00:00:00 --- log: started forth/11.03.10 00:00:30 I don't agree, but we're incredibly unlikely to change the other's opinion either way. :) 00:00:35 ams "we" do not hold, FSF holds on our behalf, but I object to tacit procuration; who (as in the People) appointed FSF holder of anything; it's people who delegate by contract to FSF to hold their surrendered rights, and thus lose those rights. what is mine is no longer mine when i transfer rights to another. 00:01:47 SunTzu: that makes absolutley no sense, and you are spouting lies. 00:01:48 I think by "we" ams just means e is speaking in eir capacity as a member of the GNU Project/FSF. 00:01:55 elliott back to discussing forth; so you've code some code to do what? 00:02:11 SunTzu: nobody is surrendering anyr ights, that is a complete and utter lie 00:02:13 SunTzu: To do not much useful at all until I have a way to push literal numbers to the stack. 00:02:14 ams i dont lie. if you cant grok what i wrote, then that's a different matter. 00:02:24 elliott on x86? 00:02:28 Yes. 00:02:35 elliott lodsd; push eax 00:02:39 2 bytes 00:02:39 SunTzu: and we as what elliot said, it might not include you, but it includes me. 00:02:41 SunTzu: No, no, I mean a way to type them in :-) 00:02:48 int 16? 00:03:03 readkey 00:03:05 16h is what I'm using for keyboard input. but the word reader has to process them and use different logic to its normal packing. 00:03:10 or readExtendedKey 00:03:35 SunTzu: i can saftley say we seeing i've been part of the GNU project for some odd 20+ years 00:03:39 int 16h or fcn x16.16h? 00:03:46 SunTzu: even before we applied for TM of GNU. 00:04:01 linux didnt exist before '93; i started using Linux in '94. 00:04:06 91. 00:04:17 SunTzu: more lies. 00:04:24 you started using gnu in 94. 00:04:26 it wasnt usable in '92 00:04:26 and linux. 00:04:29 sure it was 00:04:51 ams, you cannot impute to me some comprehension that I havent accepted myself. 00:05:01 you dont speak for me (no tacit proc) 00:05:07 What if I ran a set of system utilities that predated even GNU on top of a Linux kernel? 00:05:14 Would it still be GNU? 00:05:16 SunTzu: mcc interim was sure usable, and was released in 92 00:05:26 that wasnt gnu at all 00:05:31 SunTzu: sure it was 00:05:34 neither is Slackware 00:05:37 SunTzu: sure it is 00:05:41 a direct descendant of mcc 00:06:14 SunTzu: which was based on the GNU system with Linux as its kernel. 00:06:23 All this bickering and I have important chronological philosophical ... nomenclological questions! 00:06:30 elliott: like? 00:06:30 ams, while i appreciate your obvious knowledge on this subject, i'm not really interested in hashing it. I'd rather discuss forth and what elliott is doing. 00:06:36 ams: What if I ran a set of system utilities that predated even GNU on top of a Linux kernel? Would it still be GNU? 00:06:52 elliott: probobly not, i don't know. 00:06:56 (Meanwhile: Gnu Foods, LLC, New York: http://www.trademarkia.com/gnu-76627381.html) 00:06:59 ams: :-) 00:07:00 elliott: what do you think? 00:07:04 ams: I think not. 00:07:11 elliott: i wouldn't call it "Linux" though 00:07:22 But I also don't think that just because a set of system tools postdate GNU, that means the resulting system is GNU. 00:07:25 elliott: maybe BSD/Linux or similar (since those predate GNU a bit) 00:07:35 elliott: this is not about system tools 00:07:37 ams: I'd call it whatever fancy brand name it would be called; but I think it would be a "Linux system". 00:07:46 elliott: GNU is not a set of system tools, never was, it has always been a operating system 00:08:14 That's true... but in a minimal Universe/Electricity/GNU/Linux/etc. installation, the primary GNU components take the form of system tools. 00:08:20 elliott: what happened in 92 or whatever, was that a bunch of people took a basic GNU system, and ported it to work with the Linux kernel. 00:08:33 elliott: like many have done with BSD 00:09:34 Clearly the solution to this naming debacle is to finish TUNES and all use that. 00:09:53 oh tunes... gah that brings back memories 00:10:09 ams: Bad ones? :) 00:10:32 elliott: sad ones actually 00:10:35 The logs for this channel are hosted on tunes.org, heh. Also the logs for another two channels I'm a regular in; clog is quite prolific. 00:10:36 If crashy... 00:10:52 if we are refering to the same tunes... 00:11:10 ams: Faré tunes, tunes.org TUNES? Expediency and whatnot? 00:11:20 Dead as a thing that is quite thoroughly dead? 00:11:43 elliott: TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient, System? 00:11:54 Yes, yes. 00:11:59 elliott i'm still getting the occassional email from Tunes 00:12:09 elliott: right, then we are refering to the same thign :-) 00:12:10 SunTzu: Spam? 00:12:13 nop 00:12:27 SunTzu: Impressive. 00:12:54 Well, they did create that new list a while ago... http://groups.google.com/group/tunes-project/ 00:13:02 Seems like January was the last post, though. 00:13:38 yea, that was spam and the one prev was dehtml scrubbed clean, so i dont know what it said. no significant content 00:13:54 "When will TUNES be done?" 00:13:59 prolly something like that ;-) 00:14:02 like Hurd, never 00:14:17 SunTzu: the Hurd has had three releases. 00:14:19 ams: TUNES will be based on GNU HURD, and ship with Duke Nukem Forever. 00:14:33 elliott: i hope not, Duke Nukem is non-free software 00:14:34 What software (other than tex) ever gets done? 00:14:34 i know, and a debian 00:14:36 (Hmm, that pesky game is going to finally come out and ruin all the jokes soon, isn't it.) 00:14:47 ams: You don't know, maybe it will be released Free! 00:14:53 elliott: doubt it 00:15:00 would be cool though 00:15:14 ams: It's actually getting released, probabilities are no longer relevant. 00:15:17 The laws have broken down. 00:15:23 sky is falling? 00:15:35 Precisely! 00:15:43 Ooh, and maybe they'll all come out on December 21st, 2012 as well. 00:15:48 good, maybe sunshine will follow 00:16:14 Thus causing a bright young programmer to implement an AI on this promising new platform, causing a technological singularity, and you know the rest. I should become a cult leader. 00:16:28 can i be your first groupie? 00:16:46 Need a catchy name first. 00:17:22 elliotts 00:17:35 Perfect. 00:19:52 all hail eris 00:21:39 --- join: elliott_ (~elliott@91.105.95.39) joined #forth 00:21:42 --- quit: elliott (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 00:21:45 --- nick: elliott_ -> elliott 00:21:50 --- quit: elliott (Changing host) 00:21:50 --- join: elliott (~elliott@unaffiliated/elliott) joined #forth 00:33:15 elliott so, my current prob with kernel is that, in fasm, i'm having difficulty writing macros that work. 00:33:32 I'm using nasm. 00:33:37 k 00:33:39 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 00:33:41 But I only have two macros, intro and next. 00:33:46 And intro is just "xchg sp, bp". 00:34:05 why not call it swp [swap]? 00:34:37 Probably a better name; it was called that because it was the first statement in every word definition. When a word is entered, the stack pointer is the return stack, and the data stack is stored in bp. 00:34:43 The xchg lets the word access the data stack. 00:35:02 But I have since rewritten it to be shorter, so that every word has an implicit "intro" at the start (done in the interpreter), so that is not longer accurate. 00:35:03 umm 00:35:17 (I'm using x86 stack instructions exclusively.) 00:35:27 well as long as you can keep it straight 00:35:36 It... might be working out. 00:36:00 alot of my primtives are one line of asm code and a jmp next 00:36:12 Just one line? Really? 00:36:20 well, the mathematics are 00:36:23 As in, one instruction? 00:36:24 Ah. 00:36:31 +-*/&| and not 00:36:33 How do you avoid the need to adjust the stack pointer? 00:36:39 + makes the stack one smaller, after all. 00:36:46 add [esp], eax 00:37:25 Ah -- so you keep the top of stack in a register. 00:37:32 well; that should be, pop eax; add [esp], eax; jmp next 00:37:34 nop 00:37:35 Except... right. 00:37:37 So more than one line :-) 00:37:46 ok 00:38:02 i think that's three bytes 00:38:27 My current issue is that by using call/ret, I can't seem to have user-defined words: the interpreter needs to keep track of its pointer to the list of subroutines, but calling other routines (e.g. invoking another threaded word) will clobber this. 00:38:42 I think I need to store a data pointer along with the return address on the stack, but I'm not sure.. 00:38:49 This is my first real Forth. :) 00:39:20 wait, you're in real mode, kool 00:39:21 ok... 00:39:37 Yeah. Originally, I was in protected mode. 00:39:38 you just need a DP var to management mem 00:39:41 But that took up too many bytes! 00:39:44 i miss dos. 00:39:53 eech 00:39:55 dos was horrible 00:40:02 i really miss the .com binary format 00:40:03 DOS was fun. Horrible, but fun. 00:40:22 It was really a shell to run other OSes. 00:40:30 i can almost grok ELF but it's slow going 00:40:39 SunTzu: what is there to grok about elf? 00:40:43 it is a simple format 00:40:46 it's verbose 00:40:59 not really 00:41:06 when i finish my kernel, i'll code up a few words to write elf's 00:41:09 it is binary, how can it be verbose? 00:41:21 lots of data to be put into it 00:41:22 ams: Perhaps only simple to someone accustomed to that way of thinking... 00:41:40 Many things about modern Unices aren't obvious, just familiar. 00:41:50 Forth's simplicity in comparison is a testament to that. 00:41:58 testement 00:42:04 3 [e] 00:42:17 wait, no, that's wrong 00:42:23 It's "testament" :p 00:42:24 testament 00:42:35 i plead too early in the day 00:43:09 No excuse; I'm sleep-deprived :) 00:43:22 just sleep; it's not bad. 00:43:24 SunTzu: for a minimal elf, not much has to be put into it 00:43:32 i know 00:43:47 i'm learning, it's just slow going to put into neurons in a suitable format :) 00:43:56 Naw, I'm trying to get my sleep schedule to something most human beings would consider "normal". 00:44:10 Clearly the only way to do this is extended sleep deprivation. 00:44:11 SunTzu: draw it out on paper 00:44:15 SunTzu: like a normal memory map 00:44:16 elliott you do that incrementally, not in one nite 00:44:19 yea 00:44:22 SunTzu: and then draw out how it looks in memory 00:44:42 SunTzu: Tiredness begats bad thinking begats bad resolutions to tirednesss begats tiredness begats ... 00:44:44 i have the elf pdf and pic files of the "map" 00:44:50 (begat isn't right there.) 00:44:55 (What's the present tense of begat? begets?) 00:44:57 heh 00:44:59 baguettes? 00:45:00 ya 00:45:05 SunTzu: then you didn't draw it out, try it by looking at the structures 00:45:05 oh, it is beget, of course 00:45:06 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:4600) joined #forth 00:45:07 begets; births 00:45:11 Baguettes. 00:45:12 (now dwarf... dwarf is complex) 00:45:45 DWARF makes me crawl into a corner and cry softly. 00:45:45 elliott oh and my kernel is ITC 00:45:49 heh 00:46:06 i have a billion cpu cycles to burn, speed isnt an issue. 00:46:18 Who cares about speed, as long as it fits into a single sector. 00:46:23 right! 00:46:27 I do a little dance every time I save a byte. 00:46:30 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 00:46:30 but one track would be better 00:46:32 lol 00:46:36 i can just see that 00:46:52 a little baby shuffle? 00:46:56 rofl 00:47:13 elliott what's your locale? 00:47:27 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@200-122.adsl.umnet.umich.edu) joined #forth 00:47:31 elliott: yeah... 00:47:44 en_GB.UTF8; but isn't the hip thing to talk in TLDs? 00:47:57 elliott iinm, disk tracks are 64kb each. go for it. 00:48:05 elliott: dwarf4 is cute... 00:48:09 name it, where are you? 00:48:14 England :) 00:48:16 ok 00:48:21 64 kibioctets... I don't even know how one could fill that endless amount of space. 00:48:26 i'm on the Florida sand-bar 00:48:32 heh 00:48:46 Surely you could fit ten lossless feature films on such a disk. 00:48:52 heh 00:49:23 i bought a 1.5tb usb disk recently, i still havent filled up the others yet to deploy the newest 00:49:28 ("Kibioctets" has to be the strangest word ever.) 00:49:32 but i couldnt resist the price 00:49:37 but it is correct word 00:49:49 Yes! After all, there are machines with 9-bit bytes! 00:49:55 Any PDP users in the audience? 00:50:05 <-- 00:50:06 oh and i'm porting over FIG concepts to my kernel 00:50:24 like vocabulary tree and branches 00:50:32 and its ITC too 00:50:36 Wouldn't mind a PDP myself, x86 is a horrible architecture. 00:50:52 elliott: buy one 00:50:55 i have a neat idea for oo-ish concepts too 00:51:05 i almost bought a -8 once. 00:51:09 eech 00:51:12 got a ][+ instead 00:51:24 with 2 rx08s iinm 00:51:29 ams: If I was going to spend silly amounts of money on obsolete-but-interesting hardware, I'd go for a Lisp Machine. 00:51:34 (They still sell the things! New!) 00:51:41 Simh has pdp mulators 00:51:45 Simh has pdpmulators 00:51:57 elliott: port opengenra to modern hardware 00:52:03 elliott: and run it on raw metal 00:52:15 does qemu do pdp? 00:52:19 elliott: i think someoen did a amd64 port 00:52:21 ams: That would be fun. The closest I've got involves two layers of emulation. 00:52:22 SunTzu: no 00:52:23 ams: Yep. 00:52:24 Well. 00:52:25 k 00:52:25 One layer. 00:52:41 ams: The x86-64 port is insanely fragile though. It's probably less work to emulate Tru64 Unix in-between. 00:52:53 i run linux on metal; i want to run qemu to get msdos, to run apple, to run z80 00:52:55 heh 00:52:57 elliott: prolly 00:53:11 I tried that once but then realised that QEMU iirc didn't have the relevant system emulator :) 00:53:17 elliott: i think i have the original manuals somewhere 00:53:53 I wouldn't mind a Connection Machine, while we're dreaming. 00:53:54 ok then sqroo qemu; we dont need no steenkeen qmu 00:55:10 i'd really like to port a real fig engine to linux. picking out the words to change is frought with dangers -- i havent done it correctly 00:55:41 elliott i'd like to design with zilog, WDC, and 88k 00:56:04 My ideal architecture is probably the Reduceron. 00:56:12 dont know that one 00:56:19 http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/reduceron/ 00:56:22 It's a symbolic graph rewriting machine. 00:56:28 No notion of a traditional "instruction set". 00:56:28 oh and learm more about fpga's 00:56:35 the Reduceron is implemented on an FPGA :) 00:56:39 kool 00:56:41 it's basically purely-functional symbolic hardware 00:56:46 nice 00:57:51 damn, i need to write (;code) 00:59:28 SunTzu: may i recommend learning english first. 01:00:28 i find it quite sad that computer programmers often tend to have immensly bad grammar, and vocabulary usage. we who are so precise in communicating with computers can't even use a stupid spoken language properly.. 01:00:46 ams it just gets iun the whey 01:00:49 heh 01:01:23 Strönlee 4griid. 01:01:57 ams dont mistake my bad kbding for lack of education 01:02:09 Keyboards are horrid little things. 01:03:31 SunTzu: they are the same for all normal cases 01:03:48 if you can't type, then you had bad keyboard lessons, or do not type much which means that you don't write code at all 01:04:14 Well, Chuck Moore isn't the most elegant English speaker/typer in the world. So there's precedence. 01:04:19 (Just look at his blog for proof.) 01:04:58 elliott: kinda why he doesn't write english when programming 01:05:15 ams: Sure he does, he just writes it in a computer-friendly order :-) 01:05:17 p#123 123 01:05:27 elliott: colorforth isn't very english 01:05:42 It's... not bad. 01:05:50 But yeah, not exactly perfect :p 01:05:59 ams: What's the blue, I know that green is word definition 01:06:18 elliott: no clue, was making a point, i have no idea what the colours are in colorforth 01:06:22 Or did you just make it up, doesn't seem to be on the site :P 01:06:35 coloeForth is quite fun, albeit strange, but then Forth is strange. 01:06:44 forth isn't strange 01:06:47 colorforth is weird 01:06:54 cute, but weird line noise... 01:06:56 Forth is foreign. 01:06:57 kinda like perl with colours 01:07:00 colorForth is foreign. 01:07:02 elliott: not really 01:07:16 ams: I could call Hungarian line noise, but all that tells everyone else is that I don't know it. 01:07:31 Perl is a (particularly perverse) language; colorForth is another language; you can't speak any language without knowing it. 01:07:38 Some languages are closer to languages we already know than others. 01:07:40 elliott: even in hungarian you can figure out what is a word, and what is not 01:07:48 That includes crossing the natural/programming divide. 01:08:05 http://www.colorforth.com/ide.html 01:08:07 ams: I think I could tell a colorForth word from a non-colorForth word and I've never written one in my life. 01:08:31 "bsy 1f7 p@ 80 and if bsy ; then ;" -- I find this quite readable 01:08:42 actually I guessed that p@ was read-port before i read the comments. 01:08:45 what does p@ do? 01:08:52 ams: see the comments block? 01:08:57 but i guessed it, dunno how. intuition? 01:08:58 elliott: i'm asking you 01:09:09 ams: Read an 8-bit value from the given port. 01:09:28 @ is read, so all you have to figure out is what p stands for; since this is an IDE driver, "port" is the only reasonable guess I can think of. 01:09:36 elliott: you didn't know that 01:09:37 But that's just a matter of vocabulary. 01:09:39 you read the comment 01:09:46 nor is @ read 01:09:50 it is fetch 01:09:56 ams: I have seen that page before, but no, when I opened it just now I saw p@ and guessed before glancing at the comments. 01:10:07 (The comments are in way too big a font for me to read.) 01:10:09 you cannot possibly know that p@ will fetch 8 bits 01:10:10 (I had to scale it down.) 01:10:19 ams: Well, no. But again: That's vocabulary. 01:10:32 nor do you know what is a word or not 01:10:34 anyway 01:10:35 ams: What does asztal mean in Hungarian? 01:11:09 elliott: table 01:11:13 ams: You looked that up. 01:11:18 elliott: nope 01:11:29 ams: Name a language you _don't_ know anything about :) 01:11:45 elliott: anything? hm. 01:11:52 elliott: the ones that i have not heard of 01:11:54 Tagalog 01:11:58 but that might not be true either 01:12:06 ams: s/anything/more than a trivial amount (e.g. name of)/ 01:12:25 elliott: thinking 01:12:32 SunTzu: sadly, i know some tagalog 01:13:10 ams: What does this mean? 鬱 01:13:18 elliott: looks like two ?? 01:13:22 so no clue 01:13:24 ams: Your fonts, they are defective. 01:13:42 elliott: they are 7-bit 01:13:47 nothing defective about that =) 01:14:33 I'll take a nice big screenshot of it. :p 01:14:45 elliott: i'm on a vt320 01:14:57 Sanity defective :-) 01:14:58 elliott: so unless you can dump it in tektronix vector format or something, then i can't view it 01:15:01 Would an ASCII rendition be acceptable 01:15:02 ? 01:15:09 It may take several lines. 01:15:28 elliott: doubt that i could decrypt it 01:15:33 Actually the detail is too much, ASCII art would be useless. 01:15:42 yeah 01:15:53 i know a bit of klingon too.. 01:16:14 Anyway, it's the kanji for "gloom". It is rather busy. 01:16:29 and some latin.. 01:16:32 * ams ponders 01:16:38 Point is, (unless you knew _that_ as well in which case I'm not going to pick another language because that's irrelevant to my point :)) you wouldn't have a clue what it means. 01:16:42 well, i know something about most languages spoken today 01:16:44 Just like p@; it's vocabulary. 01:16:54 not really 01:17:14 anywhoo.. 01:17:28 elliott: some amazonian languages might be out of scope for my brain 01:17:54 "Right, well, one of them." 01:18:48 elliott: coptic! 01:18:50 :-) 01:20:01 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endangered_languages_in_Europe 01:20:05 if you want to learn a new language 01:20:30 dam, i wish the fig model src code was better commented 01:24:12 so when do you think oil will run out? 01:25:18 oil, the INTERCAL optimisation language? 01:25:28 (Coherency/relevancy/etc. is overrated.) 01:25:41 heh 01:26:01 elliott: no, the thing used to power motorbikes 01:26:07 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 01:26:08 ams no oil? never; it's renewable, being sqeezed out from below the plates 01:26:20 haha 01:26:24 ams: Uhh... give me a minute while I think of an unreasonable interpretation of "motorbikes". 01:26:34 elliott: sure 01:26:40 Bunnies. Right. 01:26:46 ams: I think oil (grass) will probably not run out for a while. 01:26:59 I think the bunny-grass demand is more than met. 01:27:04 ha 01:27:51 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:530d) joined #forth 01:29:53 wonder if you can convert a bike engie into ethanol or something 01:30:24 I'm sure there is some reaction that will turn a fully-functioning motorcycle motor into a pile of ethanol. 01:30:38 you can use a diesel engine and run that on veggie oil 01:30:59 Veggie oil; it's generated by burning vegetarians. 01:32:23 you're cute 01:32:26 lets have sex 01:37:16 lol veggie oil 01:37:32 elliott you is goil? 01:37:47 Not that I'm aware of. 01:37:50 k 01:37:52 just chking 01:38:16 keep it in your pant, ams 02:21:51 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 02:23:27 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:5fc4) joined #forth 02:32:05 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 02:41:05 --- quit: docl (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 02:47:37 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:6616) joined #forth 02:53:35 SunTzu: you are assuming i'm a guy 04:05:25 what is your gender? 04:18:30 SunTzu: does it matter? 04:18:40 and what if i do not have a gender? 04:19:17 I am conducting a survey of real and supposed genders online. this is a follow-up on a survey done during the mid-90s/ 04:20:02 anyone here using fasm? 04:20:08 no 04:20:18 i use gas 04:20:21 you dont speak for anyone but yourself. 04:20:22 ok 04:20:36 you asked anyone, anyone answered. 04:20:38 you should be happy 04:20:52 nobody could have answered, and then you might have been disapointed 04:20:59 one must wait in this channel. 04:21:01 nobody here 04:22:47 you're all just pixels to me 04:29:21 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@x122091.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) joined #forth 04:41:03 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 04:42:23 !seen i440r 04:43:21 !seen i440 04:43:56 there is no such bot here i think 04:44:32 ya 04:44:35 too bad 04:45:29 /whois 04:45:33 /whowas 04:45:49 i don't think whowas has ever given me useful output 04:46:00 only if he's been here and those two still have info in their cache 04:46:17 /msg nickserv info 04:46:21 i hvaent seen him since i've been here. 04:46:22 ok 04:46:44 feb 26th 04:47:16 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 05:01:34 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:8a80) joined #forth 06:14:17 --- quit: malyn (Quit: Disconnecting from stoned server.) 06:14:33 --- join: malyn (~malyn@unaffiliated/malyn) joined #forth 06:23:08 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 06:33:26 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@caen-cse-141-212-203-1.wireless.engin.umich.edu) joined #forth 06:36:45 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 06:37:37 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:a69e) joined #forth 06:44:32 --- quit: nighty^ (Read error: Operation timed out) 07:08:13 --- nick: nottwo_ -> nottwo 07:11:40 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 07:15:07 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:c08:3700:ffff::a:b4d2) joined #forth 07:37:57 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 08:03:10 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@67-194-112-178.wireless.umnet.umich.edu) joined #forth 09:18:28 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 10:03:31 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@caen-eecs-141-212-212-145.wireless.engin.umich.edu) joined #forth 10:29:26 --- part: elliott left #forth 10:46:33 SunTzu: don't listen to ams, he's gnu fanatic. 10:46:45 SunTzu: you're right, GNU requests you to surrender your rights. 10:47:50 SunTzu: e.g. try convincing GNU fanatic to include classic attribution clause in BSD license. 10:52:29 --- join: qFox (~C00K13S@5356B263.cm-6-7c.dynamic.ziggo.nl) joined #forth 11:13:30 --- quit: gogonkt (Remote host closed the connection) 11:16:30 ASau: you mean like me? 11:16:44 lets see... 11:16:45 inetutils 11:17:02 ftp? 11:17:30 http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/inetutils.git/tree/ftp/cmds.c 11:17:33 what do we see here... 11:17:37 Copyright ... 11:17:49 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. 11:17:50 what?! 11:18:00 A 3 CLAUSE BSD LICENSE?! 11:18:11 nor do we require any surrender of any rights 11:18:15 What about classic one? 11:18:21 which classic one/ 11:18:37 the one with the incompatible and obnoxcious attribution clause? 11:18:45 we can't include that, since it is not compatible with the GPL 11:18:48 --- join: gogonkt (~info@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 11:18:49 This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera 11:18:49 International, Inc. 11:18:55 See? 11:19:07 You specifically request one to surrender his rights. 11:19:10 i have no clue which license you are refering to. 11:19:12 ASau: bullshit. 11:19:18 ams: bullshit. 11:19:21 show me line and verse in the copyright assignment 11:19:40 the FSF explicitly grants back a ultimite royalty free license to do what the fuck you want 11:19:47 with whatever code you contribute 11:20:12 i.e. i can contirbute code to a GNU project, and relicense the code i contributed under a non-free license if i so wish 11:20:48 in either case, i do not know which license you are refering to 11:20:59 if the obnoxcious old BSD license with a advert clause, no we can't include that 11:21:07 You still don't include my code, if I request attribution. 11:21:12 just like you cannot include a license that explicitly states that you have to remove copyright notices 11:21:13 See? 11:21:15 in a bsd licensed work 11:21:20 You say it yourself. 11:21:32 ASau: you're not reading well 11:21:42 if the obnoxcious old BSD license with a advert clause, no we can't include that 11:21:43 there is a old BSD license, no longer used, that had a obnoxcious clause 11:21:50 right, which nobody uses anymore 11:21:53 not even the BSDs 11:22:03 You say it yourself, that you request surrendering elementary rights. 11:22:05 since RUoC explicitly relicensed all their code under the three clause license 11:22:16 ASau: again, no, there is no elementary right in being attributed. 11:22:33 * Copyright 2003 Wasabi Systems, Inc. 11:22:34 * This product includes software developed for the NetBSD Project by 11:22:34 * Wasabi Systems, Inc. 11:22:45 that is not part of the license dimwit 11:23:05 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software 11:23:05 must display the following acknowledgement: 11:23:05 This product includes software developed by the University of 11:23:05 California, Berkeley and its contributors. 11:23:24 that is the license text, and simply incompatible with the GPL since it is a term not in the GPL 11:23:32 it is stupid as well 11:23:34 Sure. 11:23:40 http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/inetutils.git/tree/ftp/cmds.c 11:23:42 bah 11:23:45 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html 11:24:11 If I ask people to advertise my work, you simply call it bullshit, and request to surrender my rights. 11:24:18 in either case, you are completely wrong, and intentionally spreading falsehoods about the GNU project and the FSF 11:24:28 In both cases, I'm completely right. 11:24:28 no, we simply won't include your code in our project 11:24:35 since your license is not compatible 11:24:38 Sure. 11:24:48 nor are you surrendering anyr ights 11:24:53 so that is a complete lie 11:24:55 You request me to surrender my righs, if you want to include my code. 11:25:01 It is even more. 11:25:19 FSF requests me to transfer rights to FSF. 11:25:23 again, no, you can license your code anyway you want too, but if you wish us to include it we want to use the GPL 11:25:28 right, with a grant back 11:25:35 which allows yout o do what you want with it 11:25:39 Grant? 11:25:43 It doesn't allow anything. 11:25:49 yes, the fsf grants back full rights to the code 11:26:02 i.e you can license your conotributed code anyway you wish 11:26:06 damn you keyboard 11:26:19 If I transfer copyright to FSF, I can't license it as I wish anymore. 11:26:30 yes you can 11:26:36 how many times must i repeat myself? 11:26:55 the fsf grants back a ultimite, royalty free license for you to do what the fuck you want 11:26:57 Are you sure? 11:27:48 no, obviously not, hence me stating, and restating the fact. 11:28:12 The Foundation grants the Assigner non-exclusive rights to use the 11:28:12 Work (i.e. the changes and enhancements, not the program which was 11:28:12 enhanced) as it sees fit; this grant does not limit the Foundation's 11:28:12 rights. 11:28:24 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 11:28:53 that is some older variant of the form. 11:28:55 This "does not limit" means that Foundation can interfere any time it wishes. 11:29:17 ASau: sighs, no, they cannot. 11:29:33 it means that YOU cannot limit what the FSF does (other than what is stated in the contract) 11:29:36 Since when? 11:29:46 huh? 11:29:48 since what when? 11:30:08 Since when they can't exploit their copyright? 11:30:19 ? 11:30:31 you're not making sense. 11:30:48 It's you who's make no sense. 11:30:54 the above part of the contract explisitly disclaims you any right to make any claims on what the fsf does to the contributed work. 11:31:24 FSF can revoke license any time it wishes. 11:31:31 anyway, I cannot contribute GPL work to *BSD.... BSD limits my rights. 11:31:37 ASau: again, no they cannot. 11:31:45 BSD limits your rights much less. 11:31:46 ASau: "as sees fit" 11:32:00 ASau: no, i cannot contribute GPL code to OpenBSD's code base 11:32:54 ASau: ergo, by your good logic, the modifed bsd license revokes my rights 11:32:57 But you can use OpenBSD's code in commercial product. 11:33:10 same with GPL. 11:33:18 Not the same. 11:33:22 sure the same 11:33:26 Quite not. 11:33:36 uhm, emacs is a commercial product, and has been since the 80's 11:33:40 emacs is GPL 11:33:42 gcc ditto 11:33:44 glibc 11:33:46 etc 11:33:46 If one uses GPL in commercial product, he's got sued soon. 11:33:56 sighs, no 11:34:05 you mean a non-free program, which is distributed 11:34:14 nothing in the GPL says anything about using the code for commerce 11:34:22 I mean commercial program. 11:34:22 hell, it is a right that is fought for vigrously 11:34:29 Non-distributed commercial program is nonsense. 11:34:30 right, like emacs, GNU, or whatever 11:34:51 http://www.codesourcery.com/ 11:34:52 or like that 11:35:07 codesourcery sells copies of GCC, cross compilers for what not 11:35:09 so does windriver 11:35:11 and redhat 11:35:13 and montavista 11:35:15 etc 11:35:21 so did cygnus 11:35:23 etc 11:35:30 cygnus doesn't exist anymore. 11:35:32 nothing in the gpl prohibits commercial use 11:35:35 and? 11:35:57 This demonstrates how successive the business model is. 11:36:04 successful 11:36:19 uhm, cygnus got bought up by redhat for heavy cash 11:36:26 --- join: uiu (~ian@HSI-KBW-095-208-003-067.hsi5.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) joined #forth 11:36:28 so yeah, it shows how successful the business model is 11:36:31 we agree 11:36:40 So? 11:36:50 so what? 11:37:05 How many commercial companies are there that produce and distribute GPL software? 11:37:14 ASau: quite a lot 11:37:18 i work for one 11:37:24 you've got the big cats, as i mentioned above 11:37:29 Show the list with revenues. 11:37:42 then you've got ibm, sun before they got boned by oracle 11:37:58 even apple 11:37:59 IBM isn't software company, so was Sun. 11:38:12 if you say so 11:38:19 Apple isn't software company, and its business model is far from GPL. 11:38:27 so? 11:38:31 --- part: C-Keen left #forth 11:38:33 you asked for companies that produce, and distribute gpl programs 11:38:35 i've listed a few 11:38:39 huwei for example 11:38:40 It demonstrates how successful is GPL business model. 11:38:50 Huawei isn't software company at all. 11:38:52 right, the biggest companies in the world distribute GPL programs 11:38:55 even microsoft 11:39:24 Microsoft's revenue comes from closed-source programs for almost 100%. 11:39:28 ASau: and? 11:39:31 that is not what you asked 11:39:33 dork 11:39:45 This demonstrates how successful the GPL business model is. 11:39:53 you asked for companies that produce commercial GPL programs, i lited a bunch of them, most 500 companies 11:40:01 right, a very successfull model 11:40:12 seeing that the worlds biggest companies distribbute gpl code 11:40:15 oh, google too 11:40:18 Wrong, a very unsuccessful model. 11:40:33 if you say so, top 500 companies distribute GPL code, and make money of it 11:40:35 --- join: roarde (~roarde@pdpc/supporter/active/sixforty) joined #forth 11:40:37 You can see that no big software company makes money from GPL software it produces. 11:40:40 must be unsuccessful 11:41:21 --- quit: uiu (Remote host closed the connection) 11:41:34 Show me first top 10 software companies that make at least 20% of revenue from GPL software they produce. 11:41:36 we have fourtue 500 companies doing commercial work on GPL programs, unsuccessfull that. 11:41:45 You don't. 11:41:48 ASau: i've already showed you a bunch, i'm quite sure you can google. 11:41:53 Show me the list. 11:41:58 you're a immensly boring troll 11:42:00 i just did 11:42:10 All you've shown is hardware and closed-source software companies. 11:42:21 They don't make revenue from writing GPL software at all. 11:42:40 ASau: if you say so. 11:42:44 Yes, I say so. 11:42:46 --- join: uiu (~ian@HSI-KBW-078-042-018-120.hsi3.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) joined #forth 11:42:53 redhat doesn't make a dime from gpl software 11:42:55 You've lied in face. 11:42:59 neither does codesourcery, ms, or google... 11:43:03 nor does ibm 11:43:08 nope, not a dime 11:43:08 You did that because there's not a single company that does that. 11:43:23 if you say so, my stocks say otherwise. 11:43:36 What stocks do you own? 11:43:44 Google? ;) 11:43:48 ASau: nope 11:44:13 i recently told a google hr dude to more or less fuck of 11:44:36 Why? 11:44:52 You would write GPL software for Google. ;) 11:44:55 cause they spy on their users, and develop horrible things like gmail 11:45:09 i can develop free software here 11:45:20 In the middle of nowhere? 11:45:50 if you call swedens second biggest town for nowhere, sure 11:46:11 What is the company? 11:46:14 Top 500 ;) 11:46:27 figure it out yourself 11:46:46 Oh, so it isn't in the top 500. 11:46:53 top 500 is a us concept 11:47:08 sweden last time i checked might have been a us sock puppet, but not us territory 11:47:10 What is Sweden's? 11:47:15 Top 5000? 11:47:30 there is no such thing, as i just said 11:49:16 How many copies of your software have you sold? 11:49:46 enough to make revenue 11:49:56 oh and it is gpl! 11:49:59 how cool is that. 11:50:10 1000? 11:50:23 Or 1? 11:51:15 i fail to see why i have to disclose that to you, as i said, we make revenue, and are hiring all the time. 11:51:40 --- quit: uiu (Remote host closed the connection) 11:53:05 --- join: uiu (~ian@HSI-KBW-095-208-003-067.hsi5.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) joined #forth 11:56:36 --- join: ygrek (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 11:57:42 It's obvious that you conceal it because either you don't sell software at all, 11:57:42 making your revenue from, say, subscription, or it is unique and thus useless 11:57:42 to anyone except one or two customers. 12:01:02 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@67-194-65-249.wireless.umnet.umich.edu) joined #forth 12:02:14 --- quit: uiu (Remote host closed the connection) 12:03:33 ASau: if you say so. 12:03:39 --- join: uiu (~ian@HSI-KBW-095-208-003-067.hsi5.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) joined #forth 12:03:49 you know more than i do 12:03:59 seeing as you have been consitently wrong so far 12:04:04 You don't have to conceal what you do otherwise. 12:04:32 i'm a software engineer. 12:04:36 not concealing anything. 12:04:41 So? 12:04:47 so? 12:05:08 You lied that there're many top 100 companies making revenue from GPL software. 12:05:18 Why should I believe you're not lying again? 12:05:42 if you say so. 12:06:09 You don't have anything else to say, sure. 12:06:17 i know you're a bad troll, no point in my listing 100 companies, when you will invent faults with every single one of them, as per your usual self 12:07:06 i'm not stupid to not know when you're wasting my time =) 12:07:07 You just can't list them, because it will become totally obvious, that you lied. 12:07:12 (which is all the time) 12:07:23 i listed a bunch of them, feel free to search the interwebs 12:08:23 seeing as much time you have on your hands, it should be quite a good exercise for you *G* 12:08:33 All you listed is the proof that you lied. 12:08:50 Not a single company you listed makes revenue from selling GPL software they write. 12:09:00 nope, none. 12:09:04 if you say so. 12:10:29 It is obvious who's right, given what IBM and Huawei sell. 12:11:12 sure, if you say so. 12:12:06 There's no need to rely on my words for it. :p 12:12:24 sure, if you say so. 12:12:51 You're completely unimaginative troll. 12:13:16 sure, if you say so. 12:14:01 (trick with trolling is to do the absolutley minimum to rally someone up) 12:14:41 I wonder, who you're in real life. 12:14:57 Perhaps some taxi driver like another famous Forther. :D 12:15:50 fwiw, for some ununderstood reason, "you are" shouldn't be contracted in this case 12:16:38 ASau: do you wish very, very little info of this type, or prefer none at all if not specifically requested? 12:16:42 ASau: told you, software engnieer. 12:16:47 i drive a motorbike. 12:17:25 roarde: which one? 12:17:38 "who you're in real life" 12:18:09 little tidbits of english usage from native speakers. Of course, anything more than "rarely" would just be annoying. 12:18:30 roarde: Ah. That's alright. 12:18:34 k 12:18:44 roarde: funny though that non-native speakers tend to speak better.. 12:18:57 * roarde nods. True, ams. 12:19:06 Tolstoy said that rules are invented for those who don't know the language. 12:19:22 heard brits who can't even utter a sentence without grammatical inaccuracies 12:20:16 http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5270200559_1edfffed23_b.jpg 12:20:21 i drive something like that... 12:21:45 This means that what you call English is far from "real" (vernacular) English. 12:22:10 anyone here with admin access to forthcommunity? 12:22:41 There's no forth community. :) 12:22:56 yeah, but all one word lets one pretend 12:23:28 actually, I'm trying to change that 12:24:18 a very, very small forth as a common basis for discussion and perhaps "porting" 12:24:56 There're way too many small forths already. 12:25:05 the way I think of forth, one's forth is one's own; but that makes sharing the ideas more difficult 12:25:37 I'd say there aren't nearly enough. But having it so does raise the price of commonality. 12:26:20 It isn't the number that prevents sharing ideas. 12:26:32 No, its not. 12:26:45 dammit. it's 12:26:59 It is the obscure sense of freedom. 12:27:17 Basically, there're only two or three free forths around. 12:27:47 A lot of that is crap, but much isn't. In any case, I'd think this "freedom" would have to be retained for motivation. 12:28:12 OK, examples of each, please? 12:28:49 There're Retro, pForth/apForth, and colorForth. 12:29:21 Much of the rest is non-free software like gforth, kforth and such. 12:29:40 gforth isn't non-free software. 12:29:43 You're saying these, as examples, pretty much cover "what's forth" right now? 12:29:51 gforth is non-free software 12:30:00 no, it isn't. 12:30:19 it is free software, like pforth or whatever 12:30:30 ok, since "free" has been redefined to so many things, I like to use "freed" 12:30:36 (colorforth might not be free software actually, i don't think moore put a solid license on it) 12:30:45 ams: gforth is non-free software. 12:30:55 ASau: not really. 12:31:02 ams: yes, really. 12:31:17 again, nope. 12:31:31 ASau: we know, we know, and I see it your way. All the same, why not use another term? 12:31:53 It's obvious "free" isn't free anymore, it's owned. 12:31:54 you can say GPL forth 12:31:58 or copylefted forth 12:32:02 roarde: because the meaning of the word "free" was "free" rather than some legal crap. 12:32:06 pr ;onre fprtjs 12:32:23 ASau: sure, nothing to do with legal tidbits here silly person 12:32:29 Right, but like so many words now lost, it has been successfully pre-empted. 12:33:48 well, if we want to be picky, that is an incorrect usage of pre-empted... 12:34:08 seeing that pre-empted is about land =) 12:35:21 After 16 straight hours of work and 10 more semi-conscious, "pre-empted" will have to do. There's a better word I intend, but it's chosen to hide. 12:35:35 intended... 12:35:39 past form... 12:35:40 tss.. 12:35:43 * ams is on a roll. 12:36:08 No, both sentences are present perfect. 12:36:28 Past wouldn't do, 'cause I still intend. 12:36:41 and wouldn't match tense of the rest 12:36:47 point taken then 12:37:36 (Mutual (un)intelligibility is the only sane criterium.) 12:42:53 Going back -- Given, say, a Retro which includes only what's in source up to the definition of the initial dictionary . . . 12:43:17 . . . wouldn't it be almost trivial to keep a version of one's forth that would build on it? 12:43:34 keep includes "maintain" 12:44:35 further evidence of fatigue: "through the definition", not "up to" (i.e. not excluding it) 12:45:19 There is or was Forth in a Forth. 12:45:32 Non-free, AFAIR. 12:47:28 To make it simpler, though less precise: a new "standard", though very, very minimal 12:47:58 You can safely assume that standard is mostly irrelevant. 12:48:00 with the idea not being to always apply it to one's forth, but retain an ability to quickly do so. 13:05:05 --- join: Phantom_Hoover (~phantomho@unaffiliated/phantom-hoover/x-3377486) joined #forth 13:05:17 clog! 13:05:21 IS CONSPIRACY 13:05:37 yiyus too! 13:05:55 --- part: Phantom_Hoover left #forth 13:14:32 --- quit: Joseph__ (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 13:38:13 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 13:38:50 --- join: tathi (~josh@dsl-216-227-95-5.fairpoint.net) joined #forth 13:49:55 --- quit: MayDaniel (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 13:50:24 --- join: ygrek (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 14:09:43 --- join: blazecon (~lunarblaz@h105.193.186.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) joined #forth 14:10:05 --- part: blazecon left #forth 14:13:32 --- quit: foocraft (Quit: Leaving) 14:18:10 --- quit: qFox (Quit: Time for cookies!) 14:22:38 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 16:12:49 --- quit: roarde (Quit: Leaving.) 17:18:45 --- quit: schmrkc (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 17:48:33 --- quit: tathi (Quit: leaving) 17:54:30 --- join: Joseph__ (~Joseph@200-122.adsl.umnet.umich.edu) joined #forth 18:08:35 --- join: schmrkc (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 18:12:12 --- quit: schmrkc (Read error: Operation timed out) 18:14:47 --- quit: Joseph__ (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 18:16:11 --- join: schmrkc (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 18:18:37 --- join: DocPlatypus (~skquinn@dsl253-084-031.hou1.dsl.speakeasy.net) joined #forth 18:22:12 heya folks 18:22:16 long time no see... 21:09:55 --- quit: nighty__ (Read error: Operation timed out) 21:10:08 hi doc 21:11:21 --- quit: nighty (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 22:28:34 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 22:34:35 --- quit: mvll (Quit: leaving) 22:36:46 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 22:48:56 --- quit: mvll (Quit: leaving) 22:52:03 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 22:57:20 --- join: qFox (~C00K13S@5356B263.cm-6-7c.dynamic.ziggo.nl) joined #forth 22:58:25 --- quit: mvll (Quit: leaving) 23:01:44 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:02:21 --- quit: mvll (Client Quit) 23:04:17 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:05:47 --- join: ygrek (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 23:10:09 --- quit: mvll (Quit: leaving) 23:10:21 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:11:53 --- quit: mvll (Client Quit) 23:12:13 --- quit: gogonkt (Quit: leaving) 23:14:29 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:17:05 --- quit: mvll (Client Quit) 23:17:16 --- join: mvll (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:22:33 --- quit: mvll (Quit: leaving) 23:22:43 --- join: gogonkt (~gogonkt@2001:5c0:1400:a::40f) joined #forth 23:53:12 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/11.03.10