Comment On Not Another DLL!

As a consultant, Josh Assing's role is to assess problems, share experience, and recommend solutions for his clients. It's also his job to do what the client wants, even when it goes against his advice, and then gracefully apologize without a single "told ya' so" when the client's plan goes terribly wrong. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 19:35 • by lomaxx

I can read just about anything in a WTF that's posted these days and not bat an eyelid, as there is very little that surprises me any more... however this one cut me deep... I could feel his Josh's pain.

 I worked for a particularly large company that was actually the number one website in australia at the time i was working for it that needed a .net Zip application.

 I told them about this great fee redistibutable DLL called sharpziplib that they could use and it would do everything that they wanted.

The project lead was very excited, so he told me to send him a site so he could check it out. I got an email the next day asking if we could have a chat about this DLL that I sent him.

He said we couldn't use it because I didn't tell him it was opensource. I was confused, I thought that was THE reason we could use it.

I was wrong, because what I didn't know, but soon found out, was that open source code was full of bugs, was often poorly written and largely underdeveloped because they had no development budget. It was also written in c#, which I had failed to mention, so it wouldn't work in our VB only applications. I tried to reason with him, so he said we'd reach a comprimise, I would redevelope the sharpziplib, in VB.net, and then I would optimise it. He asked me how long it would take to do and I told him a week.

He looked puzzled, he asked, you can actually write a whole ziplibrary in a week? He said he didn't think I could, so he gave me 2 weeks.

Monday morning I download the source for shaprziplib and went to lunch

Tuesday morning I used a converter to convert it to VB.net and compiled it. Then went to lunch

Wednesday I tested that it worked and went to lunch again.

Thursday I wrapped it all up in some nice Company namespaces and went back to lunch

Friday I just went straight to lunch till the following friday when I was due to present my redevelopment.

When I showed the project manager what I had done, and how I was actually glad I had 2 weeks instead of 1, because it took longer than I thought, he gave a wry smile that suggested that "he'd tole me so".

I've since left the company, over a continual stream of similar incidents.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 20:06 • by maths??
92380 in reply to 92373

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 20:29 • by Olddog

Any worthy (project) manager always has a viable (proven) "Plan-B" in their back pocket. When "Plan-A" doesn't pan out - they implement Plan B.

Plan B actually needs to be tested and proven *before* Plan-A gets underway. In this case, Plan-B was the cheap $99.00 DLL that could have been easily tested and put in the "back pocket". Plan-A was the irresitable ( shinny penny ) re-development effort that, had it worked, would have proven it's worth. However, at any point in the deployment of Plan-A, if it failed, the manager could revert back to Plan-B, while safely fixing Plan-A off-line...if he had only thought to do that.

What a stupid, arrogant, stupid, stupid manager. If I only had a shinny penny for every time a manager got sold "a bill of goods" without a backup Plan-B.

Heck, even an egg farmer knows not to BET-THE-FARM on a single rooster.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 20:33 • by pinguis
92385 in reply to 92380
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 



From the the site:

Bottom line In plain English this means you can use this library in commercial closed-source applications.

 However, this is usualy not the case and so extreme care must be taken. This is one of the reasons, i tend to prefer BSD sytle licenses at the moment.
 

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 21:55 • by ammoQ
92393 in reply to 92380
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 

IANAL, but IMO it's no problem.
 

#ziplib (SharpZipLib, formerly NZipLib) is a Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
written entirely in C# for the .NET platform. It is implemented as an
assembly (installable in the GAC), and thus can easily be incorporated
into other projects (in any .NET language).
The creator of #ziplib put it this way: "I've ported the zip library
over to C# because I needed
gzip/zip compression and I didn't want to use libzip.dll or something
like this. I want all in pure C#."



License



The library is released under the GPL with the following exception:




Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is
making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and
conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
combination.



As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent
modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under
terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked
independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that
module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from
or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend
this exception to your version of the library, but you are not
obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
exception statement from your version.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 21:56 • by Dale
92394 in reply to 92340
Anonymous:
CDarklock:

Anonymous:
A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.

I have often found it's easiest to buy the component yourself and file an expense report. While the higher-ups will complain when you request $50 to buy a component, they don't bat an eye when you spend your money on it and then ask them to reimburse you. I've even been promoted this way.



Indeed - I've been asked to do just that by a fairly senior manager at a large oil company beginning with S. Reason: he could then approve it, whereas otherwise someone else would have to be convinced to approve it. A major management anti-pattern.


The thing I learned fast in the Army: It's ALWAYS easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 22:09 • by ammoQ
92395 in reply to 92385
pinguis:
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 



However, this is usualy not the case and so extreme care must be taken. This is one of the reasons, i tend to prefer BSD sytle licenses at the moment.  

Many open-source libraries have a license that allows linking to proprietary software. Just look at all the stuff from the Apache Foundation. But of course one should always check the license before including a third-party module to one's software. Proprietary licenses can be full of surprises, too.
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 23:12 • by Olddog
92401 in reply to 92394

Dale:
The thing I learned fast in the Army: It's ALWAYS easier to get forgiveness than permission.

LOL. Funny how budgets works. If the printer runs outta toner before it should... a new cartridge requires a budget over-run authorization. If the printer seems broken, a test cartridge is easily expensed.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-20 23:34 • by gsadamb
92402 in reply to 92305
Anonymous:
Anonymous:
I can't count how many times I've dealt with a variation of this.

There time old question of "Buy vs. Build".  Too many managers out there seems to always be on a "build build BUILD!" mentality.  For whatever reason, developers  are apparently "free".  No way I'm purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!

Great, someone might say.  More work for you, the developer.  Well, if you're a GOOD developer, then this will bother you, since you know you're essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior version of something that someone else has already done. 
 

You're not thinking like a manager. Developers are free because they've already been budgeted for.  A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.

 Several times I've ended up saving hours and hours of my own time as a developer by buying the licensed version of a little application for $19.99 or something.  My own money, sure, but saving huge amounts of time is typically worth it.
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 01:32 • by velbe
92414 in reply to 92293
....have you tried JavaScript?

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 02:14 • by JustAnotherComputerGeek
92417 in reply to 92414
I've read sooooo many of these, I just wish y'all would publish the real names of the WTF "legends/guru/top-dog" (read: idiots) and their respective companies. That way, recruiters can make sure those people will never get hired again because I certainly don't want to work with them to give them the opportunity to screw up my work. If nothing else, I think it would just be fun to point and laugh at their stupidity... Alas, you'd worry about lawsuits and stuff, so I guess it will all be just wishful thinking...

Re: 68k?

2006-09-21 02:28 • by torajirou
92420 in reply to 92288
'Cause there are LOTS of people here in the business field using Macs... or Amigas... :s

Re: 68k?

2006-09-21 02:31 • by torajirou
92421 in reply to 92420

Anonymous:
'Cause there are LOTS of people here in the business field using Macs... or Amigas... :s

 WTF ? I was supposed to be quoting the guy who talked about the Mac & Amiga thing...

 

 
anyway...

 (I have to type "pizza" to be able to post this and I'm actually eating a pizza... (won't tell you what I was doing when I had to type 'batman' though...)

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 02:35 • by torajirou
92422 in reply to 92393
ammoQ:
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 

IANAL, but IMO it's no problem.

 UANAL, but no problem either

 feel free to contact me for further exchange :) 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:07 • by Ralf
92430 in reply to 92365

Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.

Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently. 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:17 • by Anonymouse
92431 in reply to 92289
Anonymous:

To paraphrase one of my college profs:

Engineering is the art of doing for $99 what any idiot can do for $30,000.

I'm sorry, did I just drastically underestimate that last dollar amount?

 And Consulting is the art of doing for $30,000 what any idiot can do for $99...
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:32 • by Paul Brown

Taller Programmer: "I say, I say, I say. What's the difference between a runtime and a framework?"

Shorter Programmer: "About 20 megs!" (Waggles cigar, spins bowtie)

- Orchestra sting -

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:32 • by b
92435 in reply to 92327
You got the point! Custom, thin code is more likely to be easy manageable...but still there are controls 'id not like to write.
BTW: everyone knows IBM sells shit (except HWs which is good, but it's also too expensive).

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:45 • by Paul

I'm not sure which is the bigger WTF here.

 

Letting the Salesman direct technical development issues when he is not technical.

 

Letting a breakdown in communications reach a point where the VP does not trust your professional knowledge

 

Or not knowing that consultancy is that part of being a consultant is if they don't take your advice you tell them formally that the path they want to follow is not your advice and then at a later stage when they screw up you say "that's a pity. Why don't we do it the way I recommended now instead?" which is a not too subtle way of saying "Your an idiot. I told you this would happen but you overruled me on a technical issue I knew more about than you did. Lets let it drop and fix things."
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 04:58 • by Paul
92438 in reply to 92370
Rodyland:

IMNSHO when a boss hires a management consultant
they are often after two things: 1) confirmation that their
opinion/course of action is correct, and/or 2) someone to blame when it
goes pear shaped.  And they pay hansomly for the priviledge (not
that any single consultant will ever see any of that booty).

 

An IT Consultant has to concern themselves with two things here.

 

1. They have to produce something that works.

2. Their professional reputation is based on what comes out the other end.

3. Their professional reputation is one of the things that helps generate money for them. If they do a great job for a company, other companies hear about it and so generates business. 

If the product is garbage but they formally noted that the company was going against their opinion, the company cannot legally say that they produced a garbage product as, since they didn't ( and of course the consultant recorded the emails / letters on this ), if they say that he did, he can have them in court so fast they wouldn't even know what hit them. He'd have all the evidence and the court / tribunal would hit the company with a large fine (be warned managers, this is the danger with consultants).

This protects the consultant, after all who wants to hire a consultant who is involved repeatedly in garbage products that are his fault since he didn't say not to do it that way or  "Your doing it wrong. If you do that you'll cost yourselves more money and time". It is also a source of further business as "Now you've done it wrong, would you like to go back and do it my way which is right?"

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 05:13 • by phs3
92439 in reply to 92296

Anonymous:


There time old question of "Buy vs. Build".  Too many managers out there seems to always be on a "build build BUILD!" mentality.  For whatever reason, developers  are apparently "free".  No way I'm purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!

While of course the VP/CTO/Salesman was an idiot in this case, let's not forget that "buy" has its downsides too: you're then at the mercy of that vendor. 

 ObAnecdote: I worked at a vendor whose product was written in a flavor of 8086 Assembler (this was > 10 years ago) from a vendor who no longer existed. This meant that:

  1. Each new developer got an unlicensed copy of the Assembler; we would have been happy to pay for a license, but there was nobody to pay
  2. If the Assembler had decided to stop working on, say, Windows 95, we would have been trapped on an old platform for development.

Fortunately the BSA didn't show up, and it DID work on Windows 95, and then another vendor bought them (after I left) and put them out of their misery...

...phsiii

Captcha: genius *again*...is it trying to tell me something?
 

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 06:30 • by EmmanuelD
92440 in reply to 92380
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 


Not true: GPL force you to redistribute the source code if you distribute your application. It is safe to use/modify GPL code in any application, be it commercial or not (but most in-house apps are considered commercial apps), even if its source code is closed, as far as it is not distributed in any way.

Captcha: null. Thanks a lot. Really. I'm pleased.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 07:53 • by anonymous
92442 in reply to 92380
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
 

some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured. 

 Where does the GPL distinguish between "commercial' and "non-commercial" use?  Isn't that one of the things licenses like QT or mySQL try to address?

(The answer is, it doesn't.  Maybe that's why "very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license." )

Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL'd (in fact, I can't think of any)- almost all are released under the LGPL (or some other open source license), which allows linkage to proprietary code. 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 07:57 • by anonymous
92443 in reply to 92430
Anonymous:

Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.

Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently. 

$ mkdir o

$ touch o/help

$ ls  \o/ \o/help \o/ I am trapped in a cli!

o/help



o/:

help



o/:

help

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:00 • by Chris

"decided to go with a Java-desktop application. The .NET programmers he hired to do this"

Thats a pretty bad WTF in itself. Like hiring German speakers to do the french translation.

Another one you captcha test says null ! 

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:32 • by TeeSee
92448 in reply to 92365
Anonymous:

GeekMessage:

They really should have called it CR/LF:  Common Runtime / Language Framework.

Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless. 

Actually, the more sensible char to use is CR. When you accept raw characters from a tty, you get CR (and the key is "Carriage return", like on a typewriter). Calling it "enter" is a WTF, but that's another story.

Macs have been using CR for as long as I can remember. Recently, there's been a switch to using LF instead. Mostly I'm annoyed that grep/etc don't have options to treat CR as a newline.

The really sad bit is that SMTP/HTTP/FTP/IRC/etc all use CRLF. Supposedly the reason is so it can work with telnet (which is a bit of a WTF protocol in itself).

Using CRLF in text is a real WTF though. Where do you place the cursor at position 1?

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:33 • by Alexis de Torquemada
92449 in reply to 92373
lomaxx:

I was wrong, because what I didn't know, but soon found out, was that open source code was full of bugs, was often poorly written and largely underdeveloped because they had no development budget. It was also written in c#, which I had failed to mention, so it wouldn't work in our VB only applications. I tried to reason with him, so he said we'd reach a comprimise, I would redevelope the sharpziplib, in VB.net, and then I would optimise it. He asked me how long it would take to do and I told him a week.


Prejudices against open source software are common... but "Let's rewrite it in VB.NET because we don't use C#."? WTF??? Didn't one of these tools ever notice that you can call C# code from VB.NET just fine (or VB.NET code from C++/CLI or Brainfuck# code from F# or...)? After all, that's a major selling point for .NET - many programming languages, one runtime to bind them all. Some people are so clueless.



Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.


What a load of bullcrap! If the GPL disallows commercial use, why didn't Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and thousands of others sue the crap out of Red Hat? Mandriva? Novell? IBM? Lots of other companies that are making money off of GNU/Linux?



And if the same even holds for other open source licenses, why does Apple dare to include much of FreeBSD in their commercial, partially closed source, operating system Mac OS X?



In fact, the GPL only mentions the word "commercial" once, in an insubstantial sentence (3c). What this means is that commercial distributions are required to include full machine readable source code or a written offer to the source code (valid for at least three years) for a charge no more than distribution expenses, whereas noncommercial distributions can also opt for merely including a notice where to get the source code from the same source the distributor got it from (i.e. a third party).



Now what would often be a huge problem with a GPL'ed library is that you have to include the source code for your own application that just uses the library. But in this case it's GPL with the so-called library exception, which means you only have to distribute (or include a written offer, see above) the source code for the library itself. Not a big deal if you ask me.



Anonymous:

Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL'd (in fact, I can't think of any


Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)



Anonymous:

$ ls \o/ \o/help \o/ I am trapped in a cli!


I often have a different sentiment, like "Help! I am trapped in a GUI when a Bash one-liner would do!" :-p


Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:40 • by anonymous
92451 in reply to 92449

Alexis de Torquemada:
Now what would often be a huge problem with a GPL'ed library is that you have to include the source code for your own application that just uses the library. But in this case it's GPL with the so-called library exception, which means you only have to distribute (or include a written offer, see above) the source code for the library itself. Not a big deal if you ask me.

Anonymous:
Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL'd (in fact, I can't think of any

Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)

 Those libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd.  (The LGPL is what you refer to above as "GPL with the so-called library exception".)

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:45 • by TeeSee
92452 in reply to 92430
Anonymous:

Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.

Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently. 

I suspect the original Apples used CR, in 1980 (I could be wrong). DOS came later, though CRLF could be from CP/M.

Who knows?

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:48 • by Nerf
92454 in reply to 92451
No, readline and Qt are GPLed. Read the sites.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 08:50 • by Alexis de Torquemada
92455 in reply to 92365
Anonymous:

Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.


I don't have any Steve Ballmer posters in my bedroom, but I have to defend Microsoft, just this once!



At the time MS-DOS opted for CR/LF, it was a logical decision. Because then the DOS terminal would behave like a typical typewriter (typewriters were still in common use back then, mind you). The terms Carriage Return and Line Feed are typewriter jargon, after all. CR would return the cursor to the start of the line, and LF would advance the cursor to the next line, in exact analogy to typewriters.



Also, it is not true that everyone else used LF. Commodore used CR (as Apple would do a few years later). CP/M (DOS was pretty much a CP/M clone, after all) used CR/LF. OS/2 would also use CR/LF, so at least that was no reason for Windows to alter the DOS decision.



And I doubt it was Microsoft's decision, anyway. Probably QDOS already used CR/LF way before Microsoft bought the source code. Arguably, now that typewriters and Commodore are dead, and Apple has finally given in to the Unix side of the force, it would be nice of Microsoft to follow suit. I don't think this is going to happen, however. Programs that I write typically accept LF line endings and silently ignore a preceding CR if there is any. Doesn't make development that much more complicated for me.



Nice article about newline characters


Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 09:01 • by ammoQ
92456 in reply to 92451
Anonymous:

Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)

 Those libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd.  (The LGPL is what you refer to above as "GPL with the so-called library exception".)

I don't think so.

 


Readline is free software, distributed under the terms of the
GNU General Public License, version 2.
This means that if you want to use Readline in a program that you
release or distribute to anyone, the program must be
free software
and have a
GPL-compatible
license
.
If you would like advice on making your license GPL-compatible,
contact licensing@gnu.org.

 



The Qt Open Source Edition is offered to the Open Source community under
Trolltech's Dual Licensing Model.
The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the
GNU General Public License (GPL). The
Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary, commercial development.

 

MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools)
under a number of flexible licenses, designed to meet the usage and
distribution requirements of different types of users:



For Open Source Projects:
  • If you are developing and distributing open source applications
    under the GPL License, then you are free to use MySQL under the GPL
    License. More Info »
  • If you are developing and distributing open source applications
    under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, MySQL provides the GPL
    License with a FLOSS Exception. More Info »

 

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 09:16 • by anonymous
92457 in reply to 92456
ammoQ:
Anonymous:

Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)

 Those libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd.  (The LGPL is what you refer to above as "GPL with the so-called library exception".)

I don't think so.

 

Readline is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. This means that if you want to use Readline in a program that you release or distribute to anyone, the program must be free software and have a GPL-compatible license. If you would like advice on making your license GPL-compatible, contact licensing@gnu.org.

 

The Qt Open Source Edition is offered to the Open Source community under Trolltech's Dual Licensing Model. The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary, commercial development.

 

MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools) under a number of flexible licenses, designed to meet the usage and distribution requirements of different types of users:

For Open Source Projects:
  • If you are developing and distributing open source applications under the GPL License, then you are free to use MySQL under the GPL License. More Info »
  • If you are developing and distributing open source applications under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, MySQL provides the GPL License with a FLOSS Exception. More Info »

 

 

 

I stand corrected

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 09:36 • by Paul Rivers
92460 in reply to 92326
fmobus:
[At] first, the VP/CTO/Salesman decided to go with a Java-desktop application. The .NET programmers he hired to do this built

This is the WTF.


haha No kidding!

...in other news, I don't understand why the electricians I hired did such a terrible job installing my toilet! :-)
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 09:44 • by cavemanf16
92463 in reply to 92296

Anonymous:
I can't count how many times I've dealt with a variation of this.

There time old question of "Buy vs. Build".  Too many managers out there seems to always be on a "build build BUILD!" mentality.  For whatever reason, developers  are apparently "free".  No way I'm purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!

Great, someone might say.  More work for you, the developer.  Well, if you're a GOOD developer, then this will bother you, since you know you're essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior version of something that someone else has already done.  

 

In my experience, this is a result of people in managerial roles who are not very good (yet - maybe ever) at their job as a manager. It is far easier to blame IT when something that is developed doesn't work (due to extremely poor management, requirements, stupid dictation of how to develop it, - the list goes on and on), then it is to blame a 3rd party with an already developed product because 1) the money outlay for the 3rd party is more tangible, and 2) the 3rd party as an organization cannot be controlled/manipulated as easily as an internal IT organization can via cry-baby upper-level management that isn't good at their job.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 09:47 • by Josh Assing
92464 in reply to 92297
Anonymous:
I'm really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really "Assing", or is that made up to protect the innocent
Yes; it's really assing.  It's an americanized version of a german last name -- done by my grandfather escaping nazi occupation.
As the story goes, my biological father wanted to name me Jack -- he thought that would have been "funny".

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 10:41 • by Thuktun
92468 in reply to 92305

Anonymous:
You're not thinking like a manager. Developers are free because they've already been budgeted for.  A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.
Justification for something that small shouldn't be needed.  A manager should have discretionary funds in the budget for small, unforseen things like this.  (IMHO, anyway.)
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 11:16 • by osp70
92471 in reply to 92401
Funny, worked for a company back in the dot matrix printer days and the printer jammed up constantly.  Manager wouldn't authorize a tech to come in because it wasn't broken, even though reams of paper were wasted trying to re-feed it.  I could see it was just filled with crap.  After a frustrating morning I took out a pair of scissors and cut the belt that drove the printer head, thereby 'breaking it'.  The manager then called a tech to fix it.  the tech cleaned the printer up and it didn't jam up anymore. 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 11:58 • by Who wants to know
92481 in reply to 92452

Wrong on all counts! cr/lf is an ANSI STANDARD, and PREDATES CP/M!

 The Apple, TRS/80, etc....  Used CR/LF!  VMS used LF/CR!  As I recall, other DEC systems had CR/LF.  I have EVEN been on systems that used only CR!  UNIX, to the best of my knowledge, is the ONLY one that uses LF!  HECK, even TYPEWRITERS used CR/LF(which is how they got their name.  The bar "returned the carriage", and pulled a paul that "fed the line"!

 Steve

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 12:42 • by Bellinghman
92495 in reply to 92481
Anonymous:
Wrong on all counts! cr/lf is an ANSI STANDARD, and PREDATES CP/M!


Which ANSI standard, by the way?

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 13:16 • by punissuer
92517 in reply to 92321
Anonymous:

Where I work there is a fellow developer who constantly litters his projects with 3rd party crap.  All of it is free, but God help you if you have to build one of his projects.  It's so cluttered up that it ONLY builds on his machine and usually takes an entire day of searching for, and installing all the 3rd party tools just to build the application.



This is why you should put your software's 3rd-party dependencies into your version control system.  Version control doesn't just give you a fallback when you screw up.  It should be the primary way that code is distributed among the members of your coding team.  Then they won't have to go to a 3rd party site to get a dependency (and maybe get an incompatible version of it).  They just check your application out of the VCS, and the dependencies just come along with it automagically.  The same thing goes for your build files, of course.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 13:52 • by Alexis de Torquemada
92539 in reply to 92452

TeeSee:
I suspect the original Apples used CR, in 1980 (I could be wrong). DOS came later, though CRLF could be from CP/M


According to Wikipedia, the first MacIntosh was introduced in '84, whereas MS-DOSPC-DOS 1.0 was released in '81. DOS was very rudimentary back then (subdirectories, for example, were introduced in 2.0), but I assume they already had newlines. :-)


Anonymous:


I stand corrected.




ammoQ was faster... Let me correct you on another account then. :-)


The LGPL is not the GPL with a linking exception, it is an entirely different license (though with similar implications). Both are used, the GPL with exception for example is used by the above-mentioned sharpziplib and GNU classpath. The LGPL is used by many other libraries.


Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 13:55 • by Alexis de Torquemada
92540 in reply to 92539

The MS-DOS preceding PC-DOS was supposed to be striked through in my previous post, but the forum software swallowed that.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-21 19:02 • by lomaxx
92623 in reply to 92449
Alexis de Torquemada:

Prejudices against open source software are common... but "Let's rewrite it in VB.NET because we don't use C#."? WTF??? Didn't one of these tools ever notice that you can call C# code from VB.NET just fine (or VB.NET code from C++/CLI or Brainfuck# code from F# or...)? After all, that's a major selling point for .NET - many programming languages, one runtime to bind them all. Some people are so clueless.

 If I told you what the actual company was, this would make you laugh even more... lets just say they are a joint venture that is half owned by MS.

When i applied for the job, I was told by the recruiter I'd be working with some of the top developers in the country...

 For all the people that were worrying about the licensing, I made sure I checked that I wasn't violating it, and from what I could tell, it didn't, however before it went into production, it would have been given a thorough working over from the legal team as we have to submit all external code sources.

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-22 14:50 • by John Hensley
92772 in reply to 92380
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.

Very very few people realize it because it isn't true.

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-22 16:14 • by Worf
92801 in reply to 92772
Anonymous:

lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.

 Quick! Someone better ask Google for their source code! They're using GPL'd products without distributing the source!

 
Actually, one of the "loopholes" in the GPLv2 is that if you're not distributing the program, you don't have to distribute the source. So if you use GPL'd code for a web service (like what lomaxx did), well, you're not distributing code, so you don't have to give source for your modifications. Note that this has been closed in GPLv3. 

captcha: enterprisey
 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-22 20:10 • by John Hensley

I have trouble believing this WTF just because I can't imagine someone staying around at a company (even if married with kids) after being spoken to this way.

 

Re: Not Another DLL!

2006-09-23 02:26 • by hank miller
92852 in reply to 92449
Alexis de Torquemada:
And if the same even holds for other open source licenses, why does Apple dare to include much of FreeBSD in their commercial, partially closed source, operating system Mac OS X?


I hate to break it to you, but FreeBSD is NOT GPL, and NOT in any way shape or form related to the Free Software Foundation or any of their licenses.

FreeBSD is licensed under the 2 clause BSD license, which means that you can legally include any part of their source code in your program, at no cost, and you don't even need to tell anyone. (Apple tells you they use freeBSD in places, and they contribute code to FreeBSD, but that is because they want to, they do not have to) That is one reason many of us prefer the BSD license.

Re: 68k?

2006-09-24 14:31 • by Omnifarious
92913 in reply to 92288
Anonymous(Otter):
Alex Papadimoulis:

(a single 68k DLL)


For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.



Or an old Atari ST. :-)

Re: 68k?

2006-09-24 14:47 • by ammoQ
92914 in reply to 92913
Omnifarious:
Anonymous(Otter):
Alex Papadimoulis:

(a single 68k DLL)


For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.



Or an old Atari ST. :-)

Or a Sinclair QL ;-) 

« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment