The Rust Flash Player emulator is a thing - and nobody told me
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
CrabLang showed that forking Rust was a matter of mirroring the Rust codebase, plus catching some crabs. If someone intends to implement major changes to a system programming language, one would expect that they should be ready to go through such a process. The best person to ask about that is probably the one who was "head of forking" at CrabLang: https://github.com/trvswgnr. We can only speculate.
Note that the Rust project revised its governance structure in June 2023, from which point the CrabLang fork became purposeless, and hence inactive.
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/06/20/introducing-leadership-council.html
The trademark case probably remains moot in the absence of confirmed insuperable difficulties to rebrand Rust. I am not going to pretend that the current governance structure is necessarily easy to navigate, but any fork also has the effect of getting rid of it altogether.
In the absence of any conclusive argument based on current facts, completely excluding Rust looks like an instinctive reaction to it being sponsored by entities that are not known to be massively friendly to software freedom. Just because someone is working for Microsoft does not make them evil, so why should they not be sitting at the Leadership council?
https://www.rust-lang.org/governance
I like the Rust leadership council meeting minutes: "Josh: How many of us actually know what is in current policy? Should we go off and read both the document and current policy before we form opinions?"
https://github.com/rust-lang/leadership-council/pull/64/files
I think unmodified versions may also need to have a name change seeing that
shows
A. We cannot really stop you from using PHP in the name of your project unless you include any code from the PHP distribution, in which case you would be violating the license. See Clause 4 in the PHP License v3.01.
But we would really prefer if people would come up with their own names independent of the PHP name.
so maybe any program, even unmodified ones, if included in what may be called the "project" of Trisquel or it's repository if any program has both PHP in it's name and code from the PHP distribution it may be breaking the terms of PHP's license.
Than the makers of PHP may "really stop you" from distribution of programs with both PHP code and programs with PHP in the name as it may, as according to https://www.php.net/license/ those who distribute it like that may be violating the contract like license.
So this one may need to have it's trademark be removed or, maybe according to the license whoever distributes it may be breaking the license, and breaking thus breaking copyright, as only the license may let you use the code, and contracts may add more terms than "trademark law" allows.
Even if
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#trademarks
shows
free system distributions may include [trademarked] programs, either with or without the trademarks
The makers of PHP may not let anyone use the name of PHP in the name of any program that has PHP code, as that could break the license "contract like things" and thus copyright. Even if normally trademarks can be used in an unmodified program, these may not be used in even unmodified programs as long as PHP code is in that program because of the license terms that may add more rules that "trademark law" uses as licenses may be more like "contract law", I think.
I'm not a lawyer, just trying to find out if the PHP license can be thought of as a contract adding more terms than "trademark law, and copyright law" normally uses, seeing contracts may add more terms than "copyright, trademark, and/or patent laws" use.
I think only Burger King(TM) can "legally" distribute the Whopper(TM), except in several counties around San Antonio Texas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_legal_issues
and McDonald(TM) can "legally" distribute the Big Mac(TM),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases
so maybe only PHP(TM) can distribute things with the PHP(TM) in the name of the product.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240118184719/https://content.minetest.net/threads/734/
has
Unless the maker of this mod somehow can make a Power Ranger mod, is the copyright of Power Rangers held by Hasbro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Rangers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=432228#p432228 I do not like copyright, but I also do not wish to get sued.
I think the book "Against Intellectual Property" by N. Stephan Kinsella may have nice information about how copyright may take away your property rights in other things, though till copyright is not enforced, I do not know if Hasbro will try to take this off of minetest's site.
https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intelle ... erty_2.pdf book under NC-ND 4.0, but if it is followed, maybe copyright and patents will not be able to be enforced. Till than I do not wish to get a lawsuit against me, or https://minetest.net
I'm not a lawyer, so I do not know about these odd so-called "copyright" "patent" and "trademark law" things. Parody as fair use? Or some other "law" maybe?
https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intellectual%20Property_2.pdf
shows the pdf,
and also in the minetest link at https://content.minetest.net/threads/734/ has
hey patent is a sample, I'm also not a lawye but my Grandpa is a doctor he told me, trademark law means that you need to purchase the thing from the company if you want to produce it under the company's name, and copyright is a confirmation that you are producing company's products under the company's name, and have purchased the right to produce it.
by a user called Arkatron.
https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=432228#p432228
Also shows how, even with nonfree blocked, the Nyan Cat mod and maybe more mods, like Power Rangers, can be downloaded with Trisquel's minetest client.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyancat#Lawsuit
Lawsuit
In May 2013, Christopher Torres and Charles Schmidt, the creators of Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat respectively, jointly sued 5th Cell and Warner Bros. for copyright infringement and trademark infringement over the appearance of these characters without permission in the Scribblenauts series of video games. Torres and Schmidt have registered copyrights on their characters and have pending trademark applications on the names.[34][35] Torres released a statement saying that he had tried to obtain compensation from 5th Cell and Warner Bros. for commercial use of the character, but was "disrespected and snubbed" multiple times.[36][37] The suit was settled in September 2013, with Torres and Schmidt being paid for the use of the characters.[38]
This Nyan cat also had trademark and copyright in a court case.
You seem to be confusing different parts of the "intellectual property code", as it named in many juridictions. They have little to nothing in common. Simplifying:
- Trademarks deal with identifying products/services. With names and logos typically. Reusing a trademarked name/logo is not advisable... and that looks good to me: if I enter a fast-food named Burger King and using its logo, I want to find the Whopper there! In the same way, if a website proposes me LibreOffice, I expect the software by the Document Foundation and not some malware.
- Copyrights deal with copying/distributing/modifying/... the content of a book/picture/movie/software... Not burgers here: they cannot be copied. Copyrights are supposed to motivate the authors to create more. "Supposed" because having only a few superstars living from their copyright revenues is obviously not the best way to promote authorship. Also, copyrights now last long after the death of the authors: good luck motivating dead authors! Free software licences use the copyright law to somewhat reverse it: granting the users freedoms rather than restricting them.
- Patents' goal is to avoid trade secrets, to promote the publication of novel ideas/inventions by granting a temporary monopoly (20 years in many juridictions) on them. In the software realm, patents do the exact opposite: they block innovation. Most people live in countries where software is not patentable but some legislators (for instances in the USA and in Japan) were fool enough to accept software patents. There is no need to implement the patent to register it and attack those using the alleged invention, which is, for software, typically very vague.
As this thread is about rust, I wondered about your thoughts on this: https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-replacement.html
I don't personally know if rust adds new features that fast, but if so, it would be considered a rolling release programming language.
My point being, even if you consider it completely free, is it worth it?
Somethings 10 years later C does the same, who knows how it will work in rust.
Anywho, just curious on your thoughts about that aspect.
Feel free to also respond MagicBanana.
Would like to see your take on this.
Feel free to also respond MagicBanana.
Although the article is sometimes too assertive (in particular when it says that "the values of good C++ programmers are incompatible with the values of good C programmers"), I liked it. It looks important to remember that a system developer wrote it: there are user-facing applications requiring performances too, not needing a stable ABI or the support very exotic architectures, etc. Although the article is one-sided, the main advantage of Rust is admitted:
Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows.
I also "take my segfaults and buffer overflows", but writing programs in C++. Some reasons "I don’t really care" are that using multiple threads (which is actually important for the program I am currently working on) has been fine since C++11 (whereas "Parallelism in C is a pain in the ass for sure") and the security is not a problem for the programs I wrote: applications only running locally. Of course, it would love to have the compiler catch anything pointing to invalid memory. However, as the author of the article writes, C++ and Rust are similar and they are very complex (although, at least in the case of C++, nothing forces the program to use all the features the language proposes). Now, I do not have the time I have spent learning C++. A student I advise decided to learn Rust. He likes it and so do many other users, apparently.
Oh so you do like this one article? I was half surprised to see your response. Shows me sometimes I underestimate people in certain areas.
I am very much glad something I showed you is of value.
I remember talking to someone who said they thought the memory safeness of rust was there, but exaggerated. I cannot say for sure though as I don't use it or really any programming language much, beyond python.
Just have my opinions, on programming languages being better off being stable and not huge in features or as I sometimes call it bloat.
Anywho, yeah that's my point.
I saw prospero's response below yours and yeah, I don't really have much else to say for the time being.
To be honest, Rust is still better than java at least anyhow.
By the way, as a note, I don't expect to change anyone's mind about rust at this point.
And to be honest, it is still a safer more secure programming language than java anyhow. Night and day difference probably.
Oh so you do like this one article?
I do. What I hate is articles making up problems that do not exist (or do not exist anymore), relying on vague statements or plain lies or ad-hominem attacks or... Here, the article does not pretend that Rust suffers from freedom issues (it does not), that it is against the UNIX philosophy (whatever that means), that it would not actually deliver the safety guarantees it delivers (it does, outside the "unsafe" blocks, obviously), that it is bad because it comes from Mozilla (with a secret agenda or something), ...
Instead, it is all reasonable arguments based on facts. Yes, Rust is less stable (i.e., gains features at a higher pace) than C, what makes old Rust code looks more outdated than C code. Yes, Rust is more complex than C. Yes, Rust is not standardized, has only two compilers, no stable ABI, and no stable compiler flags. Yes, Rust cannot be compiled for very exotic CPU architectures. Nobody reasonable would deny those facts.
And, yes, a system developer can consider those issues outweigh the benefits Rust brings. The author lists the two main ones: memory safety and an easier parallelism, also with safety guarantees. He brings arguments to downgrade their values: rewriting code would bring more bugs than what memory safety avoids and so would parallelism, which would not be that useful anyway. That probably makes sense for system developers maintaining existing code. Not much in some other contexts, such as for new CPU-intensive application projets.
Also, the author insists that his main argument is "Rust is more complex than C". That is why he will *never* choose Rust. Again, that makes sense: the other listed issues boil down to "Rust is immature" and should become less and less problematic over time.
Hopefully rust does get better with time, I am skeptical for now. Although if the choice is between java and rust, I would agree with rust being chosen 99 times out of 100.
I am still mixed on other parts of rust, such as complexity, but at least it seems like a secure programming language so far, even if stability issues may exist. No idea, though as you mentioned, it is a young programming language.
Anywho, this has been interesting, perhaps its time for me to go elsewhere. Assuming no one resurrects this thread after its buried
Although if the choice is between java and rust, I would agree with rust being chosen 99 times out of 100.
I am not an expert in programming languages. I used a little Java (and C, but mostly C++) though. Java is quite different from C++ and Rust (and even more from C). Different languages have different advantages and drawbacks. A program in Java is slower than the same program written, with more difficulties!, in C, C++ or Rust (intermediary between those compiled languages and interpreted languages such as Python), memory management is easier (at the cost of higher memory requirements), the default language includes classes for many things (rare need to hunt for libraries), there is no need to recompile to run on a different architecture, but the runtime must exist and be installed, etc.
Why dogmatically refusing a free software program based on the language it is written in? That makes little sense to me, unless proprietary software is required to run or compile the program or if the free software tooling may cease to be developed because of patent threats. C#, which is similar to Java, used to raise such concerns.
> the other listed issues boil down to "Rust is immature" and should become less and less problematic over time.
That blog post was written five years ago, so the number of new features per year may already be down.
I believe the main pushback against Rust came precisely from people like Drew Devault - system programmers - and for the very reasons he mentioned. Hence his conclusion. When you think about it, there would have been no pushback without a push in the first place. Why push?
>"When you think about it, there would have been no pushback without a push in the first place."
I think you just proved the existence of God. Well done.
Why push?
To write code that is at the same time efficient and memory-safe. That is desirable in many (but not all) situations.
This does not seem to answer the question. Pushing does not write code, it just makes people feel pushed. It is to be hoped that a language that helps programmers writing code with the above-mentioned properties will in all likelihood be adopted based on its own merits. The ballyhooing hullabaloo seems to have subsided, though, so all is well and everyone is back to their knitting programming in their language of choice.
Note that we are slowly reaching the bottom of a two-page thread about...a tower defense game emulator. In all likelihood, this could soon turn into discussing Bill Gates as the Antichrist, Egyptian gods of the dead, latin for dummies and systemd as the fourth beast of the GNU/Linux Apocalypse. And the various ontological arguments for, against and undecided about the relative nonexistence of $GOD. And it would all be Rust's fault.
The ballyhooing hullabaloo seems to have subsided, though, so all is well and everyone is back to their knitting programming in their language of choice.
Rust 1.0 was released not even four years before the publication of the article. At that time, I guess it made sense to present what Rust had to offer, to "push". Now, developers have heard of it and, for the fourth year in a row, Rust is the "most loved" language, in Stack Overflow's survey: https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/06/13/developer-survey-results-are-in/
> to present what Rust had to offer, to "push"
You will note the subtle nuance between the two.
There would probably have been no Drew Devault article without it, which was my point.
Well I guess the thread will be alive for a while more. lol.
Meh, I tried.
By the way, I didn't expect people to bring up Systemd as being the fourth beast of GNU/Linux Apocalypse or that you hint at it being rust's fault. I assume those are jokes from your end. I never have said Systemd was part of a GNU/Linux Apocalypse. Mostly because I didn't think it was that high of a problem anymore than other redhat creations. Its just one of many things that I don't see as needed or helpful and is detrimental, but nothing beyond that yet. Unless you can't boot your system of course but yeah, its hardly the only overengineered design.
Although, I could be wrong about it being that dangerous. Given its creator didn't disclose he worked for microsoft for a long time after he started.
"Hopefully you’ll stop bloody bothering us about it."
Well said.
Where exactly was this written, on page 1? I don't see it written down at the moment.
In any case, I think one thing we can all agree on is proprietary software and even more so DRM or similar will always be the worst option for a long time to come.
Actually, ironically, I found something *GOOD* out about rust and this shocked the hell out of me:
Apparently, it is a very energy efficient programming language.
Not as good as C, but alot better than I thought.
I thought java and rust would be among the top most energy inefficient.
Java though is a security risk, but rust?
Only thing I am shifty about is their trademarks on cargo and rust.
Which I know you all say is not an issue.
But in any case, here is a link of what I am talking about:
https://stratoflow.com/efficient-and-environment-friendly-programming-languages/
You can also do searches in general into whatever search engine you use and you will find this is not an anomaly.
Friggin weird though, given the size of rust's compiler.
I guess it uses less once its built. Its only building it that is a problem... who would have thought. :s
Actually, ironically, I found something *GOOD* out about rust and this shocked the hell out of me: Apparently, it is a very energy efficient programming language.
Summing up the article, which is too verbose (maybe AI-generated): a) the energy consumption is approximately proportional to the execution time; b) running native instructions is faster than interpreting (and using a virtual machine is in-between). As a consequence, compiled languages (C, C++, Go, Fortran, Pascal, Swift, Rust, etc.) are more energy-efficient than interpreted languages (Python, Javascript, PHP, Ruby, Perl, Lua, etc.). Experiments clearly confirm that, since every single compiled language is ranked better than every single interpreted language: https://stratoflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/most-efficient.jpg
That is not surprising. Notice that it is probably better to not look too close at the numbers. They depend on the tackled problems. For instance, Fortran is known as (one of) the fastest language for floating-point computation, but is here slowest among the compiled languages. Also, the precise results depend on the quality of the implementations. Whoever wrote the C code may have written the Fortran code... but, maybe, she was an experienced C programmer and new at Fortran, explaining most of the observed difference.
Problem is, many different searches indicate the same thing. Its not just one link that I found that indicated this.
I found like ten different ones.
So... yeah.
I was unaware of compiled languages being more energy efficient and interpeted languages being less efficient.
I will admit, I have ignorance on these facts till someone showed me this info.
I just searched, most energy efficient programming languages and most of them indicate the same thing:
C, Rust/C++
are the top efficient ones.
So... that's definitely something I hadn't known. I guess speed isn't the only determining factor.
I remember reading this paper in 2019. MB also posted a link to the same paper some years ago.
https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf
And they say information flows faster than ever...
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios