Well, CMIfIW (correct me if I'm wrong), but doesn't MS prohibit the compilers to output executable code for any other OS than MS's Windows? (isn't that restricting the data you generate with it?)

Iirc, the version of MASM you get with the DDK (for free...) can only be used for windows development, and the later DDK masm versions can only be used to develop drivers. If you actually BUY masm (or get it with another commercial product, like visual studio), I believe the license is quite different.


iirc, masm "tags" it's output to let the world know it was compiled with masm version x? (is that spamming it self?)

MS LINK puts some stuff inside the MZ stub, sure. I don't see the reason why it does this, but it's a minor thing to fix - neither masm nor any of the MS C++ compilers inserts tags all over your object files that make it into the final executable.


Weird, how come the software I make doesn't cost money? Making software is free!

Ah, the idealistic youth. Once you have to support yourself and/or a family, you'll probably learn how the world works ;). Of course if you only do hobbyist programming, you might not care - but there's some of us who either are or might end up writing code for a living, and most of us want to do what we're good at and get paid for that - in my case, coding, not being a support monkey.


Correct me if I'm wrong but what does reading a great manipulator's <snip> book have anything with liking/approving the ideas in it? (after all you must think a thought before you can reject it).

Exactly. I've read GPL and I do neither like nor approve the ideas in it... see the connection? ;)
Posted on 2004-02-16 13:24:02 by f0dder

Not at all. Time itself is not free.

wrong, no one HAS/OWNS time, one must TAKE time :) (time is money, if you think in captialistic terms... and we live in a such word, but still time it self is free, use of it might not be (in the world as we know it today))
And for the second, time comes and goes as it likes, not caring for anything - it's been there before earth existed and will be after the eath ceases to exist.



"idealistic youth"
heh :) you sound like my history teacher. :alright:
Ok, then I was misstaken about the mysterious bytes.
Posted on 2004-02-16 13:44:54 by scientica
The mysterious bytes are there - but they're added by the linker, and only in the MZ stub.

Btw, open software is a fine thing, but free software? The GPL definition makes me nauseous...
Posted on 2004-02-16 13:49:32 by f0dder
(time is money, if you think in captialistic terms... and we live in a such word, but still time it self is free, use of it might not be (in the world as we know it today))


As I said, time itself is not free. Not in the world I live in anyway.
Posted on 2004-02-16 14:11:47 by Henk-Jan
This is one of the meaning of the word "maya" in Zen :rolleyes:

I have a distinct feeling that Henk-Jan receives an invoice for "time" every month end or so.
I wonder what company is issuing that invoice and what is the price for "time" item.
I am also wondering what will happen IF he decides (under its freedom) NOT to pay this invoices anymore?
Will he be thrown out of time? :tongue:

In his mental/intelectual/capitalistic oriented world everything is possible i guess (freedom at last) :grin:
He is Close but is in very subtle ways different from TRUTH like the refelection of an image in a mirror is NOT the object.

Let us try an understand this:
-------------------------------------------
We develop a mind in order to survive and by this we sign our defeat certificate.
The mind is in subtle ways influenced by capitalism and competition and other's people believes, but nevertheless we are still thinking we are TRUE and are living in our own "experienced" ways.
Not understanding that the mind is just an instrument and not the ruler of our soul...we will soon emit such funny statements in our argumentations. :alright:

And so the mental part of my body has decided that this thread sitts much better in The Crusades
Posted on 2004-02-16 17:09:07 by BogdanOntanu
Bogdan,

I pay for time and in real dollars. I must be alive in order to have time so I must eat, that I pay for. I must not freeze in winter in order to stay alive to have time so I pay for heat and shelter. I must not die of disease in order to have time so I pay taxes which pay my medical bills and medication. I must not spend all of what time I have purchased so dearly in the pursuit of more time so I buy leisure and that expensive time that I have paid such a high price for, is used for my family and my hobby. If anyone thinks that time is free, whether in capitalism or not, you have no idea what you are working for and should take a long hard look at your life and priorities.
Posted on 2004-02-16 17:22:22 by donkey
Hehe Donkey :tongue:


I pay for time and in real dollars.


Let me doubt that please, you surely did not understood what i have written ...
That is the "slight" difference between maya and truth

I must be alive in order to have time so I must eat, that I pay for.


So you pay for FOOD not for TIME
You pay for HEAT and SHELTER not for TIME
You pay TAXES for MEDICAL BILLS not for TIME
You pay for LEISURE not TIME
You pay for FAMILY not for TIME (one of the greates SIN in human world is a family)


If anyone thinks that time is free, whether in capitalism or not, you have no idea what you are working for and should take a long hard look at your life and priorities.


I will like to take a long HARD look at some other things ...:grin: like some girls :tongue: to be clear

Besides "life" and "work" and "priorities" are just dsigned to impose capitalism values.
The fact that you use logic / mind / deductions to bind then to your freedom and time dosent make them real or TRUE. It is just a MIND trick like any other tricks.

Logic is a whore that can be used to demonstrate everyting and anything... unless it is limited by truth from the reality of the physical world. Mind oriened people are very offten using mind to "prove" other mind concepts and by doing so they imerse themselfes into lies and what is called "maya" == a very subtle wrong perception or reality.

The facts of life and current world orientation that you describe in your own words DO NOT HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS. It is a choice we make based on our own wrong mind assumptions that have been propagated generation after generation. But they are.

However the current rulers are NOT yet ABLE to invoice TIME.

I am sure they would IF they only could... there have had benn some attempts in the past.

Alternatively they have to make invoices for many other ADIACENT things....and hope that in your mind --using deductin-- you will make the connections yourself and make yourself a slave in your mind becaus they have not (yet) been able to do this completly.


Ultimately there is no wrong in dieing of lack of food or lack of shelter or lack of support IF by doing this you remain a free person inside and understand the TRUTH.

In the end when you die it will not matter how much shelter you did have, or how much electrical power you have been using, not ven how many billions you did have pilled up in bank accounts. Neither your medical taxes will not help...actually by benefiting from them you are letting thousands ot even millions of other peoples to die in incredible poor conditions...

Don not worry i do the same, every drop of watter or PEPSI i drink i am sure somebody somewhere dies because of this ...they only difference is that i see the TRUTH and i do NOT let my mind logically "convince" me otherwise... with lies.

All and only issue that will matter when you DIE will be how much THRUTH have you learned. THRUTH that is absolute and not mind relative? how much did you soul evolve? Why have you been alive?...

yes even probing the reality by using computers is better than mind lies...if this can reveal you even a little bit of absolute truth then it is usefyll... or else ...once again a waste of FREE time.

We do NOT control time, we do NOT invoice time (yet) and there is a good reason for this.

i will recomend all you read this again:

www.oby.ro/if.html

Maybe you can understand those word better, because even if I have seen the TRUTH once and many times after that ... i still do not know how the explain it in plain words very well... and i do not want you to be even more confused... but i know that with every word i will say you will...

The absolute truth reality
And the so called "relative" world reality that so many MINDS think they live in
Are diffrent in a very subtle byt very important way.

One expresion of those differences was the belief of you and Henk-Jan that "time is money"... and i have felt that i DID have to present it for the sake of TRUTH...

That is all i intended and please excuse my ramblings, i know nobody can understand,

I was never here and this conversation never took place
The rest is silence...
Posted on 2004-02-16 18:05:58 by BogdanOntanu
Ah you see Bogdan, that is a difference in philosopy. I believe that everything I do is for time, either buying it, keeping it or spending it. When I have purchased enough time I can use it however I want. You separate life into categories, this is for food, this is for heat, this is for shelter. Those are life to me, it is with those that I am able to live and have time so they are the true cost of time. You can separate them out and try to make them independant but since one cannot exist without the other they are linked and interdependant, purchasing one is buying the other. I cannot have time without life and I cannot have life without those so in buying those essentials I am buying time. Time for me did not exist before I was born and there will no longer exist after I die so as long as I pay to stay alive I am buying time.

I am not talking about capatilist values here, I am talking about what you live for. Do you live only to meet the requirements of life like food and shelter or do you live to buy time to explore life. This is not a communist/capatilist concept, it is the essence of being human, I purchase my time and it is expensive but I try to use what I have paid for well by learning and living and watching girls - well my wife, she is the only one I find truly beautiful the rest are just eye-candy.
Posted on 2004-02-16 18:44:24 by donkey
hehe, someone's 'Significant Other' reads this forum :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:10:26 by Hiroshimator
Where do you go when life looses its flavor - the taste has lingered so long in the mouth to have no flavor? We don't just die at that moment - although I imagine death to be a more extreme feeling in this direction. So, time is not purchased and it cannot be bought. I would argue that one's time is not their own, for one cannot even know if they are giving it away. We say time has passed, but we only know it is not like it was.

Be careful to not mistake life for the sensation of the passage of time, or you might be dead before you can see otherwise.
Posted on 2004-02-17 07:45:32 by bitRAKE

hehe, someone's 'Significant Other' reads this forum :grin:


I don't think so but why take the chance :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-17 08:05:19 by donkey

We say time has passed, but we only know it is not like it was.

I've heard they somewhere say something like "that time had/was come"(more or less litteraly translated) not "the has time passed" - it's just our cluture(s) that has a built-in sadness/pessimism :P ;)
Posted on 2004-02-17 10:31:48 by scientica
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6046&offset=0&rows=15

a prime example of how lame GPL really is

they just added a little 'vanity' clause as it's commonly called, but of course GPL only wants to play with GPL (for the sake of freedom :rolleyes: ) and this would mean that it could not be compiled with certain other GPLed source.
Posted on 2004-02-17 12:44:24 by Hiroshimator
Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the GPU license born from a settlement of AT/T and others, so they would stop sueing each other? I remember reading that somewhere, and it certainly explains the restrictions on CPL. It wasn't meant to promote freedom, but to prevent some companies from ripping off each other. :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-17 13:14:09 by QvasiModo
QvasiModo, I think you mean the BSD-license, and in that case you're right.
AT&T developed unix, and then gave the sourcecode to universities... (BSD for Berkeley Software Distribution, from the Berkeley university, see http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html).
From there it also 'leaked' to companies and such.
Problem was, after a while nobody could really figure out who wrote what anymore, and who should have copyright etc...
So the court-case of AT&T vs the rest was stuck... Then they decided to take part of the sourcecode, the most 'common' part, and just 'free' it. It was basically stripped from AT&T-parts, so that AT&T was happy with it.
This was then released as BSDLite, under the license we now know as the BSD license, and people started developing their own OSes with that. Many OSes are built on this source, both free and proprietary ones. So the BSD license was not meant to prevent companies from ripping off eachother, but more for allowing them to rip off a specific part of unix legally, which they had done 'illegally' before.

GPL comes from the Free Software Foundation instead. They wanted to create an alternative to the proprietary unix tools (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html), but many of those are no longer proprietary, since the BSD-settlement. And until linux, GNU never had a working kernel to form a complete OS (GNU's Herd kernel project is still not in a working state, and probably never will be).

Ironically enough, in the early days of the FSF, there was no internet, so they were spread by mailing magnetic tapes, and the FSF tapes were quite pricey.
In a way, BSD and GPL are competitors. BSD promotes unix, GPL promotes 'freedom' (read: GPL). BSD is a technical thing, GPL is more like a religion. In a way, GPL is a sort of hippie-movement, that wants to go back to the days when software was considered worthless, and hardware was where the money was at. Bill Gates changed that for ever.
Posted on 2004-02-17 14:02:06 by Henk-Jan
You're right, it was the BSD license. Very informational post BTW :)
Now I remember where I got that from: a Unix class at college. The teacher told us that very story, and somehow managed to turn it into an argument against romantizicing the GPL (?) so that's why I got confused.
I still wonder why would a Unix teacher want do that! :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-17 14:09:47 by QvasiModo
scientica, yeah it has taken way too long to have the view of life that I do now - might have been easier with different words (concepts). Hard to say, really.

BogdanOntanu, thanks for poem.
Posted on 2004-02-17 17:16:33 by bitRAKE
Many of the people participating in the development of GPL'd software are those that realize that the software industry has gone in the wrong direction. I think this is a good thing.

I think Microsoft, the most successful software company in history, and among the top 10 most powerful companies in the world , is a perfect representation of the software industry over the past decade...

Microsoft has a monopoly over the software industry, and is know to:
- use/develop undocumented API's, given their own software a sometimes critical advantage.
- not fix bugs. this is especially true in their operating systems. instead, what they do is fix bugs in their next release of the operating system, thus forcing frustrated users to upgrade. (they are forced because they already have too much software that works exclusively on windows).
- dumping products. they earn their real money from ms office and their operating systems. when it comes to other software genre's, they just use those earnings to sell programs at lower prices so that competitors have absolutely no chance. this eliminates competition with a generally inferior product (that succeeds only because of its lower price). after the competition has been eliminated, they raise the prices again and continue to dump somewhere else.

note, i'm not saying this to flame microsoft, apple has done this too and if microsoft didn't follow suit, you'd probably be reading this from a macintosh.

competition, and fairness is very importing in achieving efficiency and progress in a society. Unfortunately, with the business practises microsoft employs, they make competition impossible. many people realize this, and further realize that using the GPL is one way (probably the only way) to compete with these unfair business practises... there is no price lower than $0. and the advantages to the end-user are high.

microsoft has definetely seen how far WINE (windows-emulator on linux) and ReactOS (free windows 2000) have come and how close they are to being feasable alternatives to microsoft windows. this has finally forced them to embrace open-standards and portability as a whole. this is a good thing. examples: .NET and XML.

.NET was made to be a portable software development platform. although it is designed around windows, porting it to other operating systems is far from impossible (http://www.go-mono.com/). XML, the file-format that microsoft is slowly migrating to in most of their applications, and the one that .NET supports natively is humanly readable, meaning a documentation for the file format is unnecessary if you want to implement a parser .

would microsoft really care about portability if it weren't facing tough competition (from GPL'd software)? i think not.

when i say tough-competition, i mean linux, and (with good reason) it's slowly growing favorability over windows.

GPL is a good thing for society. if you don't want to develop GPL'd software, don't... the Boost library (for C++) is a very high-quality portable library that supplements the C++ standard library and can be used for proprietary software.

well anyways, i don't know what i'm doing talking about portability on an asm forum.
Posted on 2004-02-28 06:46:18 by nullvoid
"We, the GPL people, think the software industry is moving in the wrong direction, and thus it is."


there is no price lower than

there is no price lower than $0. and the advantages to the end-user are high.

You spend $0 to get some semi-working software with limited functionality and really lousy documentation. This is okay for an end-user with too much time of his hands (read: basement geek), but for companies you might end up spending silly amounts of money on support. No wonder, if you're not earning money from your software, it makes sense to cripple it enough that people will have to buy support from you.


XML [...] is humanly readable, meaning a documentation for the file format is unnecessary

Yay, the wonderful "read the source" mentality. Try figuring out a non-trivial XML format without any proper documentation of it... Not that XML is a bad thing, it just isn't the holy grail. Especially not for huge data sets...



would microsoft really care about portability if it weren't facing tough competition (from GPL'd software)? i think not.
. and the advantages to the end-user are high.

You spend

there is no price lower than $0. and the advantages to the end-user are high.

You spend $0 to get some semi-working software with limited functionality and really lousy documentation. This is okay for an end-user with too much time of his hands (read: basement geek), but for companies you might end up spending silly amounts of money on support. No wonder, if you're not earning money from your software, it makes sense to cripple it enough that people will have to buy support from you.


XML [...] is humanly readable, meaning a documentation for the file format is unnecessary

Yay, the wonderful "read the source" mentality. Try figuring out a non-trivial XML format without any proper documentation of it... Not that XML is a bad thing, it just isn't the holy grail. Especially not for huge data sets...



would microsoft really care about portability if it weren't facing tough competition (from GPL'd software)? i think not.
to get some semi-working software with limited functionality and really lousy documentation. This is okay for an end-user with too much time of his hands (read: basement geek), but for companies you might end up spending silly amounts of money on support. No wonder, if you're not earning money from your software, it makes sense to cripple it enough that people will have to buy support from you.


XML [...] is humanly readable, meaning a documentation for the file format is unnecessary

Yay, the wonderful "read the source" mentality. Try figuring out a non-trivial XML format without any proper documentation of it... Not that XML is a bad thing, it just isn't the holy grail. Especially not for huge data sets...



would microsoft really care about portability if it weren't facing tough competition (from GPL'd software)? i think not.

I think they would. It's nice being able to run on other architectures than just IA-32.

While open software can be nice and free (beer) software isn't too bad either, GPL is a bad bad bad choice for a 'generic' license. If the silly GNU mentality wins too much ground, it's going to hurt the industry (because I say so ;-) ).
Posted on 2004-02-28 10:19:42 by f0dder
Easy solution. Come up with your own license, if someone violates it... kill them :)
Posted on 2004-02-28 11:55:49 by SpooK