00:00:00 --- log: started forth/10.11.20 00:17:32 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@i-173.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth 00:47:39 no 01:19:51 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote host closed the connection) 01:30:39 appamatto: see "System Software Research Is Irrelevant" presentation by Rob Pike. 01:37:05 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 01:44:47 --- quit: ncv (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 02:01:14 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:01:15 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:01:24 --- quit: qFox (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 02:01:43 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:01:44 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:02:13 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:02:13 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:02:42 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:02:42 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:03:11 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:03:11 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:03:39 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:03:40 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:04:09 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:04:10 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:04:38 --- join: ncv (~neceve@89.123.2.89) joined #forth 02:04:38 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:05:03 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:05:04 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:05:31 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:05:32 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:06:00 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:06:01 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:06:25 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:06:26 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:06:51 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:06:51 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:07:16 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:07:16 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:07:45 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:07:45 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:08:11 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:08:12 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:08:36 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:08:37 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:09:05 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:09:06 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:09:33 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:09:33 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:09:58 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:09:59 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:10:23 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:10:24 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:10:51 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:10:51 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:11:18 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:11:19 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:11:44 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:11:44 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:12:09 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:12:10 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:13:21 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:13:21 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:13:46 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:13:46 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:14:11 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:14:11 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:14:36 --- join: ncv (~neceve@79.114.105.154) joined #forth 02:14:37 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:15:01 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:15:01 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:15:28 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:15:28 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:15:54 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:15:55 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:16:19 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:16:19 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:16:44 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:16:44 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:17:09 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:17:10 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:17:34 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:17:34 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:17:59 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:17:59 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:18:24 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:18:24 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:18:49 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:18:49 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:19:14 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:19:14 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 02:19:39 --- join: ncv (~neceve@79.114.105.154) joined #forth 02:19:40 --- quit: ncv (Changing host) 02:19:41 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:31:09 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 02:44:53 --- quit: MayDaniel () 04:26:23 --- quit: martinhex (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 04:27:10 --- join: martinhex (~mjc@93-97-29-243.zone5.bethere.co.uk) joined #forth 04:42:47 --- quit: Judofyr_ (Remote host closed the connection) 04:46:37 --- quit: ASau (Quit: reboot) 04:55:01 --- join: ASau (~user@89-178-104-155.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 05:02:53 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@k-102.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth 05:08:34 --- quit: ASau (Quit: reboot) 05:13:39 --- quit: martinhex (Remote host closed the connection) 05:15:24 --- join: ASau (~user@89-178-104-155.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 05:20:15 --- quit: schmrkc (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 05:21:23 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 05:22:35 --- join: ASau (~user@89-178-104-155.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 06:05:04 appamatto: uhm, you wouldn't want a posix interface in a forth system 06:06:50 Sure, if you want to lock everyone else outside your small world. 06:11:37 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote host closed the connection) 06:49:01 --- quit: ASau (Quit: reboot) 07:08:46 --- join: ASau (~user@89-178-104-155.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 07:15:21 oh bullshit, nobody is getting locked out 07:15:25 stop making up childish arguments 07:43:07 ams: if you're writing a kernel in forth, what's wrong with providing a posix interface? 07:45:45 nobody said it was wrong to provide one. 07:47:04 why wouldn't you want one then? 07:47:14 because it is silly for a forth system 07:47:28 like what, you going to implement shell in forth/ 07:47:31 port a c compiler? 07:47:54 if you want posix, use a posix system like GNU or whatever. 07:49:16 I dabbled with providing a few posix-style system calls back when retro was a standalone forth os; they could be useful if you want to provide an abstraction between the kernel (written in forth) and the userland 07:50:38 just providing rudimentary libc like calls doesn't make it anything close to posix 07:51:14 people do not realise what posix actually is... when they talk about providing some function calls similar to open/read/write that is more of a C compatibility layer than posix layer 07:52:28 true; though if you provide enough system calls, it becomes potentially easier to port over an actual posix implementation 07:52:46 not really 07:53:01 for one, posix cares about one language: C 07:53:16 so unless you plan on writting a c compiler as well, then you're SOL 07:54:43 why would you need to write a c compiler yourself; you could port an existing one + existing libc to the ABI your kernel provides. this would be necessary to provide a full posix environment anyway. 07:55:34 good luck. 07:58:19 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@m-3.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth 08:09:12 --- quit: kar8nga (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 08:11:55 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@m-3.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth 09:14:59 --- join: schme (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 09:15:12 --- quit: ncv (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 09:21:15 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote host closed the connection) 09:24:59 (like for one, POSIX says nothing about ABI's, it is an API spec) 09:29:31 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 09:29:32 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 09:30:00 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:03:30 --- quit: ncv (Read error: Operation timed out) 10:20:47 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:20:47 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:21:17 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:21:17 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:21:46 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:21:47 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:22:13 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:22:14 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:22:42 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:22:43 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:23:08 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:23:08 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:23:32 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:23:33 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:23:58 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:23:58 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:24:24 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:24:25 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:24:50 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:24:50 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:25:14 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:25:15 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:25:39 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:25:40 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:26:04 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:26:05 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:26:29 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:26:30 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:26:55 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:26:55 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:27:19 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:27:20 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:27:50 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:27:50 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:28:15 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:28:17 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:28:44 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:28:44 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:29:13 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:29:13 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:29:42 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:29:43 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:30:08 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:30:08 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:30:38 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:30:38 --- quit: ncv (Excess Flood) 10:31:02 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:36:51 --- quit: ncv (Quit: KVIrc Insomnia 4.0.0, revision: , sources date: 20090520, built on: 2010/07/07 01:16:10 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/) 10:37:53 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 10:39:00 ams, I wasn't particularly concerned with POSIX, but rather any API that allows creation of threads, address spaces, scheduling, .... 10:41:19 insulation of the kernel from malicious userland programs 10:41:32 appamatto: I'm not aware of any forth kernels that allow for that 10:42:44 I was thinking about writing a forth-based OS that implemented L4 10:43:27 that'd be cool to see 10:43:59 Yeah, it'd be much smaller than a POSIX kernel but it still sounds difficult for one person to do :p 10:44:20 Given that I haven't even written a userland forth yet 10:46:42 there are those here who would advise against that (not me though; I'm all for writing more forths, as long as you learn from existing implementations too) 10:48:44 Well, the project I'm interested in is obviously very low level 10:49:02 I've used Factor for quite a long time 10:49:14 And never really written a forth program before 10:49:38 lots of forth systems have means to create threads, and what not 10:50:10 ams: not too many standalone forths do 10:50:42 and even less implement anything posixy 10:50:47 (i.e. zero) 10:51:13 a l4 forth kinda seems silly 10:51:19 ams, why is that? 10:51:27 It's a very small kernel api 10:52:10 * crc had a version of retro running on L4 a few years back 10:53:03 appamatto: i know, i've done more l4 hackery than everyone combined here 10:53:18 it is silly because there are nicer ways to do micro kernelish things in forth 10:53:26 not to mention that l4 has a bunch of problems 10:53:59 ams, I'd love to read about microkernelish things in forth 10:54:30 i am not concinved that you want to do a micro kernel in forth 10:54:43 but you can do microkernelish things in forth quite easily 10:54:55 crc, what is the license for retro? 10:55:27 appamatto: the version that ran on l4 was public domain 10:55:37 ams, well, I'm interested in building an OS that can deal with user programs written in arbitrary languages, i.e. not just forth 10:55:55 crc, I like your website for retro :p 10:56:00 thanks 10:57:20 if "microkernelish things" includes protecting the kernel from userland programs and otherwise giving them freedom over the machine, then I'm interested in that 10:57:21 appamatto: you are already using such an os, it is called GNU. 10:58:15 ams, I feel like Linux makes innovation at the low levels too difficult 10:58:38 and I just want the learning experience 10:58:42 appamatto: the system you are using is called GNU, not linux, linux is a kernel, and gnu can use other kernels. 10:58:58 I have no illusions that I my system will be more functional than GNU/Linux 10:59:36 although I would love to not use GPLed software someday :) 10:59:43 why? 11:00:13 because I don't want to have a say in what other people do with my code 11:00:29 appamatto: you're not saying what they can do with your code. 11:00:36 they can do the same things as you can 11:01:00 Umm, they can't distribute binaries without source code if I GPL my code 11:01:13 yes, that is to see that everyone can do the same thing 11:02:01 --- quit: MayDaniel (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 11:02:03 Anyway, I don't want to overwhelm #forth with another GPLvWorld discussion 11:02:15 there is no such dicussion. 11:02:26 the gpl protects all computer users, other licenses don't. 11:03:33 and some licenses subjugate users 11:03:41 It protects them by threatening legal action against them if they don't GPL their modifications 11:03:58 no it doesn't, why are you saying things that are blatantly not true? 11:04:19 Umm, if I release modifications to Linux under BSD, what is going to happen? 11:04:32 * crc is unable to study/use GPL'd code to avoid being forced to GPL thing he writes 11:04:37 BSD is a operating system. 11:04:45 crc: again, not true. 11:04:45 I meant BSD license 11:04:49 which one? 11:04:53 ams, how so? 11:04:56 Any of them 11:05:00 there are multiple ones, some not compatible with the GPL. 11:05:09 any of them? 11:05:14 ams, yes 11:05:19 then i cannot answer your question. 11:05:49 it's an easy question 11:05:57 since there are licenses from Berkley that are completely non-free, there are licenses that are free software licenses, but incomaptible with the GPL, and then there are licenses from Berkley that are compatible with the GPL> 11:06:07 no, it isn't, since there are so many different licenses from Berkley 11:06:13 berkeley 11:06:43 none of the BSD licenses feature copyleft, so if I rerelease the Linux kernel under a BSD license, what will happen when someone modifies Linux and doesn't redistribute the source citing my BSD license of it? 11:07:00 you cannot rerelease linux under any other licenses. 11:07:06 exactly 11:07:08 that is no different than the 3-clause BSD license. 11:07:12 yes, and? 11:07:19 you can't do that with the 3-clause bsd license either 11:07:23 what is your point? 11:08:15 I could release my modifications under a different license 11:08:25 no, you cannot. 11:08:25 (in the BSD case) 11:08:28 no. 11:08:36 in the GPL case, it would have to be a copyleft license 11:08:43 again, wrong. 11:08:54 How is it wrong? 11:08:59 you cannot relicense a 3-clause license work. 11:09:08 3-clause bsd licensed 11:09:23 okay, which bsd license can you relicense? 11:09:27 none 11:09:42 okay, which license can you release modifications on with a different license? 11:09:57 LGPL can be relicensed to GPL 11:10:08 and BSD? 11:10:12 NONE 11:10:18 how many times must i repeat myself? 11:10:32 Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of 11:10:32 conditions and the following disclaimer. 11:10:47 appamatto: "I would love to not use GPLed software someday" <--- what is stopping you? 11:10:53 where does it say anything close to "you can redistribute this with any other copyright notice if you please" 11:11:03 schme, lack of replacements for GNU software 11:11:12 appamatto: Which ones do you need? 11:11:19 talk about being religious 11:11:19 decent editor, for one 11:11:34 emacs? 11:11:37 vim 11:11:42 emacs and vim are copyleft 11:11:51 yes, and? 11:11:56 copyleft sucks :) 11:12:02 copyleft just sees that all users will have the same freedoms 11:12:04 oh, ok... 11:12:18 public domain gives all users the same freedoms, doesn't it? 11:12:28 no, it doesn't 11:12:39 okay, which users have different freedoms? 11:12:40 for one, you cannot in most places put something under the PD 11:12:42 public domain is not possible in most parts of the world :( 11:12:43 In most countries you can't put your software in the public domaine. 11:12:48 heh. 11:12:49 x3 11:13:01 okay, then what about the zero-clause BSD license? 11:13:06 secondly, someone can make the program no-free software, and subjugate other users, and that is wrong. 11:13:22 appamatto: I thought you just wanted to avoid GPL. This is why I suggested vim, which is available as non-GPL 11:13:31 ams, but don't all users have equal ability to do that? 11:13:52 http://kaioa.com/node/31 11:14:04 (for example of the zero-clause BSD license) 11:14:10 appamatto: yes, and then you would have people not helping each other 11:14:21 oh gosh this is so stupid 11:14:26 yeah, it is 11:14:28 "and that is wrong" 11:14:34 I'll go visit some other channel. 11:14:39 Sorry, schme 11:14:53 appamatto: Good luck there with your forth with threads and all thing :) 11:14:59 hehe 11:15:06 Thanks 11:15:34 appamatto: telling someone what they can do or cannot do with a program that they have a copy of is wrong. 11:16:04 ams, that's exactly what the GPL does 11:16:13 appamatto: no, it doesn't. 11:16:23 "you can not distribute a binary without making the source available" 11:16:23 appamatto: you are completely free to modify it, run it, redistribute it. 11:16:40 yes, since that would be telling the party who gets the copy of what they can or cannot do 11:16:42 ams, you're free to do anything that the GPL doesn't prohibit, I agree 11:16:53 appamatto: the GPL doesn't prohibit you in anyway 11:16:59 please stop spreading such absurd lies about the GPL 11:17:19 ams, this sure is frustrating :p 11:17:30 I think you're being purposefully disingenuous 11:17:43 what action does the GPL stop you from doing? 11:18:17 you can run the program, for any purpose 11:18:20 making modifications, release binary including mods, and then not releasing the source 11:18:30 the GPL prohibits you from making modifications? 11:18:32 you must be joking 11:18:45 ams, that whole sentence is one unit 11:18:57 reread please? 11:19:02 ams: in my case, the gpl is viral. my language stores things in an image file, inclusion of gpl'd code would pollute the whole, or am I wrong? 11:19:19 crc: you are wrong, nor is the gpl viral. please do not use that word 11:19:21 crc, what license is retro under? 11:19:25 gpl is viral 11:19:31 crc: That's much why the lisp world avoids GPL and LPGL like the plague ): 11:19:32 no, it isn't. 11:19:32 eh 11:19:34 :) I mean 11:19:36 and you're not an honest person 11:19:40 schme: much of the lisp world uses the GPL 11:19:57 infact, much of the lisp world is people who wrote the GPL 11:20:02 ams: The LLGPL is much more common. 11:20:02 uh 11:20:13 If you can't admit that the GPL prohibits users from doing *something* then we can't have a discussion here 11:20:18 ams: You live in a very strange universe. 11:20:31 appamatto: what does it prohibit you from doing? stripping other users of their rights that you had? 11:20:42 schme: yes, one of lisp hackers. 11:20:56 ams: That sentence does not compute. 11:20:59 does it prohibit you from "stripping other users of their rights that you had"? 11:21:09 appamatto: the current version is under the ISC license. 11:21:14 ams: how am I wrong? 11:21:26 ams: There's pretty much one well known "lisp hacker" who really likes the GPL. You know that dude who pretends he invented emacs? 11:21:32 or created it anyway 11:21:41 schme: uhm, rms did infact write emacs. 11:21:47 ok ;) 11:22:09 ams, again, does the GPL prohibit you from "stripping other users of their rights that you had"? 11:22:16 http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi 11:22:24 yes, and/ 11:22:34 ams, then the GPL prohibits you from doing something 11:22:54 Therefore please admit that you were being dishonest purposefully 11:22:57 appamatto: what? can you not run the program, distribute it, study it? 11:22:57 if I include compiled code and distribute it, I have to provide the code necessary to rebuild, so the gpl would apply to the image 11:23:08 appamatto: what exactly of using a program does it prohibit you from doing? 11:23:21 ams, the use where I modify it and then withhold the source 11:23:29 appamatto: and if you wish to call me names, i might as well stop talking to you. 11:23:37 Good idea. 11:23:38 appamatto: you are perefecly free to do so. 11:24:12 ams, okay, your claim is now "you are perfectly free to modify GPLed software and withhold the source" 11:24:18 it is kinda like you are allowed to piss on your own lawn, but don't piss on mine. 11:24:37 appamatto: yes, you are perfectly free to do so. 11:24:48 Are you free to distribute modifications and withhold the source? 11:25:05 appamatto: you must provide the same freedoms as you recived. 11:25:15 ams, answer the question 11:25:17 clearly, you are trolling. 11:25:29 No, I'm trying to pin you down to a statement 11:25:51 no, you are trolling. 11:26:02 Since you won't even agree that the GPL prohibits *something* 11:26:17 it doesn't. 11:26:24 I find that very dishonest, because the GPL's purpose is to prohibit certain things 11:26:27 you can run the program, modify it, redistribute it. 11:26:42 again, it doesn't. 11:26:47 Oh well, sorry for wasting your time, ams 11:26:49 you are free to lie to yourself, and call me a liar. 11:27:06 Can anyone here back me up that the GPL prohibits *something*? 11:27:15 appamatto: The part where it says you can't do certain things, that's not really telling you that you can't do certain things ;) 11:27:24 thank you, schme. 11:27:33 appamatto: I'm with you but I gave up discussing this with ams years ago. 11:27:50 appamatto: Just about when he called everything else "evil" iirc. 11:27:54 i don't remeber who you are, but if you sau so. 11:28:02 it is evil to subjugate users. 11:28:15 telling a user that they cannot know what their own computer does, is _evil_ 11:28:17 it is a simple fact 11:28:27 ams: But that's bullshit. Your views on good and evil are your views. There are no objective standards for this. 11:28:28 Does the GPL prohibit you from doing _evil_? 11:28:30 sorry. 11:28:41 schme: so you telling me what i can do is not evil? 11:28:56 schme: i.e. that i cannot study what the program does? 11:29:01 ams: It's not evil in my book. 11:29:11 If I write code I release it anyway I like. 11:29:17 schme: ok, so you find it not evil to be under the control of someone else 11:29:24 you use evil like there's some objective standard for it. 11:29:29 like some religious nutter. 11:29:35 What I do notice is that a lot of people use the GPL for commercial reasons 11:29:36 sure, and if you send me a copy, then i should know what the program does, since it is running on my computer 11:29:52 ams: So don't run the program. Your choice. 11:29:55 schme: there is little to do with faith here, or some extrateristial beardo 11:30:03 Have you noticed that? People dual-license GPL and commercial, so that you can't modify their GPLed version without releasing your changes 11:30:11 appamatto: no, they don't. 11:30:16 seeing that the GPL is a commercial license. 11:30:16 Umm, yes they do 11:30:43 It's very common for people to use GPL and a commercial dual license so that you have to pay them if you want to make a derivative work 11:30:53 appamatto: again, no, since the GPL is a commercial license. 11:30:55 okl4 does this, for example 11:31:13 appamatto: what maybe you wish to say is that there are instances where people dual license with GPL and a non-free software license 11:31:19 which is not the same thing as a commercial license. 11:31:29 ams, what is a commercial license? 11:31:42 appamatto: something that can be used in commerce. 11:31:59 okay, then every license is commercial 11:32:04 not a good definition 11:32:12 appamatto: no, since there are license that cannot be used for commerce 11:32:20 ams: which ones? 11:32:32 crc, there are ones that specifically state no commercial use 11:32:36 take any CC-NC license 11:32:47 ok, fair enough 11:32:55 anyway, yes, I was referring to the use of GPL + non-free licenese 11:33:07 * crc wasn't thinking of CC licenses, since they generally don't seem to be used for code 11:33:07 thank you for correcting me. 11:33:33 I always found it odd that GPL got put in the "free" category. 11:33:40 Haha 11:33:48 I agree 11:33:57 but BSD isn't completely free either 11:34:09 again, which bsd license? 11:34:12 there are multiple. 11:34:13 But for practical purposes it's free 11:34:21 ams, any of them 11:34:22 most of them are free software licenses, some non-gpl compatible. 11:34:31 appamatto: again, there are non-free software licenses from BSD. 11:35:11 I'm talking about freedom as in threatening legal action in response to particular use of the licensed software 11:35:18 which the GPL obviously does 11:35:24 so does any copyright license 11:35:26 BSD will do it if you break one of the clauses 11:35:27 appamatto: I have a programmer friend who used to GPL everything he wrote. He stopped a couple of years ago and went with one of the BSDs because he realised that the GPL caused problems for other programmers wanting to use his code :) 11:35:35 schme, yeah 11:35:42 yes, and it is OK for BSD type licenses, but not for GPL? 11:35:45 The author of Factor also did so 11:35:46 talk about doublestandards 11:35:57 jEdit was his first big project, which is GPLed and Factor is BSD 11:36:05 schme: it causes trouble for people who which to subjugate other users rights. 11:36:08 ams, no, I don't like BSD licenses 11:36:09 slava made jedit, eh? 11:36:13 schme, yep 11:36:30 I'm really very impressed with how factor has come along in just 8 years or waht it is. 11:36:33 I like public domain, or the downfall of copyright 11:36:37 --- join: Consigliar (~root@c-68-56-206-239.hsd1.fl.comcast.net) joined #forth 11:36:39 appamatto: i don't. 11:37:02 i wouldn't mind if all software had to be in the PD + source, that would be a good thing though... 11:37:07 But zero-license BSD or similar is as good as you can get since some places don't have public domain 11:37:22 but without any means of protecting users to know what their computers do, then we must still fall back on copyright 11:37:26 ams: seems horrible to force licensing on people like you suggested there. 11:37:33 schme, yeah, he's definitely the most productive hacker I've ever met 11:37:52 schme: no different than free speech really... 11:38:04 appamatto: I guess he doesn't spend as many hours feeding GPL trolls :) 11:38:04 ams, I don't believe in free speech either 11:38:10 schme yeah :p 11:38:32 lovley, now i have been called a liar, religious nut, and a gpl troll... 11:38:33 lovley... 11:38:42 I called you dishonest 11:38:44 kärt barn har många namn. 11:38:46 not a liar :) 11:38:52 umm excuse me; if there's no free speech (however it is defined) then you lose the right to publish anything. 11:39:11 so, no free software 11:39:22 if anything, the only nutcases here are a you two who are attacking me with these ad hominem attacks. 11:39:26 Consigliar, freedom of speech isn't a real freedom 11:39:26 sweden doesn't have the right to publish anything atleast. 11:39:38 schme: actually, they do. 11:39:41 I don't really subscribe to positive rights 11:39:44 ams: No we don't. 11:39:46 appamatto it is the right to communicate in whatever chosen medium. 11:39:50 schme: uhm, yes, we, do. 11:39:55 ams: No. :) 11:39:58 Consigliar, but you're already free to do anything that doesn't harm others 11:39:58 20:39 /ignore scheme 11:40:10 i do not have time for you, you might as well live in your little bubble 11:40:17 you are perfectly free to publish anything you want in sweden 11:40:23 this aint about me; it's about the ridiculous speculation that some "dont believe in free speech" 11:40:37 That's a neat trick to ignore someone and go on talking to them. 11:40:40 big up! 11:40:50 Consigliar, freedom of speech means that the government can't arrest you based on what you say, right? 11:41:02 no; i defined it properly. 11:41:15 appamatto it is a right precedent to govt 11:41:16 Consigliar: appamatto is one of those anarchists that doesn't know what the word means. 11:41:25 now he does 11:41:33 Consigliar, sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive, what was your definition? 11:41:39 appamatto it is the right to communicate in whatever chosen medium. 11:42:06 What do you mean by right? 11:42:14 it is property from birth. 11:42:20 Is that referring to a restriction of government? 11:42:34 or a restriction of any man? 11:43:01 no; the first amendment of the Constitution for the United States is a guarantee 11:43:01 a property from birth? That's bullshit though. 11:43:08 says you 11:43:16 there is no law outside national law. 11:43:21 wrong 11:43:30 Okay, the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 11:43:36 right 11:43:36 So it is a restriction of government? 11:43:44 "Congress shall make no law..." 11:43:45 it restricts Congress 11:43:50 right 11:43:51 not "government" 11:44:00 okay, fair enough 11:44:04 all else (of govt) is administrative 11:44:38 I agree with that, congress (government?) shouldn't arrest you for (make a law concerning) your speech 11:44:52 which is what I said in the beginning 11:44:58 there are conditions that make that possible 11:45:13 Consigliar, I don't think we're actually in disagreement 11:45:17 there is a repsonsibility to free speech 11:45:18 likewise in Sweden. because some things are illegal to put in print and distribute. 11:45:27 privisionally agreed :) 11:45:33 hehe 11:45:53 But what I meant when I said I don't believe in free speech, was that I don't think you should be arrested for anything 11:46:00 free speech being one of those things 11:46:06 *your speech 11:46:14 then you're guilty of abuse of language?! :) 11:46:18 Haha 11:46:27 not writing your mind; which is confusion. 11:46:35 so maybe ams's problem is your fault? 11:46:45 Maybe 11:46:48 or whoever your debate was with. 11:46:51 REPENT!!! :) 11:46:54 HEH 11:46:56 I'm sorry!!! 11:47:01 dont tell me 11:47:46 but the bigger problem is what schme said, you can't just write anything you want 11:47:48 i'm not sure what my problem is, can someone enlighten me? 11:48:07 and you definitely can't possess any writings you want 11:48:12 whoever appamatto was arguing with 11:48:15 in sweden you can. 11:48:28 ams, dude, try possessing the wrong kind of pictures in Sweden 11:48:34 wrong kind? 11:48:39 appamatto: It is the same in Sweden. You can't write anything you want. 11:48:46 even in countries with the most oppresive govts, there is a freedom of speech 11:48:46 uhm, yes you can 11:49:01 Consigliar: like the US? :-) 11:49:02 appamatto: I would provide ams with some links to swedish law regarding this but he put me on ignore. 11:49:07 like china 11:49:08 scheme, yep, that's what I'm saying. There isn't really a freedom of speech, and definitely not a freedom to possess writings of others 11:49:18 simply bc people can still talk to each other. 11:49:34 appamatto: Dunno about posessing writings. We don't make that illegal. But printing certain things and distrubiting. that's a no go. 11:49:36 `any communication utilising any medium of exchange' 11:49:43 well I need to write some code anyway. 11:49:46 ta ta. happy easter :) 11:49:51 schme, what about writings for making dangerous devices? 11:50:05 scheme, what about writings that look like naked people of the wrong age? 11:50:18 later! 11:50:20 have fun 11:50:22 appamatto: That's ok. you can possess 'em, you can distribute 'em. the dangerous devices. pedophilia you are correct on. 11:50:28 oh I will (: 11:51:04 ok; segue for new thread: 11:51:09 ok? 11:51:37 since the latest provaceteur has left the field of battle :) 11:51:40 sure 11:51:42 ok 11:52:01 let's discuss `what is elegant?' in terms of programming and Forth specifically. 11:52:14 Actually I've never written a forth program 11:52:16 with appropriate sub-threads 11:52:18 that's ok 11:52:22 i dont discriminate 11:52:31 But I have written a bunch of Factor 11:52:36 programs* 11:52:43 1. as Einstein said, simple as possible but no simpler 11:53:20 2. i think a sculptor of marble said, `i dont carve, i remove what doesnt belong' (or somth like that) 11:53:41 i think that was michelangelo 11:53:42 elegant is the smallest program that does something that cannot be reduced anymore. 11:53:44 ok 11:53:58 i do not agree with that definition 11:54:11 thos 2 points are where I begin considering this subject. 11:54:22 and? 11:54:28 i also think that the whole idea of elegance in programming is a farce 11:54:34 why? 11:54:49 i do not write programs to be elegant 11:54:54 i write them to solve a problem 11:54:55 do you optimse them? 11:55:00 sometimes 11:55:10 then that is `approaching elegence'; 11:55:16 not really 11:55:25 your def is too restrictive 11:55:26 Consigliar, I think elegance is related to the ease of understanding of the program 11:55:38 since a optimised program can be "non-simpler" than a naive version 11:55:40 So elegance is important to me, because it means I can fit the code in my head and reason about it 11:55:44 appamatto you be afk :) dont lie :) 11:55:46 heh 11:56:00 take sorting... 11:56:05 k 11:56:16 insertion sort is a very elegant algorithm, it is simple... 11:56:17 right? 11:56:21 sure 11:56:28 it is also completely crap 11:56:35 why? 11:56:43 because there are better ways of doing something 11:56:56 so the algo is non-optimal? 11:57:14 or are you jjust refering to alternatives? 11:57:15 right 11:57:23 the algorithm isn't optimal 11:57:26 k 11:57:34 it is slow, it is basically not used for anything other than for small lists 11:57:39 Consigliar, haha, yes I was afk 11:57:45 do you think quicksort elegant? 11:57:48 let me tell a personal parable on my way to learning about coding: 11:58:13 one of my first in-high-school college classes i took was a required computer-stats math 11:58:23 i didnt know squat about stats 11:58:50 do you think quicksort elegant? 11:58:55 the first assignment rom the fem-prof was `write pascal code to process mode and mean of a list of numbers' 11:59:13 i cant answer bc i've not studied those in years. 11:59:21 chirist 11:59:37 so, me, full of wonder and consternation, asked other students to splain what mode & mean were 11:59:38 you'll never be a decent programmer. 11:59:59 i looked at their code; pages & pages of one procedure... 12:00:06 variables and consts everywhere 12:00:09 mde no sense to me 12:00:12 made 12:00:32 so i found a dictionary that told me what the terms meant 12:00:44 i finally had a working knowledge of what the assignment was 12:01:12 handed in the code, the prof (i think) actually gushed when showing my code. 12:01:30 one page, pascal, logical, short, to the point, elegant. 12:01:41 so you cheated? 12:01:45 nop 12:02:09 what? you looked at the solution before writting your own 12:02:11 i call that cheating 12:02:15 (however bad the solution is) 12:02:18 nop; only a dictionary. 12:02:38 20:59 i looked at their code; pages & pages of one 12:02:47 you looked at someone else program first 12:02:55 yea but it ws no help at all 12:03:02 it was spaghetti 12:03:03 how do you know? 12:03:08 i knew pascal 12:03:15 and? 12:03:19 i knew what good code looked like 12:03:27 i wasnt a nob to coding 12:03:30 sure you did, and you don't even remeber quick sort 12:03:34 just to the stat aspect of it 12:03:39 it's been that long :) 12:03:58 that long? 12:04:01 5 years? 12:04:02 in years 12:04:09 add a digit 12:04:21 ok, you're not a programmer. 12:04:25 i've forgotten more information than most people actually learn 12:04:29 i can code 12:05:06 if you cannot remeber something basic as quick sort, then you cannot code 12:05:24 you're mixing ability and memory recall; dont do that. 12:05:37 i can look it up. 12:05:40 programming is 99% about experience 12:05:45 and experience is about recalling things 12:05:50 no one needs to rememb everything. 12:05:56 nobody said that 12:06:00 -- me 12:06:03 but you do remeber what a noun is? 12:06:07 or a vowel? 12:06:14 quick sort is as basic as that 12:06:15 dont be ridiculous pls? 12:06:26 i'm not 12:06:31 just a bit 12:06:34 you should be able to recall quick sort in even some basic form 12:06:52 (not saying that yuos hould be able to implement it, just a recall of how it works) 12:06:53 i want to discuss elegance 12:07:21 i can look it up if i need it. 12:07:31 right, and i cannot do that with you since you cannot remeber how quick sort works 12:07:37 fine 12:07:40 your lossss 12:07:41 --- part: Consigliar left #forth 12:32:53 --- quit: gnomon (Quit: leaving) 12:33:25 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 12:39:21 --- quit: MayDaniel () 13:04:13 hillarious 13:24:27 schme welcome back, schme 13:24:38 haha oops, two schme's in there. 13:31:39 wooh 13:31:41 --- nick: schme -> schmx 13:31:47 now back to normality 14:00:57 normality is good 14:02:58 it is overated 14:12:15 crc: indeed (: 16:49:56 --- join: Rods_Tiger (~ian_tinda@host86-174-222-158.range86-174.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 16:52:16 --- part: Rods_Tiger left #forth 17:15:39 --- join: roarde (~roarde@pdpc/supporter/active/sixforty) joined #forth 17:16:06 --- nick: Joseph_ -> Deformative 18:34:49 --- nick: schmx -> schmrkc 18:54:10 --- join: hhos (~hhos@204.250.174.138) joined #forth 19:13:33 --- quit: hhos (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 20:32:24 Debugging my forth. This oughta be fun :p 21:34:32 --- join: I440r (~zhiming@c-69-136-171-118.hsd1.in.comcast.net) joined #forth 21:34:32 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 21:42:10 --- join: Joseph (~Joseph@205-36.adsl.umnet.umich.edu) joined #forth 21:42:37 --- nick: Joseph -> Guest57093 21:43:42 --- quit: Deformative (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 22:05:27 --- quit: roarde (Quit: Leaving.) 22:35:58 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@i-50.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth 23:58:09 --- quit: MilLionsOfLions (Quit: installing a dirty african word brb) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/10.11.20