Board index » kylix » Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

2003-08-11 10:41:37 PM
kylix0
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3f37a651$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Ruby.
libraries?
--
Iman
"If I had to live my life all over again," said Woody Allen, "I'd do it all
exactly the same ?only I wouldn't read Beowulf."
 

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
anything available.
Since the *language* is open, you can legally write an open source C#
compiler or IDE if you want to. With Java, you need a license from Sun to
do this.
 

That is not innovations. That is programs. IIRC, reiserfs - journaling file
system that windows had in the 1996. Apache - web server that implements
certain internet protocols. Programming languages - what they are and what
innovative thing they have?
IL>It seems to me there are no programming language innovations happening
IL>anywhere but open source.
Of course. And that doesn't mean that there are significant count of
innovations from OSP relative to commercial and scientific development.
IL>the end user.
As long MS is protected against such stupid demands their users also
protected. In fact i don't know such eulas that protects end user.
 

{smallsort}

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
innovative things to improve speed.
number of HTTP implementations.
commercial.
a case covering aspects of SQLServer and the company winning could go to
the customers of MS and as for licensing fees.
--
Iman
"If I had to live my life all over again," said Woody Allen, "I'd do it all
exactly the same ?only I wouldn't read Beowulf."
 

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
--
Iman
"If I had to live my life all over again," said Woody Allen, "I'd do it all
exactly the same ?only I wouldn't read Beowulf."
 

Ender wrote:
implemented in Unix well before MS did it.
As for true open source innovations... how about the many DARPA
projects. TCP/IP would be termed open source if it was started today.
You and others seem to forget that all (some ?) projects funded by the
US government had to be released into the public domain.
[....]
with regards to patents implmented in their SQL based products. If they
lose people are already speculating about the damage to MS's customers
who will be liable. And no, this is unlikely to hurt MS as they had
already bought the required licences.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
www.ibrox.demon.co.uk/
 

No one said that C# has something "open soursish".
 

Iman L Crawford wrote:
fragmentation and reduce space lost due to small files lesser then a
block size. Has plans for plugins to do a lot of things regarding file
metada, see www.namesys.com/ for more info.
 

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
The point being that the "Open Source" concept may apply to a compiler but
not to the language itself since languages have traditionally been open
except for a few notable exceptions like Java.
So back to my question, what is an "Open Source" language?
Perl was invented by Larry Walls in 1987, inspired by his need to solve
commercial problems.
Python was invented in the early 90's and developed at government research
institutes in both the Netherlands and the US.
Are these "Open Source" languages? How so? Open Source compilers are
available for lots of languages nowadays but that doesn't make the languages
Open Source inventions.
 

Yes. Or libraries, which are parts of programs. Innovations - new
techniques, methods and ideas. There is nothing innovative to use existing
principles.
IL>some innovative things to improve speed.
Innovative = new, not used before by anyone. Something that have idea, not
combination existing techniques. What new things was developed by ReiserFS
creators?
IL>any number of HTTP implementations.
So, what innovative (read new) things was introduced by Apache in the IT
world?
Well, don't know actually Python and Perl. What new things bring they that
does not exist in other languages? For me - just another way to express
thoughts of programmer. For me innovative things in languages is something
like - structured exception handling, objects, functions & procedures, event
driven applications and so on.
IL>commercial.
I group by resource availability. You have been paid for doing research and
engineering or not. First case is more likely to get some innovations.
IL>just lost a case covering aspects of SQLServer and the company
IL>winning could go to the customers of MS and as for licensing fees.
So it's already going to get money from MS customers?
 

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3f37cb8b$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
compilers and run time libraries.
--
Iman
"If I had to live my life all over again," said Woody Allen, "I'd do it all
exactly the same ?only I wouldn't read Beowulf."
 

Ender wrote:
Commercial companies can hire/buy scientists (ehi, you don't think MS
employees are "scientst", don't you? <g>) using money.
The more money they have, the more innovative they can be.
Microsoft surely has a lot of money, but evidently they are not used the
right way.
Anyway, I think this is OT in this thread.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Ender wrote:
I just grabbed and parsed a couple of dictionaries I have at home, and
both say that innovation is either the introduction of something new, or
a rielaboration in a new fashion of something already existing (or a mix
of the two).
If we keep your definition (which is formally correct, BTW), we should
agree that there was little or no innovation in the last 50 years.
But that's a bit sterile, and I don't like the idea that so much work on
researching and enginnering new, better ways to do the same things is
just a waste of time :-)
http daemon. But it was completely reengineered and introduced new ideas
and a highly modularized architecture. That's a new, very different way
of doing the same thing. That's innovation IMHO.
It seems the only things that keep the world running is money.
Many of the past innovations/inventions were not achieved because of
paid research and engineering. They eventually became commercial things
after, but did not started as such.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

"Roal Zanazzi" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
and communal property, you'll probably need to go back to around 1848.
 

JQP wrote:
No, I don't think there is a defined _political_ idea involved in the
open source movement, though some of this ideas are similar or equal to
the ones you cited (the realizations of which, IMHO, have all failed to
reach those ideals, but this is another topic ;-).
At least, it's very unlikely that so many persons around the world,
coming from so much different social cultures, all agree on those
polical ideas.
I was mainly referring to the social involvement in a so global,
world-wide environment.
The novelty (if you don't want to call it "innovation") I see in the
open-source movement is this global effort to construct something beyond
social, cultural, political and religious differences.
Of course, this novelty could not have taken place without the
possibilities of world-wide communication given by computer science and
internet, and it's natural that this effort concretize itself in the
world of computer science (mainly software development).
In a few world, a production model which involves a different scale (and
different solutions) than before.
Maybe this is not innovation, maybe it is. Future will tell us, if we
will live enough...
--
Roal Zanazzi