Why the GNU licence is a good thing

Maybe they would be justified if there was any sort of legal problem. But of course it is perfectly legitimate and legal.

Its just that the anti-GNU brigade are all against authors having the rights over their work. They would rather some kind of communist government forced authors to impose prices on their works in order to generate wealth for the "state" or something...all workers work for the state.

And whats all this rubbish about GNU software being inferior to non-GNU software. Most people who say this have never seen GNU software.

When I pay over $2000 to purchase Microsoft Visual C++ I expect it to wildly outbeat the GNU-competitors. But unfortunately this week I found A GNU site which produced a free C++ editing environment. Sure when I downloaded and installed it I was expecting it to be inferior to Microsofts Visual C++. What a suprise to find that the program environment was actually as good as Microsoft's. In fact I go as far to say its better simply because everything is where you expect it to be - not hidden deep in 30 odd menus. I also have the source code. Although I doubt I will need to edit or take parts out of the program, it is still a good educational read.

So on one hand I have this $2000 Microsoft Product and i have just thrown it out to use an absolutely free product of the same type. So much for the idea of money being the root of good software.

Its like microsoft word. I mean there is a LIMIT to how much a word processor should do. But microsoft refuse to understand this, bringing out new versions which contain only slight changes - changes that are often unnecessary. Who asked for a talking paperclip anyway?

Most people only need a simple word processor - one that can process words and print them. That these people then bother to update their copies of word 97 to word 2000 is illogical. Tell me why we even needed word 2000 anyway? Did anyone ever go "aww shit, word 97 just cant do what I want". Does anyone even check the differences when they upgrade?

Im not just having a go at microsoft here - many other software developers just invent new useless gimmicks so that they can release new versions at overpriced values. When comparing these products to GNU ones - products designed for functionality rather than product-selling-gimmicktry they arent much different for the average users needs.

Now the only reason people use Word and Windows is because it is standard and its scary to go against the crowd - our intuition tells us that its easier if we do what everyone else does because it will be easier for them to help us if we get problems. But this doesnt mean that these standard products are any better than alternative ones.

	Thoroughly brainwashed. (4.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Yoshi on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 02:54:27 AM PST

	Oh man, this is good. Observe how much the Open Sauce advocates have done in the critical thinking and reasoning of this guy. To think that a simple concept like "im going to make software and give it away free" causes so many people to develop a nervous breakdown is totally beyond me. That doesn't bother me. If you little nerds want to have your own little 'nerd club' of elitism, go for it. When people start correlating open sauce software with being automatically superior, that's when they get delusional. When they only use their 'free software,' that's absurd. If there was a piece of free software that is magnitudes better than a piece of software which costs money, I'll use it. Oh yeah, there is. Internet Explorer is much better than Opera, thus I use it. Its just that the anti-GNU brigade are all against authors having the rights over their work. Kind of contradictory of your previous 'free' argument above, no? I don't have a problem with authors giving away their program's secret sauce codes, but the GNU Communists want complete control over that code. They don't want you to use it how you want - they then force you into releasing your own secret proprietary codes. That's why I don't have a problem with the BSD license. It's not contrived by a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical fools like those behind the GNU virus. They would rather some kind of communist government forced authors to impose prices on their works in order to generate wealth for the "state" or something...all workers work for the state. Interesting you'd equate the government with corporations - since, at least where I live, they're independent. The money I spend on Windows doesn't go to reelect Tom Daschle or Barney Frank. Nor does it go to fix the potholes outside my house. Rather, it goes into Microsoft itself, which in turn spends it in other places like R&D and advertising. This circulates my money into the economy. Nothing you'd see in a Communist form of government. And whats all this rubbish about GNU software being inferior to non-GNU software. Most people who say this have never seen GNU software. I, unfortunately, was sucked into the GNU virus many years ago. I admit to using both the Communist Red Flag Hat "distribution" and the French (which adjective is worse?) Mandracke Linux. I have yet to see a single piece of "GNU Software" that's superior to any of Microsoft's offerings. Sure when I downloaded and installed it I was expecting it to be inferior to Microsofts Visual C++. What a suprise to find that the program environment was actually as good as Microsoft's. Yeah, I'm sure it works just as well too. If all you are doing with Bloodshed is compiling your little DOS exploits to use against your IRC enemies, I'm sure it will suffice. [the sauce code] is still a good educational read. Unless, of course, you happen to remember anything you read, and then go on to write your own non-GNU software and are forced into releasing your secret proprietary codecs. So on one hand I have this $2000 Microsoft Product and i have just thrown it out to use an absolutely free product of the same type. First of all, I doubt any of you GNU pirates would pay $20, let alone $2000, for a piece of software. So, the prospect of you throwing away a "$2000 Microsoft Product" for an "absolutely free product" loses credence. Not like it had any to begin with, since we know exactly what you're using it for. But microsoft refuse to understand this, bringing out new versions which contain only slight changes What the hell do you want them to do? Do you think it's high time that they just wrap up the whole "Office XP" thing since it reached perfection? Or do you want them to include virtual reality something or others to stop you from bitching? With you GNU criminals, they're damned if they include more features (you read as: bloatware), or they're damned if they don't (you read as: slight changes). Does anyone even check the differences when they upgrade? I know my version of Office XP can do Speech Recognition. What about your "GNU/KWord" pile of trash? When comparing these products to GNU ones - products designed for functionality rather than product-selling-gimmicktry Oh, is that their goal? Better spread the word, because all of the GNU crud I've seen is just designed to mimic their Windows counterparts. They don't even do a good job of doing that. Know of any GNU Office suites that import all of my Office documents? Preserving formatting, revision info, all of that stuff? *Now the only reason people use Word and Windows is because it is standard and its scary to go against the crowd* [emphasis added] Clearly the most absurd thing that you said in your little rant. I use Windows and Word because I don't want to be a rebel? Excuse me, I use Windows and Word because it's better than anything anyone else anywhere can offer. Simple as that. But this doesnt mean that these standard products are any better than alternative ones. By your convoluted theory, you're right. By logic, however, the truth is, they are better. Name me one word processor that even approaches the features that Word has. Document revision checking, speech recognition, all of those features. Truth is, none of them do! Windows is even more of a slam dunk argument. There is not one thing Linux can boast over Windows except its price. And, as we have all heard before, Linux is only free if your time has no value.

	nope your wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 01:07:02 PM PST

	"Linux is only free if your time has no value." Oh you really should have been here when my Windows 2000 completely fucked up. Then you would have seen the definition of time wasting. Could I simply fix the system files? Oh noooo. I had to reinstall the entire OS. Did that fix it? Oh nooo. Did it at least tell me why it had screwed up? Oh nooo. I had to format the partition and install it again. So it should be: "Windows isnt free but assumes your time is" Right now I have an application running which is free software. I have the source code for it and I didnt have to pay a penny for it. And after 2 weeks of using it, its still BETTER than microsofts version of the same product. Tell me how microsoft can even consider charging their product for over $2000 when a product made by someone for free - probably in their spare time - is better? huh? "I don't have a problem with authors giving away their program's secret sauce codes, but the GNU Communists want complete control over that code. They don't want you to use it how you want - they then force you into releasing your own secret proprietary codes." What the fuck are you going on about? What you said doesnt even make sense. Firstly the GNU license is a voluntary thing - theres no forcing about it. And secondly "They don't want you to use it how you want" - maybe you should go read up on it before making random sentences like this. "What the hell do you want them to do? Do you think it's high time that they just wrap up the whole "Office XP" thing since it reached perfection?" Yes. Voice recognition software has been around for ages. If they want to integrate it into OfficeXP then fine - but its so simple and easy that they shouldnt even be allowed to charge people. If microsoft can really con people into buying each new version of word just by sticking lots of small programs into it then fair play to them. Normal people would just run word 97 alongside a speech recognition package for the same results but at a much cheaper price. "Name me one word processor that even approaches the features that Word has." Word is overfeatured - like I have just said, you can run lots of small programs side by side and get the same results. There's no need to create one bulky, expensive, memory eating program. Of course noone is ever going to be able to create a program that approaches the features of word. Any decent software company would avoid it. Its NOT user friendly...god they have to put people on 10 week courses to teach them Word nowadays. The menu's have too many options. Its designed for businesses AND home users - there should be separate versions for each. The average person will never even use half the features of Word, Excel or Powerpoint. "There is not one thing Linux can boast over Windows except its price." And stability, integrity and that people can SEE the code and SPOT the bugs and FIX them. In windows its always a group of hackers who find a bug and then noone can fix it because they cant access the code. Microsoft often deny theres a problem which just makes it worse. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	simplistic minds (none / 0) (#25)
	by Yoshi on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:11:33 PM PST

	Could I simply fix the system files? Go into the command prompt and type "sfc". For Windows XP, go to Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, and then System Restore. Of course you can. And after 2 weeks of using it, its still BETTER than microsofts version of the same product. Tell me how microsoft can even consider charging their product for over $2000 when a product made by someone for free Let's see, where to start. First of all, your free shit ISN'T better than Visual C++. It may do the same final thing - compile your hacker codes to an .exe. But, ever tried to compare the final codes? Which is more optimized? Plus, Visual C++ doesn't cost $2000. Firstly the GNU license is a voluntary thing - theres no forcing about it. It's voluntary until you agree to it, and then it's permanent. Yes. Voice recognition software has been around for ages. If they want to integrate it into OfficeXP then fine - but its so simple and easy that they shouldnt even be allowed to charge people. Ahh! If it's so simple and easy, why now doesn't your Communist software have it? Word is overfeatured Oh, is that what you zealots call it nowdays. Microsoft might as well give up, because in your eyes, they'll never win. You are clueless. The menu's have too many options. Ever heard of Personalized Menus? there should be separate versions for each. Another genius idea! Perhaps they already do! Not only that, they sell a version for teachers and students too! stability Windows XP has never crashed. I don't care whether or not your Lunix ever crashes, because you can't beat a 100% reliability rating. Tie it if you can, but there's no incentive there. integrity Do you even know what integrity means? Incidentally, if you were serious in your usage, what kind of "integrity" does Lunix have? Sending out little zealotrous trolls like you who don't even have an understanding of the computer industry? people can SEE the code and SPOT the bugs and FIX them. Really? Have you ever done that? Rather, how do you know that people haven't discovered bugs using the illegal lunix sauce code and are using your machine for a DDOS client? I fail to see the correlation between "open sauce" and "secure". noone can fix it because they cant access the code. You really think a naive coder is going to be able to sort through 5 million lines of code and know where to fix a bug? You're insane and clueless.

	indeed (none / 0) (#29)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:01:40 PM PST

	"Go into the command prompt and type "sfc". For Windows XP, go to Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, and then System Restore. Of course you can." Wouldnt that just be the same as replacing all my system files with the ones from the windows CD? So why didnt that work then? Sfc is the kind of program you run when everything is fucked up just to come back to you after hours and tell you that everything is okay. So much easier if I could disable modules one at a time until the problem was found and then repair or reinstall the module that was broken. "Let's see, where to start. First of all, your free shit ISN'T better than Visual C++. It may do the same final thing - compile your hacker codes to an .exe. But, ever tried to compare the final codes? Which is more optimized? Plus, Visual C++ doesn't cost $2000." Yup it is better. I am the user :) It might not be optimised as well but its hardly noticable. Im not writing Quake or anything. Its certainly not a problem I would spend money on. (Visual studio: Professional is over $1000, Enterprise Architect is over $1700, Enterprise Architect is over $2400). Many games which require fast computation arent built using visual studio. "It's voluntary until you agree to it, and then it's permanent." You mean like any contract or license? Yes Word is overfeatured. Ive told you why. You can deny it if you want. There was no real reason to bring out a Word 2000 after Word 97. It was too short a time to make a significant difference. "Really? Have you ever done that? Rather, how do you know that people haven't discovered bugs using the illegal lunix sauce code and are using your machine for a DDOS client?" The same way you know that people arent exploiting the bugs in XP to use your computer as a proxy. Is it faith or is it stupidity? "I fail to see the correlation between "open sauce" and "secure"." Thats just probably because you misspelt source. You might have been trying to compare security with a popular brand of barbeque sause or something. In which case I understand why you fail to see any correlation. Security is best done through scrutiny. Any good company will hire hackers to see if they can break through the comanpanies computer security. This is done to check its security. In the same way popular open source programs have their source code looked over by loads of people and bugs are discovered and fixed a lot sooner. This isnt possible with non-open source software as noone can access the source code. Bugs usually lay dormant - sometimes for years until they are found and fixed. Look at XP for example :) Its only been out less than 6 months and already there are major bugs which totally comprimise the users computer. "You really think a naive coder is going to be able to sort through 5 million lines of code and know where to fix a bug? You're insane and clueless." You think microsoft will just put 5 million lines of code together? God, even I give them more credit than that. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Voice recognition software isn't simple and easy. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by luisa on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 09:11:20 PM PST

	It's among the thornier types of software to develop for various reasons. One wonders what sort of software you do write, if any, that you are unable to assess accurately levels of difficulty in given types of software meant for public use.

	Test (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 05:06:04 AM PST

	Its just that the anti-GNU brigade are all against authors having the rights over their work Help me with this question: Say I write up some code that is really helpful and then release it under the GNU license. I really want to fit in with the Open Source people because I think they are really cool. Say later on some guy comes up to me at a LOTR dress up party and says that he wants to take my code and combine it with something he has done, then sell it under a proprietary license and make us both 500 million dollars US. I decide that I'm tired of hanging out with dope smoking hippies and I want to be able to afford to eat somewhere other than a soup kitchen so I'd really like to take him up on his offer. Can I? Do I really have control over my work or does Stallman?

	Re:Test (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 05:50:32 AM PST

	Can I? Definitely yes. If you are the copyright owner of the code you can do whatever you want (Free Software has much respect for copyright and IP, whatever the bunch here thinks, and never can prove). You can relicense your code, and only your code, the way you want. But the code you have released with a free license remain free. Example ? Let's say your program is prog v1.0 and is GPLed. You may decide that prog v1.1 will have another license, proprietary or not, including the code of v1.0. But v1.0 remain as is, GPLed. Got it ?

	Thanks (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 10:19:48 AM PST

	Well, I have some reservations about having to change the version number of some code that I released. It is my code isn't it? Why should I have to change the version number? Why can't I just tell the GNU folks that I've decided to do something else with my code, I supposedly have 'control' over it. Also, could you provide references to a legal precedent that backs up your claims?

	Simple enough (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 11:03:45 AM PST

	Well, I have some reservations about having to change the version number of some code that I released. It is my code isn't it? Why should I have to change the version number? Why can't I just tell the GNU folks that I've decided to do something else with my code, I supposedly have 'control' over it. Contrary to the previous poster's claims, you don't have to tell the GNU folks anything or change version numbers. They still have copies of whatever you wrote with them, and can do what they want with it as per the license agreement that was previously agreed. You can take all the code for which you are the copyright holder (i.e. your code), and use it in this new squillion-dollar venture, under whatever license you want. Also, could you provide references to a legal precedent that backs up your claims? These are the basic rights given to you by copyright law, which is subject to all sorts of international treaties these days to make sure your rights are protected. Please tell me what country you live in if you'd like pointers to the appropriate local law.

	Relicensing (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 06:08:48 PM PST

	Well, I have some reservations about having to change the version number of some code that I released As I understand it, changing version numbers isnt neccessary. Nowhere in the GNU GPL does it state that the GPL is an exclusive license, i.e. by releasing your code under the GPL you dont forgo your right to license your code under other terms. As such you shouldnt have any problems relicensing your code under other terms to other parties. The one thing you have to watch out for is other people's code. If someone sent you a patch (no matter how minor), thats their code, unless you included a notice somewhere or replied to them stating that all such patches become your property. Also, could you provide references to a legal precedent that backs up your claims? There are no legal precedants involving the GNU GPL. So far all battles have been settled out of court simply due to bad publicity. As far as I know there are valid concerns as to the legitimacy of the GNU GPL, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I really take much interest in the details of legal cases so I couldnt tell you the details. I would reccomend that if you are really concerned about these issues you speak to a copyright lawyer, but I dont think you should run into any problems by taking code thats you released under the GPL and turning it propriatory. It is, after all, your property. -- Nick I won a space race victory. Time to let loose the nukes.

	Java is a dog (none / 0) (#13)
	by walwyn on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 02:41:02 PM PST

	Perhaps if your application is GUI based, string based or I/O bound Java might be good enough. If you need to do any serious number crunching though then Java runs like a dog.

	Who cares? (4.00 / 1) (#30)
	by elenchos on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:11:31 PM PST

	It costs less than a nice office chair. And takes up an "extra" 200MB. If you were talking about 200GB, it might matter, but real software developers don't need to ask their dad to upgrade to a 500MB hard drive so that VC++ will fit. What matters is that if you use gcc, your comptetiton will have a faster product. Will the GNU loyalists keep you in business? Look at Loki for your answer. Once again, we see that Lunixists don't matter. GNU doesn't matter. Hackers hardly matter, and only insofar as they pose a threat to law abiding citizens. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	One small problem (none / 0) (#26)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:20:29 PM PST

	Thats all very well to simply relicense but what good do you expect it to achieve? loads of people will still own copies of your program with a GPL attached. These people can distribute, copy and edit your program all they want - you cant stop them because the licenses on their programs say they can. You can change the licence of all new copies of your programs but you cant change the licence of the copies others hold. In actual fact these other people are forced to distribute thier GPL licenses with the software when they distribute it. So you cant control its distribution at all. So whats the point in changing the licence anyway? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Contradictory (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:25:59 PM PST

	In actual fact these other people are forced to distribute thier GPL licenses with the software when they distribute it. So you cant control its distribution at all. If people can be "forced" to distribute the GPL license with the software, then they can be "forced" to not distribute it according to your new license. The point of the matter is, if you are dealing with honorable people, they will treat your property according to the law. Otherwise they are thieves.

	you do (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 01:07:08 PM PST

	Do I really have control over my work or does Stallman? You do. As long as you are the one (the original creator) transfer your work to a different license. Just because you pick the GNU GPL one day doesn't mean that you can't switch it. Your code code be under this person's new license. But you wouldn't have any further control over it unless you work for his company. Even then you would have to be in a position to make real changes. If you don't and you aren't then he could sell it, give you a huge chunk of money, then sell later improved copies and give you nothing. You have to remember though that nay copies that were downloaded before that would still be under the GNU GPL. But this new version with propietary enhancements would not be. Remember though that most people won't tell you how much potential or money that your stuff will generate. Remember that MS originally licensed QDOS to study it. They later bought it for a mere $50,000. They never told its dewveloper what they planned to use it for. They made millions later through licensing it to IBM.

	Minor Editorial Correction (none / 0) (#16)
	by doofus on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 04:18:07 PM PST

	...Stallman? That's GNU/Stallman. Please make sure you understand this, because it is very important!

	No you definitely cant. (none / 0) (#24)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 01:53:00 PM PST

	You put put your software under a GNU licence. Therefore you have stated that your software is owned by NOONE. That the software has no owner. You have no right to give the rights of the code to this guy. You dont own the rights of the code - its not yours - you stated so earlier. The rights of the code now belong to nobody and everybody. Sure you created it but you willfully made it publically owned material. This guy cannot use the code in his software unless he agrees to put his program under a GNU licence too. Anyone who wants to use GNU licenced software code in their own program has to also make their program GNU. Its stated in the licence as one of the things you must accept if you make propietry works. You cant change your mind because you have already disowned the code, people have already used it themselves so you cant put a copyright on it because its no longer yours - even though you were the creator. It would break the licence and you could be prosecuted by GNU. Not that GNU own it either, only that they would enforce the licence to prevent others being exploited. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Sounds like a useless and grasping licence. (nt) (none / 0) (#32)
	by luisa on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 09:07:08 PM PST

	Not at all (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 12:45:22 AM PST

	I'm afraid, Mr Error, that you are in error. I suggest that you spend some time today reading the licence that you so readily promote, along with the other writings of Richard Stallman, so that you are actually fully aware of what it is you're putting your name behind. I will pluck out some highlights to get you started. I'm assuming here that you are talking about the GNU General Public Licence as apposed to the GNU Library/Lesser GPL which is a little different, but the copyright issue remains the same. The first point to note is that in order to licence something you have to own it. If you revoke ownership (ie, put your work in the public domain) you then lose the right to control the distribution of your work. To this end, all GPL-licenced software will display something like the following in the source code: Copyright (C) 2002 John Smith. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public Licenced as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version. Note the initial claim of copyright. This is of vital importance, since without copyright (ownership) the author has no right to impose any particular licence on the software. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. Pretty much a standard disclaimer here. This means that our open source developer can't be sued if his software kills someone, or in the much more usual case, actually fails to do the task for which it is advertised to perform. (Fitness for a particular purpose) Now that I've shown you that the post to which I'm replying is in error, I will also dispute one of your other claims: you have stated repeatedly in the past that the GPL does not prevent distribution in any form. However, the main concern with the GPL among those in the commercial software industry is its so-called 'viral' nature. There is language in the GPL which essentially means that all derivative works based on GPL-licenced work must continue to keep that same licence. I'll quote exactly what the licence says about this... You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This is the sticking point, really. The Lesser GPL does not contain the same restrictions, and allows linking with LGPL-licenced code without inheriting the licence, but still contains other restrictions considered harmful by the commercial software industry. The BSD licence, on the other hand, essentially allows any use of works distributed under the terms of it, which is how Microsoft have managed to base the IP stack in Windows NT on that from BSD. Before making any further assertions on the subject, I must urge you to read the actual terms of the GPL and make sure you understand the implications of all parts of it. While I'm by no means against the GPL myself (I have several projects licenced under the terms of it, in fact), your misrepresentative arguments are doing nothing but embarrassing you.

	this one starts in the stomach, then moves up (none / 0) (#5)
	by derek3000 on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 05:29:54 AM PST

	<I>They would rather some kind of communist government forced authors to impose prices on their works in order to generate wealth for the "state" or something...all workers work for the state. </i> <p> (uncontrollable laughter ensues) ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	GNU is free only if your time is worthless (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:56:32 AM PST

	1) Visual Studio is not $2000. Check your facts. 2) Why are you using C++? I suggest you try a modern language like Java. Using C++ in the 21st century is like riding a horse down a four-lane highway.

	heh java SUCKS (3.00 / 1) (#27)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:26:33 PM PST

	Okay I was slightly wrong - I looked at the best version :) how can it cost 2 times as much as my computer? The Price List Java is SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW. Why not just use C++? Unlike java it actually gives you the option not to use classes. Java syntax was copied off C++ anyway. Might as well use C++ I reckon. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	What about the children of the Microsoft (none / 0) (#10)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 11:13:12 AM PST

	Programmers? How will they eat?

	that isn't the point. (none / 0) (#11)
	by derek3000 on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 11:35:33 AM PST

	Just like you shouldn't be able to force Microsoft to include Netscape with Windows, you shouldn't be able to force your local GNUbot to sell his software. 'You get what you pay for' should suffice. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	*VC++ is* better than gcc** (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 02:55:52 PM PST

	When I pay over $2000 to purchase Microsoft Visual C++ I expect it to wildly outbeat the GNU-competitors. You don't pay $2000 for VC++. And it does produce better optimized code than gcc.

	Or is it? (none / 0) (#28)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:36:09 PM PST

	But you cant ignore price when working out if something is "better" or not. If the only defense for VC++ is that its compiler is better at optimisation then its not much of a winner is it? I mean for $1000 (ok i was looking at the expensive version) I would expect more than a slightly better optimization of code. Also I wouldnt expect 200mb of harddrive to be taken up. Why is that anyway? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Your mind is flawed (1.00 / 1) (#31)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:41:07 PM PST

	You still use the media "textbook" meaning of the word 'hacker'. It used to mean someone who was enthusiastic about computers and who could use them. Someone who could find ways round problems - solutions which you couldnt find in manuals or books. People who could actually write code not just run stupid "easyhack" programs. The word hacker has been wrongfully twisted by the media to mean "A person who accesses a system without authorisation". Well how fuckin difficult is that? Not much. That doesnt describe a hacker - thats something a hacker could do not necessarily what they would want to do. If someone simply guesses someones windows password it doesnt make them a hacker - no fuckin way. Many hollywood films now depict "hackers" like some kind of fuckin surfers. Have you seen Swordfish??? OMG what a load of BOLLOX in the 21st century that was. WHY, when movies are supposed to be getting more accurate do hollywood still think that hacking is accompanied with flashing lights, sound effects and lots of "yea! baby yea! almost there!". FFS what it should show is someone in a dark room with a coffee trying to work out what the string: FDIOUFPOREWr235etrwsJHSDOI57 means and how it is encoded. But no, then we get people on sites like this going "ah yes well <blah blah> is a hacker tool". FFS most "hacker" tools are for lamers. Something like netbus, or email Nuke programs or Spam programs or DOS programs. All cheap shit for 12 year old kids. "Oh WOW infect someones computer with this program and I have complete access!!" Did I make the program? No. Do I know how it works? No. Am I just pressing the "Open CD tray" button? Yes. YOUR NO FUCKIN HACKER THEN. Its no wonder that people invent such a thing as 1337 when there are so many lamers around calling themselves hackers. All the best programs to help gain "unauthorised access" arent even illegal anyway. They are such gems as Ping and Tracert - microsofts will do. Even telnet is a goodie. In fact the best hacker tool in the universe has to be a keyboard. I bet we'd have trouble illegalising them huh? Why cant the "law abiding citizens" just fuck off back to their little world of watching soap operas and talking about the weather? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	wow, you're cool! (none / 0) (#33)
	by nathan on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 09:10:21 PM PST

	The word hacker has been wrongfully twisted by the media to mean "A person who accesses a system without authorisation". (Incidentally, note the nonstandard usage here: the period is placed outside the closing quote mark. This hackerism is derived from computer-language syntax, by analogy of the sentence with the string. You wouldn't compromise a string by putting an operator within it, and likewise with the quoted sentence and the period. Anyhow, to business.) Some hackers may their own definition of "hacker." It is not useful unless it conforms with general usage. Let's look at other fields. A geologist, a high-temperature physicist, and a medical doctor mean three different things by the word "plasma." None of them is wrong, but each one is wrong if he misuses his term to communicate with somebody from another field. In fact, they'd not even be able to converse. What I'm getting at is that hackers have no more rights to linguistic terrorism than anybody else. I could define "nathan" to mean tropical sex-god and that wouldn't make it so. Definitions are only useful as they proceed from practice or useful theory. And let's consider that famed hacker arrogance... Why cant the "law abiding citizens" just fuck off back to their little world of watching soap operas and talking about the weather? I don't watch soap operas, and I talk about the weather because it affects my livelihood. Why don't you fuck off back to your ill-lit basement in your parents' broken-down, louse-ridden, radon-leaking, petty-suburban ranch-style, to munch Doritos and chug Mountain Dew, while popping antibiotic-resistant pustule matter all over your overclocked PII as you beat off furiously with a limp pale thin three-inch pecker over badly-dubbed tentacle pr0n? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Thanks :) (none / 0) (#36)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:34:15 PM PST

	"Why don't you fuck off back to your ill-lit basement in your parents' broken-down, louse-ridden, radon-leaking, petty-suburban ranch-style, to munch Doritos and chug Mountain Dew, while popping antibiotic-resistant pustule matter all over your overclocked PII as you beat off furiously with a limp pale thin three-inch pecker over badly-dubbed tentacle pr0n?" BECAUSE I DID THAT YESTERDAY! <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Just a little note (none / 0) (#41)
	by Nurgled on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 04:08:30 AM PST

	...note the nonstandard usage here: the period is placed outside the closing quote mark. This hackerism is derived from computer-language syntax, by analogy of the sentence with the string. You wouldn't compromise a string by putting an operator within it, and likewise with the quoted sentence and the period. The "period" outside the quotes is acceptable usage in UK English, and I believe that PotatoError is a UK resident. Therefore this observation, while a good one in a lot of cases, might not necessarily apply in this scenario.

	True... (2.00 / 1) (#35)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:10:52 PM PST

	You still use the media "textbook" meaning of the word 'hacker'. Hey! If it was on TV, it has to be true! The word hacker has been wrongfully twisted by the media to mean "A person who accesses a system without authorisation". Well how fuckin difficult is that? Not much. That doesnt describe a hacker - thats something a hacker could do not necessarily what they would want to do. If it's about file formats or communication protocols, it is often what they have to do. Because the only alternative is to submit, and to reinstall everything to the Only Holy System (the latest version, with all the required hardware upgrades, and pay ton of bucks) that is the main source of such incompatiBILLities anyway - though it would be step from frying pan to fire as that "system" is incompatible even with itself, across versions. I had one of such problems just today and I am still pissed... If you want to play by others' rules, hire MCSEs. If you want to actually get your problems solved, hire real hackers. If someone simply guesses someones windows password it doesnt make them a hacker - no fuckin way. Especially when the password is identical to the login name - a big no-no. I had to add check to the system I wrote for the office to reject such passwords, and to display a warning story. Now the system even automatically assigns cryptographically strong password instead of allowing the user to choose. Because of such stupidity, I had for couple months user-level access to local Press Agency feeds (read: newest news before they even hit the airwaves). I stumbled over it, it asked me for name:password, I done what I do for fun in those cases - a single attempt with using local most common surname as both login and password (think about gentle pulling on a massive-looking lock, to see if it is really locked) - and imagine my surprise when I got through. (I later used it to compare the raw newsfeeds with what got to the media and with what delay, which gave me more insight than the news themselves.) I use it now as a warning story about how to not select passwods. WHY, when movies are supposed to be getting more accurate do hollywood still think that hacking is accompanied with flashing lights, sound effects and lots of "yea! baby yea! almost there!". Because it is what the Public expects. Contrary to public opinion, cyberpunk isn't mirror glasses, wild-colored t-shirt, and chip as an earring. True cyberpunk is rather accompanied with a compiler, a soldering iron, and red eyes. I'd be quite delighted to see a scene in a movie when after a set of unsuccessful attempts to stop a process one hero breaks the terminal - alot of sparkles and smoke - and then instead of the operation being stopped as expected, the other hero howls and yells the first hero down with like "Great! This was only a terminal, the computer itself is elsewhere and we have to find another terminal now." Actually, the only scene with realistical computer malfunction I ever seen in a movie was in some B-grade science fiction; a crewmember plugged something in, and the board hissed and made thin stream of smoke. All the best programs to help gain "unauthorised access" arent even illegal anyway. They are such gems as Ping and Tracert - microsofts will do. I prefer mtr for traceroute; it works in parallel mode, is much faster than conventional traceroute, and operates continually, allowing you to see the latencies and packet losses in realtime. Linux commandline tool, I am quite sure it could be recompiled for BSD. Even telnet is a goodie. A very good one, if you don't mention Linux native ones ie. because you are bound to Windows, is "Telneat", Russian cross of NCSA Telnet and SSH. In fact the best hacker tool in the universe has to be a keyboard. I bet we'd have trouble illegalising them huh? Wrong. The best hacker tool in the universe was, is, and will be the brain. Why cant the "law abiding citizens" just fuck off back to their little world of watching soap operas and talking about the weather? Maybe because they are scared excrementless and - how typical - many of them are eager to destroy whatever they don't understand (or whatever is "different") as they perceive it as danger.

	charming (4.00 / 1) (#39)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:39:52 AM PST

	Because it is what the Public expects. Contrary to public opinion, cyberpunk isn't mirror glasses, wild-colored t-shirt, and chip as an earring. True cyberpunk is rather accompanied with a compiler, a soldering iron, and red eyes. That's certainly true. On the other hand, by the same standard, the public also expects musicians to be Byronic, tormented natural geniuses; lawyers to spend most of their time in bombast rather than in study; and mathematicians to be able to extract the tangent of pi to the 100th in their heads. Who cares what 'the public' thinks? Especially if all it is is stupid Hollywood movies? Computer professionals are hardly a persecuted minority. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.