[SC.LUG] Trebus for Mac

[Frank Mitchell]

Dear SC_LUG,

I've hardly  released Trebus, and already Gareth Bowker wants a version for
Apple Mac. I was expecting people to start moaning because it wouldn't write
DVDs. Actually Trebus may work on Apple Macs if I compile it on a Mac, and
it may work for DVD+ albeit without Test Runs. I just thought I'd get it
sorted for CDs on PCs first.

Can anybody tell me about Machine Parameters for Macs? I did ask somebody
once and got no reply. I'll need to review the Trebus Source Code, but the
most obvious variables are Integer Sizes and Endian-Ness. I suspect Macs
have 4-byte longs and 2-byte shorts like PCs. And though Macs are associated
with Big-Endian-Ness I believe they also have a Small-Endian Mode which may
be used for Linux. I could easily equip Trebus with a little routine to
check.

Gareth writes:
=====================================================
I disagree on your point about "everybody preferring that it's left
alone" though. While it's great that you've written this software
and are providing it at no cost to people, as well as saying that you
want to maintain it, I'm wondering why you're not releasing it with
source, under a FSW licence? The reason that I ask is that being able to
have access to the source isn't just beneficial to people who want to
make modifications, but it also allows people who, for example, have
64-bit operating systems (e.g. AMD64) or use different architectures.
I have a version of Ubuntu GNU/Linux running on an Apple Mac. The
binaries you provided simply won't work on a Mac. Also, you mentioned
bugs in the software - if the software was under a licence like the
GPL, anyone could fix bugs and send you those fixes - the software
could develop at a much faster rate - and you'd continue to be the
maintainer of the software for as long as you wanted to be so.
=====================================================

Well if you remember I did circulate some Source Code previously, and nobody
was interested. That was my B-Tree, which actually forms part of Trebus.
Here's the response from one LUG Administrator, as it appeared on the Web:
=====================================================
This luser emailed the wrong [lug] address with this, I gave advice on
what to do, and all I got back were multiple repeat copies of this
to my personal address and again to the wrong address.
It's either a dumb robot or the guy is an oddball - either way he now in
my killfile.
=====================================================

Later I figured out what happened: He had several Email Addresses, and
that bug in Linux Email Software resulted in him getting each Email twice.
Which was the entire reason for his annoyance.

Other people saw his comment on the Web, and they were more interested. In
fact I quickly became World-Famous. I got a stream of Emails from Turkey,
China, Brazil, and other far-flung places, wanting the Source Code for my
B-Tree. It soon became clear that most of these were Computing Students who
wanted my Source Code to cheat on their coursework. Then I discovered two of
these demands came from Indian Software Houses.

I made my B-Tree available under GPL on Bob Stout's "Snippets" Website and
these Emails quickly tailed off. Obviously these characters quickly
discovered the new location.

So that's what happens when you let everybody in the World see your Source
Code. All the most useless people seek it out. Okay there are good
reasons why some people should be allowed access. If Executables are going
to be distributed by LUG Administrators, they'll need to know there aren't
any Viruses or Licence Violations. And it might be handy to have a Source
Code Escrow in case the Author gets killed in a Road Accident or something.
But why everybody, regardless?

I was influenced by comments from Joerg Schilling and Peter Anvin. Because
they're Original Authors, they keep getting Support Demands for versions of
their Software which have been modified in some way which they regard as all
wrong. They've spent time trying to ensure their Software works properly,
and now they'd prefer it to be left alone. Like me, they've probably met
programmers who don't mind creating bugs.

In fact I believe we're approaching the day when Linux is stricken by the
first Open-Source Virus. I can't understand other people's Source Code
unless the Comments amount to a Write-Up. Can you? It would be very easy for
somebody to take a desirable Open-Source Posix program and incorporate Viral
Code or Spyware disguised as something else. And there are Criminal
Organisations who'd pay good money for this service.

My experience of programming Trebus was the usual mixture of 50% Inspiration
and 50% Frustration. I want other Linux Nerds to use it for free. But I'd
have been very discouraged if there was no chance of being paid for my
efforts. Hence my proposal for a LUGware Licence, which is basically an
attempt to have it both ways. If Individual Users can get Trebus by joining
their Local User Group this would be an incentive for people to participate.
And if you can still get Royalties from Corporate Users and Distributors
this would be an incentive to invent Original Software, rather than fiddling
about with other people's.

If you're an Open Source Purist, obviously you won't agree. But if you want
Microsoft to feel competed-with you might see advantages. There must be alot
of  Windows stuff waiting to be converted to Linux if only the Authors knew
they wouldn't be pressurised to reveal their Source Code.

Admittedly not everybody wants Trebus. For your further entertainment,
here's what North Wales LUG made of it:
=====================================================
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 23:15 +0000, David Powell wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 8:47 PM, Andrew Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 20:28 +0000, Eion MacDonald wrote:
> > > Do not forward Trebus.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Eion MacDonald (eionmac at btinternet.com)
> > >  Tel. +44 (0) 1925762873
> >
> > Discarded.  Please contact the author if you require a copy of this.
> > Unfortunately I don't have time to fully test it on a testbed system.  I
> > have submitted it to some AV vendors for testing.
> >
> > Regards
> > Andrew
> may be worth looking at the email source , see if the original address was
> spoofed or did originate from his email server

I haven't done a full trace but judging by the mx relays it seems its
origins are from a plus.net user (includes force9.co.uk).

> it mentions SC_LUG well just had a look there and looks  to be a spam site
> or one full of spam postings anyway
> and looks like they can post anything there so it dont look like the sort
of
> place you would want to download anything from anyway
> or for that matter a place where you would want to host a download for a
> program ,

Don't know much about SC_LUG but I do know it was posted to MAN_LUG's
lists as well where I believe they accepted it.

> and no src :(

Indeed :)
Plus the fact it was in a password protected zip with a swear word as
the password (trust me on this).
It stinks of a trojan, even from the comments in the text documents in
the zip file (I have extracted these if required).

> well glad it was not posted , no luck with google trying to find more info
on
> trebus  like , what exactly does trebus do for a start
> hope its not a new virus , or something like that

I believe it is supposed to be a piece of cd recording software.

> and re the remark
>
> "Re-reading LGPL it looks as if I should have included libc in the
Copyright
> Notice and offered to send you all the Trebus Object Files in case you're
> into modifying libc Source Code. Your right to Modify and Reverse Engineer
> Trebus is in fact guaranteed by European Law under similar circumstances
to
> the LGPL scenario. That doesn't mean you're entitled to plagiarise it, and
> as long as I'm prepared to maintain it, I suspect everybody would prefer
you
> to leave it alone.
> "
> no if its open source it should include the source or the source be
available
> not only for the point of view that it may be modified but in alot of
cases
> so it can be compiled for a platform that it may not be distributed in bin
> format

I was thinking that, but I had enough to go on as far as the posting
restriction went.

> if its a limited licence then he has not stated the licence that its
covered
> by
>
>
> dave

Regards
Andrew
--
Andrew Hutchings (A-Wing) - Linux Guru
=====================================================

I was a bit surprised, because I joined North Wales LUG years ago. Recently
I bought Debian Sarge from A-Wing, so Andrew Hutchings knows my Name &
Address, and I couldn't get away with a Virus Attack. I've brought myself up
to date on Linux Viruses and I understand their concern. It's probably a
good thing to be paranoid about Viruses. But with Trebus they kind of missed
the point. They could have read the Text Files.

Faictz Ce Que Vouldras: Frank Mitchell











-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.6/213 - Release Date: 23/12/2005