ta ano hi kara 

> On a purely technical basis, first you must have some suspicions
> because the validating copying is difficult.  Usually these are
> obvious from things like features.

Well, many programs have similar features... Still their authors are not 
suspected of having used each other's code.

-- 
Ivan

> Do you care to elaborate quite a bit? I listened one of US judges walked
> around a people that sold a pirated software without notice. (It was in
> process about some violation of author rights.) Also there are a big
> markets full of pirated software around the word. IIRC Korea was a nice
> example. (or was it more south?)

By elaborate you mean concretize? OK. In Russia, 99% of software sold to 
end-users is pirated. People _can_ buy licensed software here but they 
prefer not to do. Why buy something for big money if you can buy it for 
small? They don't need tech support, if they had some probelms they'd 
rather ask in a NG for help and would get it. Ther're hundreds of 
CD-stalls in subway stations, some big shops as well where you can buy 
pirated software. No-one cares. There're even some companies who are 
specialised in cracking software and redistributing it on CDs. They do it 
openly! Petrosoft, for example, AlexSoft, etc. They even print 'Illegal 
copying is prohibited' on their illegal CDs! ;) But the newest versions of 
some rare software are not always available, so you need sometimes to 
download them and either search for a crack in Inet or crack it yourself. 
Sorry if I made you think that Russia is not civil -- it is when applied 
to physical sphere but not to software market.

> Slaps myself to the face. I didn't do enough crackmes to play with copy
> protections.

Neither did I. I usually do cracked_you's. ;)

> Lessons earned from the Java say.
> 1 Obfuscation could make your program run slower, or poorly.

Fudge.

> 2 Obfuscation could make your program don't run on improved JVM.

Great fudge.

> (Because they repaired that bug that was abused by obfuscator.) 3
> Obfuscation destroy possible optimisations by JVM.

The greatest fudge.

4 Obfuscation could hurt you if you lose your original source file.

Yep, therefore it should be applied to the final release only. Always keep 
internal release.

The man who told that you has a false notion of what a good Java 
obfuscator should be. It shouldn't change the byte-code in any way. It 
should only change the names:

Was: (and successfully decompiled ;)) :

class MyGame {
....
	if (!CheckIfLicencedVersion())
		return;
....
};

After obfuscation decompiler produces:

class _$167
{
....
	if (!_@18_1())
		return;
....
};

The only bad thing it does - it prohibits any other Java app to use your 
classes (never faced Java except for cracking some games and giving myself 
infinite lives ;), so I don't know details on whether one Java app can use 
classes from another).

Why are we talking about Java? There are many languages, most of them 
compile to native code. They need a good packer in order not to be easily 
cracked.

> Packers need unpacking, thus increase memory footprint. OS with NX bits
> could make old programs difficult/impossible to run.

A good unpacker won't require much memory and it won't take more than half 
a sec to unpack the app. But the size of it on disk will be greatly 
decreased!

>> protection mechanism to it. This is just as in real life: when you
>> leave your house, you don't unconditionally rely on the law, right?
>> You lock the door. If someonce steals something you can ask the police
> Yes I lock the door, they would come by window. Another great idea?

Sure - close all windows (I could have said - shut down your comp at all!, 
but you seem to be running Linux ;)). Install burglar alarm. Acquire a 
dog. Etc. ;)

>> to find him but ther're is no 100% guarantee they will manage that.
> 1/10 is much better estimate.

Is Czech police such bad? ;)

> On the other hand a simple police raid could find a quite a few
> programs. Cracks are illegal in majority of countries. Illegaly copied
> software is a reason for computer removal as well. BTW how much is
> illegaly on a common computer? I would estimate software worth of $1.5
> million.

Wow. I think not so big. My comp maybe contains software for several tens 
of thousands $ ;)

> Creating custom copy protection cost 3 times more time than breaking it.
> Basically only companies that create copy protection have considerable
> gains from it. (With some possible exceptions.)

Well, ther're some good protection mechanisms that existed for years 
without having been broken. Armadillo's keychecker, for example, remained 
a mystery for many years, till somebody found a bug in it and made a 
keygen recently. ;) But I believe that guys who made it already have fixed 
the bug.
StarForce is an example of an excellent software protection mechanism 
(it's driver is hard to diassemble, debuggers refuse to attach to the app 
as it seems to be already debugged by some unknown process - I think it's 
because StarForce driver sets the Debug Port field of EPROCESS, etc.) 
combined with an easily crackable hardware basis - their CDs are made in 
such way that track density is different on different parts of disk. This 
can easily be defeated by using a virtual CD emulator like Alcohol 120%.

-- 
Ivan

Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@zteldot.ru> wrote:
>> On a purely technical basis, first you must have some suspicions
>> because the validating copying is difficult.  Usually these are
>> obvious from things like features.
> 
> Well, many programs have similar features... Still their
> authors are not suspected of having used each other's code.

Of course.  But some features are more distinctive than
others and would give rise to suspicions.  

A word processor that has an "insert" function wouldn't
arouse too much suspicion.  A DB pgm that suddenly got
a new, much more efficient hashing function shortly after
the release of similar free software would be more suspicious.

-- Robert

Raghar <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:
> They actually mean software with rights. IE software that
> shouldn't be yelled upon and so on. They didn't mean free
> as a free chocolade.

"yelled upon"?  I'm afraid I don't understand.

> GPL is split of FSF. They are somewhat simillar, but differ
> in more than one way.

???  The FSF is the Free Software Foundation at http://www.fsf.org .
It is the principal author and main repository of the GPL.

> Yes everyone with effective lawyers and willing to
> challenge GPL. IIRC directly translated GPL is illegal in
> this country, 

Which country, and why is it illegal?

> but It might be interesting to see if it has any weigth in
> countries as US or Great Britain (and northen Ireland). 

I don't think the GPL has been litigated, but I think most
lawyers believe it has an excellent chance of been affirmed
in court.  Else they wouldn't be so afraid of incorporating
GPL code inside their proprietary code.

> Some freeware programmers like a choice if they'd have
> theirs work in GPL licence, or some other possibly less

All programmers have a choice of licence.

> restrictive licence, so "don't touch it" is intelligent
> aproach towards GPL.  (As a sidenote LGPL, or BSD licence
> are much better than GPL.)

Better?  Better for whom?  Others who would like to
reuse the code in [semi]private ways?  What if the author
doesn't want this?

-- Robert

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q6GOc.22287$xD5.19339@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> Raghar <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:
> > but It might be interesting to see if it has any weigth in
> > countries as US or Great Britain (and northen Ireland).
>
> I don't think the GPL has been litigated, but I think most
> lawyers believe it has an excellent chance of been affirmed
> in court.  Else they wouldn't be so afraid of incorporating
> GPL code inside their proprietary code.

It was recently upheld in a German court.  It's never been ruled on in a US
court -- every company the FSF and others have sued here has settled either
by opening up their code, or removing the infringing code.  Since there are
no monetary damages, the FSF drops the case once the defendant complies with
the GPL.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov

"Stephen Sprunk" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message news:dkYOc.73660
>
> It was recently upheld in a German court.  It's never been ruled on in a
US
> court -- every company the FSF and others have sued here has settled
either
> by opening up their code, or removing the infringing code.  Since there
are
> no monetary damages, the FSF drops the case once the defendant complies
with
> the GPL.

Which is a good thing for FSF as monetary damages *have* to be proven
for copyright infringement in the U.S. :-(
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

"Randall Hyde"  <spamtrap@crayne.org> writes:

> "Stephen Sprunk" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message news:dkYOc.73660
> >
> > It was recently upheld in a German court.  It's never been ruled on in a
> US
> > court -- every company the FSF and others have sued here has settled
> either
> > by opening up their code, or removing the infringing code.  Since there
> are
> > no monetary damages, the FSF drops the case once the defendant complies
> with
> > the GPL.
> 
> Which is a good thing for FSF as monetary damages *have* to be proven
> for copyright infringement in the U.S. :-(

?!?!?

A US District Judge, in the context of a copyright infrigement case,
once said:
<<<
Once a plaintiff shows it holds a valid copyright, it must then prove 
the defendant unlawfully appropriated some protected portions of the 
copyrighted work at issue. Id. This question breaks down into two 
separate inquiries:

1) Whether the defendant, as a factual matter, copied portions of the 
plaintiff's [writings]; and

2) whether, as a mixed issue of fact and law, those elements of the 
[writings] that have been copied are protected expression and of such 
importance to the copied work that the appropriation is actionable.
>>>
Note the absense of mention of monetary damages. 

That's from a COS (or 'RTC') case. I don't remember a COS case where 
they did claim monetary damages, as mostly they used the "not for
publication" approach. Which was enough to win almost every such 
copyright infringement case.


Phil
-- 
1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp
2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c
Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)

>>So, in conclusion, there is a market for good CPUs that aren't supported
>>by Windows.
> 
> 
> Okay, and how many of the CPUs you alluded to are actually used on the
> desktop? I think it is fairly obvious that that is what Ivan was referring
> to.

Indeed, but the grandparent was referring to CPUs in general. The 
desktop market is not the only market for CPUs; there are plenty of 
other profitable markets. And not having to wait for a vendor, or write 
your own makes life easier. This is even more applicable in the non 
desktop space since in the server world, unix is very common anyway, and 
in the embedded world, the Os is pretty much invisible. This neatly 
sidesteps all the problems of linux not being like Windows.

> There are a myriad of applications for embedded CPUs where the Windows
> kernel wouldn't even fit into memory. The other chips you mentioned mostly
> fit into the workstation/server space.

And embedded. I don;t know if Windows runs on DragonBall processors, and 
I'm sure it doesn't run on the m68k series, either.

>> > Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too).
>>
>>Or Macs :-)
> 
> [...]
> 
> I hope you're kidding. Dell quite literally has 10 times more market share
> than Apple in the US, and that doesn't even take other PC vendors into
> account. Abroad Apple isn't even a competitor. Statistically end-users do
> not prefer Mac.

I wasn't being overly serious, but in my own observations, Macs are 
rather more preferred than the sales figures show. It just happend that 
the compatibility problems, and lack of low-end (ie inexpensive) models 
seems to reduce sales. Interestingly, in the world of laptops, where 
macs are avaliable towards the low end, and at very good prices, apples 
sell rather well.


>>From a more technical point of view, all versions of MacOS prior to OS X
> used cooperative multitasking. I would use Windows 95 again before I used a
> cooperative multitasking system.

Ick, OS9 is horrible as soon as you put it under any kind of load. 
Windows 95 isn't much better. From what I've seen, OSX is as stable as 
one would expect from its unix heritage.


-Ed

-- 
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.)       (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

>> Okay, and how many of the CPUs you alluded to are actually used on the
>> desktop? I think it is fairly obvious that that is what Ivan was 
>> referring
>> to.
>
> Indeed, but the grandparent was referring to CPUs in general.
[BTW, in the real life I'm not even a parent yet! ;)]

I was talking about end-users which means mainly desktop and laptop 
systems, so Matt understood me right. You can't disagree that these 
markets have at least 60% money turnover in CPU market. Writing an own OS 
for a new CPU is IMHO not a good solution in any case. It breaks the 
modularity rule, doesn't it? And if there is only one OS that supports a 
particular CPU, it's still not enough. It becomes some kind of monopoly. 
Aside that, all programs for that OS have to be recompiled which is not so 
easy to perform since many of them are not open-source.

-- 
Ivan

"Matt Taylor" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:LLwOc.7342$wM.7089@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "E. Rosten" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:4109557D.40500@my.sig...
> [...]
> [...]
>
> I hope you're kidding. Dell quite literally has 10 times more market share
> than Apple in the US, and that doesn't even take other PC vendors into
> account. Abroad Apple isn't even a competitor. Statistically end-users do
> not prefer Mac.

That would imply that Dell as a 30-50% market share, depending on whose
numbers you believe. Dell is big, but not quite *that* big.


>
> >From a more technical point of view, all versions of MacOS prior to OS X
> used cooperative multitasking. I would use Windows 95 again before I used
a
> cooperative multitasking system.

As both Win95 and Mac OS 9 and earlier are now history, what's your point?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

Reasonably current MACs are an interesting proposition these days for
non technical users. Where even well organised people have security
problems with any of the late Windows versions to the extent that many
are just giving up on computers, a cheap MAC is more or less hassle
free at the moment and you can pick up a G4 here in OZ for about a
grand.

When someone asks me about a new computer these days and they are not
technical, I advise them to buy a cheap MAC.

Regards,

hutch at movsd dot com

Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@zteldot.ru> wrote:

: How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support? 
: Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it 
: has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux is 
: normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux on a 
: home PC?) ;)

I would GLADLY purchase such a CPU, and already have -- more than once.
What is your basis for claiming "almost all end-users prefer Windows" or
any system? And to say "most good programs are written for it" especially
differs from my own experience. Having used every version of Windows (from
Win 3.1 on), you will have to challenge my preference for Linux, especially 
its considerably greater efficiency.

Wendy E. McCaughrin wrote:
> Ivan Korotkov <koroNOSPAMtkov2@zteldot.ru> wrote:
> 
> : How many people will then buy such a CPU that Windows does not support? 
> : Almost all end-users prefer Windows (me too). That's not only because it 
> : has a nice GUI but because most good programs are written for it. Linux is 
> : normally used on servers or workstations (any guys here who run Linux on a 
> : home PC?) ;)
> 
> I would GLADLY purchase such a CPU, and already have -- more than once.
> What is your basis for claiming "almost all end-users prefer Windows" or
> any system? And to say "most good programs are written for it" especially
> differs from my own experience. Having used every version of Windows (from
> Win 3.1 on), you will have to challenge my preference for Linux, especially 
> its considerably greater efficiency.

Linux is great. I use it as a home PC. But i feel a dejavu around 
here... Did i respond to this already?

Anyway, I consider Gimp, Open Office, Mozilla, several games including 
Metal Blob Solid and SuperTux, Blender, Nasm, Fasm, Vi/Make/gcc, the 
emacs operating system (wink wink :) ), Gnome/Kde/Fluxbox, and more as 
excellent software written for Linux, and it is more than i need to live 
  in Linux.

The only thing that Linux doesn't have (that i know of) is a good video 
editor. But such a job is built for macs anyway. So if you are a serious 
multimedia developer, you should get a mac and not windows.

Percival