Linux-Advocacy Digest #672, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (chrisv)
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (Salvador Peralta)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:12:15 GMT
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That was what I loved about the AmigaOS, neither the GUI or the CLI had
>proirity over the other, nor did one have greater focus over the other. They
>both were well integrated, and complimented each other well...but that is a
>different newsgroup. :>
Ha. Yeah I never used the WorkBench GUI, except to try it out. It
was kind of fun to load it up once in a while and click on things and
think "hey this really works!"
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 07:35:13 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ono quoth:
> > > http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
> > > --
> > > "Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear
> > > weapon."
> >
> > valid URL, but ust black-colored page .. :-(
> >
> You may need to install a proper browser. (like ie5.5 ;-).
...or konqueror.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:35:36 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > There has been much speculation on what rights and restrictions the GPL
> > gives and requires from you.
>
> Indeed. And you seem to have missed most of it.
Really? What?
>
> > I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike what
> > many Winvocates seem to insist.
>
> You don't even know who you are arguing with!
> Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.
I have not called anyone a "winvocate" I was merely referring to Winvocates, if
you think I was calling anyone in particular a winvocate, specifically you,
then you are mistaken.
>
> > Forget what people say. Forget what you
> > have heard. Read it for yourself at:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.
I'm not sure why you say this.
>
> > Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly limited,
> > and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a citizen) which is
> > not explicitly granted and legal.
>
> There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind to
> see.
Name one which is not reasonable.
>
> > The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very sound
> > and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.
>
> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
> handle distribution of software.
>
> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of the
> work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system...".
>
> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
> Internet explorer a major part of windows?
>
> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to go
> by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to be
> conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
> the GPL makes you do it.
The vagueness to refer too is almost impossible to avoid. An operating system
and its software is a very complex and changing environment. What constitutes a
major part of an operating system changes. There must be some vagueness to
allow advancements in technology.
As contracts go, it is pretty clear. I have read some real bad ones.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:39:13 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> > Any debate about GPL must be centered around the actual license. Not
> >> > what you think, or what you think you have heard Stallman say.
> >>
> >> Excuse me but it's not what I think he said, it's what he told me. I am
> >> not defending precisely my opinion here, as should be clear if you
> >> bothered reading what I bothered writing, but the position of the FSF, as
> >> expressed to me, among others, by RMS.
> >
> > What RMS says is not as important as the agreement with which you use the
> > software. In a court of law, RMS on the stand saying "I intend it to
> > mean...." does not out weigh the weight of actual contract.
>
> Let's look at it the other way around: Are you willing to litigate this
> difference of opinion?
>
> > The most important phrases are:
> > "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> > sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
> > permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
> > each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
> >
> > This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL code,
>
> <RMS>
> Code linked to a library and using the functionality of that library is not
> separate code.
> </RMS>
He is talking about static linking. I differ a bit with him on this, but accept
this restriction. Dynamic linking, using a .dll or .so is fine.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:49:37 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
> ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
> the shelves?
>
Quite surprised, really, when I also tell them that they do not need to BUY
Linux applications, and that there are thousands of applications available,
all free, all for the same "license" that makes Linux to be so low-cost in
places, and always free on others.
Even more surprised when I tell them that they already get a decent Office
Suite with most Linux distributions that is generally faster, a lot smaller,
and more reliable than MS Office, and that their Linux install will give
them most everything they need to be productive right off the CD.
Oh, and that they can legally install almost all of this software, including
the OS, on any number of computers that they wish, give away copies for
free, if they wish, not have to worry about a Product Registration ID
number, and be legally required to purchase another copy of their OS and
software for a second, third, or fourth computer.
Even more so when I explain to them that, sure, you can buy (all non
'upgrade-version' prices, in US dollars) Windows for about $200, but then
you'd only get Windows. What's that, sir?.. you want a word-processor? ..
sure -- either get by with Wordpad, or purchase MS Word by itself, for $200.
And then purchase a good photo-editing app for at least another $100. Oh,
good CD recording software costs about $49-100 as well.
And that their MS purchase will still most likely crash on them for no
reason, require bigger/better/faster/more hardware than they originally
bought with their computer, while this OS that came included with the book
they're looking over will be able to push their hardware harder, and utilize
their system more effectively than the bloatware they were willing to pay so
much money for.
Yeah, their expressions are wonderfully priceless.
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:50:09 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Weird. Do you always value your things based on how much money you can
> spend on them?
Because it must be cool to be fooled.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:58:44 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> >> Which means that if you distribute the work with GPL'd code, even if it
> >> could be "reasonably considered independant and seperate works", then you
> >> must license it as GPL'd.
> >
> > This is an invalid interpretation. I don't agree. In section 2, it clearly
> > states what is derived work.
>
> The point is not "derived work" that is not defined by the GPL anyway, but
> by copyright law. The GPL speaks of "a larger work".
>
> Read the GPL, as you said.
>
> > Your interpretation of "one iota" is incorrect. If you statically
> > incorporate GPL code into your program, then
> > you do make a derived work, however, if you do not, and simply link to a
> > shared library, then everything is fine. I think that is quite fair.
>
> The GPL says nothing about linking, either statically or dynamically. What
> part of the GPL are you using to draw this line?
Reasonable question:
Answer:
The first paragraph after (c) in section 2 states:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
(1) These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. (2)If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them
as separate works. (3) But when you distribute the same sections as part of a
whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
(1) Limits the GPL to a single modified work.
(2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and your code
is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
(3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must make it
GPL.
In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
"reasonably considered independent."
If you statically link code into your program, then your program contains GPL
code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your program does not contain
GPL code.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:06:00 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> >> Which means that if you distribute the work with GPL'd code, even if
>> >> it could be "reasonably considered independant and seperate works",
>> >> then you must license it as GPL'd.
>> >
>> > This is an invalid interpretation. I don't agree. In section 2, it
>> > clearly states what is derived work.
>>
>> The point is not "derived work" that is not defined by the GPL anyway,
>> but by copyright law. The GPL speaks of "a larger work".
>>
>> Read the GPL, as you said.
>>
>> > Your interpretation of "one iota" is incorrect. If you statically
>> > incorporate GPL code into your program, then
>> > you do make a derived work, however, if you do not, and simply link to
>> > a shared library, then everything is fine. I think that is quite fair.
>>
>> The GPL says nothing about linking, either statically or dynamically.
>> What part of the GPL are you using to draw this line?
>
> Reasonable question:
>
> Answer:
> The first paragraph after (c) in section 2 states:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> (1) These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. (2)If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
> can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
> then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> distribute them as separate works. (3) But when you distribute the same
> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
> permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
> each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> (1) Limits the GPL to a single modified work.
Small rephrasing: the requirements of section 2 of the GPL apply to the
whole greater work.
> (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and your
> code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to the
GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you say
when it links dynamically it is separate?
> (3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must
> make it GPL.
Linking to a GPLd library creates the greater work. The GPLd code is
incorporated into that greater work.
> In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
> "reasonably considered independent."
Circular definition. I asked you why do you consider dynamically linked
code to be reasonably independent. You are just stating the question as an
answer.
> If you statically link code into your program, then your program contains
> GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your program does not
> contain GPL code.
The program at runtime makes no distinction between statically and
dynamically linked code. Why should the way it's stored on disk define
whether they are part of a greater work or not? The GPL doesn't say that
the way they are stored is meaningful as a litmus test. Neither does the
law.
So, is anything supporting your position besides your opinion?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:12:26 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> > There has been much speculation on what rights and restrictions the GPL
>> > gives and requires from you.
>>
>> Indeed. And you seem to have missed most of it.
>
> Really? What?
I don't quite know, but you surely don't seem to get anything I have told
you. You are just repeating yourself instead of giving reasons.
>> > I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike
>> > what many Winvocates seem to insist.
>>
>> You don't even know who you are arguing with!
>> Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.
>
> I have not called anyone a "winvocate" I was merely referring to
> Winvocates, if you think I was calling anyone in particular a winvocate,
> specifically you, then you are mistaken.
You are involved in a debate about the GPL, against me and others, who say
the GPL is not clear and reasonable.
Then you post this, and you expect us to believe you are referring to some
OTHER people who say the GPL is not clear and reasonable? I find that
disingenuous.
>> > Forget what people say. Forget what you
>> > have heard. Read it for yourself at:
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>>
>> Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.
>
> I'm not sure why you say this.
Because I have read it. And I understood it.
>> > Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly
>> > limited, and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a
>> > citizen) which is not explicitly granted and legal.
>>
>> There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind
>> to see.
>
> Name one which is not reasonable.
I am not allowed to link my huge app, licensed under the GPL, to a small
GPLd library and to a huge non-GPLd library, even if I declare an exception
for my own code, even if the small GPLd library has no contact with the
huge non-GPLd one.
Complex, but think GDBM/Qt/KDE app.
>> > The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very
>> > sound and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.
>>
>> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
>> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
>> handle distribution of software.
>>
>> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of
>> the work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or
>> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
>> the operating system...".
>>
>> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
>> Internet explorer a major part of windows?
>>
>> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to
>> go by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have
>> to be conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel.
>> Because the GPL makes you do it.
>
> The vagueness to refer too is almost impossible to avoid.
That's just an excuse.
There are dozens of free software licenses that are not vague.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 15:09:19 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> The hybrid vehicles are just as dependant upon petroleum as before.
>
> They can only run on reserve electric power for short term. In the
> long run, their primary benefit is similar to diesel-electrics in the
> railroad industry....allowing the motor to run closer to optimum
> speed at as much as possible.
In the past, it's not been economic to do this. Sure it reduces running
costs, but it pushes up the capital costs involved in the engine, and
most people don't use their cars enough to justify the up-front payment.
Hence, it's not been worthwhile for auto manufacturers to invest a lot in
developing the engine technology so it is cheaper. Let's face it, the
energy density of petroleum is far greater than that of even the most
modern of batteries...
Of course, if the long-term price of fuel rises then the economics also
change a lot, and fuel efficiency becomes a lot more attractive. But
that's obvious. (If you were paying $100/gallon, you'd be very interested
in using as little as possible... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- With a complex beast like Swing, it's not just a matter of "What button
should I push", but rather "How do I put myself into a nice metamorphosis
so that I am deemed acceptable by the Swing Gods." -- Anonymous
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 15:14:59 +0000
Perry Pip wrote:
> When I download a Linux iso image, or install it over the net via
> apt-get, does that count as a "shipment"?
It depends exactly on what is being measured.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- With a complex beast like Swing, it's not just a matter of "What button
should I push", but rather "How do I put myself into a nice metamorphosis
so that I am deemed acceptable by the Swing Gods." -- Anonymous
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:14:23 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> > This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL
>> > code,
>>
>> <RMS>
>> Code linked to a library and using the functionality of that library is
>> not separate code.
>> </RMS>
>
> He is talking about static linking. I differ a bit with him on this, but
> accept this restriction. Dynamic linking, using a .dll or .so is fine.
He is not talking about statically linked code. Just ask him.
<RMS>
Static or dynamic linking makes no difference regarding the GPL.
Even if the user himself does the linking, it is still the same regarding
ther GPL.
</RMS>
Again, it's your opinion and his opinion. If you have any support for your
opinion on the law or the license, feel free to share.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 10:43:47 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and your
> > code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
>
> As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to the
> GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you say
> when it links dynamically it is separate?
Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into your binary
where statically linking does.
This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is statically
linked, it creates one binary. When something is dynamically linked, you have
multiple "independent" binaries. That is the key.
>
> > (3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must
> > make it GPL.
>
> Linking to a GPLd library creates the greater work. The GPLd code is
> incorporated into that greater work.
>
> > In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
> > "reasonably considered independent."
>
> Circular definition. I asked you why do you consider dynamically linked
> code to be reasonably independent. You are just stating the question as an
> answer.
Static and dynamic linking are fundamentally different processes. It isn't just
storage.
>
> > If you statically link code into your program, then your program contains
> > GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your program does not
> > contain GPL code.
>
> The program at runtime makes no distinction between statically and
> dynamically linked code. Why should the way it's stored on disk define
> whether they are part of a greater work or not? The GPL doesn't say that
> the way they are stored is meaningful as a litmus test. Neither does the
> law.
The GPL does say this, it lays out a framework in which GPL can be used by
non-GPL code. The "litmus test" is that the works can be "reasonably considered
independent." A shared library can be built completely independent of your
non-GPL code. A static link incorporates the GPL code into your code, thus
eliminating a reasonable definition of "independent."
You are even allowed to ship the GPL code with your application and not be
required to make yours GPL.
I guess I understand why there is confusion. It is perfectly obvious to me,
being a software developer, that dynamic linking avoids the GPL. I can create a
program which contains NO GPL code, ships with NO GPL code, and yet can use GPL
code installed on a users system when it gets there.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 06 Mar 2001 08:47:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On 05 Mar 2001 18:29:11 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
> >Except that I prefer to make my code readable:
> >
> >object->method ( really really really long arg one,
> > arg two,
> > result of object2->method( sub arg one,
> > sub arg two,
> > sub arg three
> > ),
> > a fourth arg
> > );
> >
> >In python, that is one huge line to fit in 80 columns.
>
> So don't fit it in 80 columns:
>
> object->method ( blah blah blah blah blah \
> arg two, \
> ... \
>
> )
>
> The point is that it's simpler to require terminators to have
> multi-line lines (oxymoron?) than the usual, because that way the
> default corresponds with the way msot lines of code go.
I just don't agree. I can understand why some may like it, but
personally I can't stand it. I hate Makefiles for the same reason;
they have the same "did I tab or is that 8 spaces?" and "is there a
space after that backslash at the end of th eline?"-type problems that
I'd rather not deal with.
> BTW, this is one of the few nice features of bourne shell as a
> scripting language.
For sufficently small values of 'nice' :)
I'd definately count bash as a scripting language, where I'd put
Python and Perl in as real languages.
> >Perl hasn't been reference counted since 5.004. It changes a bunch
> >even though the minor numbers don't go up like other languages.
>
> I'm reading man perlobj in 5.6 and it looks like reference counts
> (though it also has the additional benefit that it cleans up after
> threads properly)
Perhaps I mis-remembered; I'll have to check.
> >Perl is real programming. It can and does do everything that C/C++ do
> >but with more simplicity and elegance.
>
> ... and less speed and less compile time checking.
Well one must use C or C++ in that case regardless.
> My main problem with it for big projects (apart from speed critical
> ones, that is) is the fact that it's too sloppy as a language.
Yes, but it can be made better by doing this at the top of every
program:
use strict;
use English; (or whatever language you prefer)
use Carp;
> It doesn't have real privacy
Who are you trying to protect code from? If people use the published
methods only then it should be fine.
> its syntax is even worse than that of C++ (a remarkable achievment
> indeed!),
(see above)
> it allows such attrocities as implicit conversions between strings
> and integers (and when the conversions fail, they do so silently)
But in the real world, that's just fine. It's only computers that
care about the difference between the number 123 and the string
"123". C, C++, and Java all do implicit conversions between doubles,
floats and ints and such, depending on the situation. You have to
know your language -- and that will always be a quark. If you need to
be pedantic at a certain point in your program then you can always use
the OO objects for types in perl or run it through the regular
expression test: unless (/^\d+$/) {croak "bad number"}
> >I saw the book at our local bookstore and thought about picking it
> >up. I will now.
>
> Or check out the available documentation (it's quite good)
>
> >> What will perl 6 offer that makes it "more structured" ?
> >
> >For one, it's entirely written in C++ and will have first-class C++
> >objects as plug-ins.
>
> I didn't realise this. I heard about it, but I didn't hear about any
> work being done. This would do a lot to deal with my performance
> concerns (because I prefer C++ to C as a "fast" language)
Shouldn't everyone? :)
There's no reason to use C anymore unless you need to deal with legacy
stuff.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
