Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Is Linux Ready for Delphi?

By henrik in News
Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 02:01:39 PM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

Borland has put up an insightful piece about linux. It gives a refreshing view on linux and opensource software. Should be required reading for any zealot badly trying to advocate his [insert product/thing here] just because it gets him a better self esteem. Notice how guru's never blindly say anything is the solution to all of the world's problems?


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o piece about linux
o Also by henrik


Display: Sort:
Is Linux Ready for Delphi? | 37 comments (37 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
I think you pulled this story right... (4.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anonymous Coward on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 07:05:57 PM EST

Anonymous Coward voted -1 on this story.

I think you pulled this story right from Slashdot, the title doesn't make any sense, and neither does your last sentence - spelling-wise or grammatically. :P

Edited by me (none / 0) (#13)
by rusty on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 02:29:24 PM EST

Note that I edited the story a bit for grammar and sense. I didn't understand the last sentence either, so I dropped it. In case anyone was confused about what this comment was referring to. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Excellent article. Worth reading ev... (none / 0) (#9)
by analog on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 07:11:32 PM EST

analog voted 0 on this story.

Excellent article. Worth reading even if (especially if) like me, you're tired of the 'Linux rulez, Windoze sux!' flamefests.

Ok folks, here's a radical concept ... (none / 0) (#1)
by rusty on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 07:12:34 PM EST

rusty voted 1 on this story.

Ok folks, here's a radical concept to tattoo on your eyelids: Our success does not require the destruction of Microsoft. Say it out loud. Say it slowly. Lather, rinse, repeat.

YES!

____
Not the real rusty

Re: Ok folks, here's a radical concept ... (none / 0) (#18)
by mochaone on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 04:06:20 PM EST

Linux's success does not require the destruction of Microsoft, and I hope people learn that soon, but it sure is damn fun trying to beat up the big bully! There isn't any harm in having a target to aim for, but it can't be the entire driving force behind our motivation.

I sense a growing maturation from the Linux zealots. People are choosing Linux over Microsoft less so for the anti-Microsoft sentiment. I myself came over to the Linux camp because of disgust with Microsoft's practices. Now that I've had the pleasure of working on an open, free system, I can't fathom ever going back to the closed, propietary Microsoft systems. The knowledge that I've learned in the last couple of years has been amazing. Acquiring that knowledge for a Microsoft platform would have cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars.


[ Parent ]
Re: Ok folks, here's a radical concept ... (none / 0) (#20)
by fluffy grue on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 05:22:51 PM EST

Personally, I switched to Linux because I wanted to run a UNIX-like environment, given that I was sick of dealing with the idiosynchrasies of DOS/Windows development. The price tag and robust, free compilers didn't hurt any. :) I also greatly appreciate how the stuff I code at home under Linux generally works without modification on the SOLARIS boxes at the university, or with minimal modifications at most. The same goes for other UNIX-space development; the Hobbes engine, which runs on an old RS6k, was developed on my Linux box at home.

Of course, after I managed to forget most of what I knew about maintaining a DOS/Windows system while learning how to properly administer a UNIX box (under several disparate distributions of Linux and various other UNIXen such as AIX), I've come to the conclusion that UNIX is just cleaner than 1e-6squishy's OSes. AIX and Linux are a LOT more similar than Win'95 and WinNT in every respect.

Personally, I agree with the previous poster; I don't think that Microsoft is a target Linux should go for either. Why copy them and their crappy interfaces when there's so much actual innovation which can happen? Debian's packaging system is innovative in an evolutionary sense, and for basically being a rather customizable copy of the OS/2 Warp 4 interface at this point, KDE's quite nice (though I don't use any desktop environment; I just run fvwm2, and use both Gnome and KDE apps without any trouble), but I've yet to see anything which is truly innovated, from the ground up, in Linux. Name one thing in Linux which actually gets used which isn't a copy of something from another OS. (And I don't count Enlightenment's eyecandy as an innovation any more than I'd count Microsoft's "Active Desktop.")

That said, I'm fine with all the good stuff being copied, just as long as the bad stuff is kept to a minimum.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok folks, here's a radical concept ... (none / 0) (#25)
by rusty on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 02:19:39 AM EST

I think the development of linux right now is at a good healthy stage. It's taking the familiar stuff from windows (and macOS and just about everything else) as a familiar base to work from. I did that with Scoop-- the first implementation was pretty much a reverse-engineering of the slashdot interface, because it was what I, and a lot of others, were comfortable using, but fed up with for basically social reasons. The second stage is to go beyond the comfy existing system, and actually do some innovation. This obviously takes a lot longer when you're dealing with something as complex as an entire OS and all the associated apps, GUI's, etc etc etc. Luckily for us, Scoop won't take so long. Themes are definitely coming... :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Never been a Delphi user, but heard... (none / 0) (#5)
by Demona on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 07:21:14 PM EST

Demona voted 0 on this story.

Never been a Delphi user, but heard good things from its users. I didn't find this piece particularly insightful, though; mostly common sense for anyone with two clues about the computer industry. Never used Delphi, but heard a lot of good things about the development tools from more than a few folks. And the stance being taken by the corporation in general seems sane and objective.

Very interesting read. I really di... (none / 0) (#2)
by joeyo on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 08:32:13 PM EST

joeyo voted 1 on this story.

Very interesting read. I really dig the authors dry humor. However...

It's a relativity thing - you can't travel faster than the speed of light through normal space, but what happens if your space is expanding faster than the speed of light?

grrr... :)

--
"Give me enough variables to work with, and I can probably do away with the notion of human free will." -- demi

reminds me of an alan cox quote: "L... (none / 0) (#6)
by fvw on Thu Mar 09, 2000 at 09:35:26 PM EST

fvw voted 1 on this story.

reminds me of an alan cox quote: "Linux doesn't solve all problems, but we're working on it".

Posted on /.... (none / 0) (#7)
by skim123 on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 01:03:03 AM EST

skim123 voted -1 on this story.

Posted on /.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


Re: Posted on /.... (none / 0) (#19)
by mochaone on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 04:09:39 PM EST

So what. Rusy has already explained that you will see articles posted here that were previously on Slashdot. Hopefully, you will see a different kind of discussion here than found on slashdot. The fact that the article is posted in both places doesn't mean the comment posts, which I think are the true gems of these web discussion boards, aren't valuable.

[ Parent ]
Personally, I don't think Linux is ... (none / 0) (#8)
by fluffy grue on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 02:24:03 AM EST

fluffy grue voted 1 on this story.

Personally, I don't think Linux is the answer to everything, but it's a hell of a lot more of an answer to things than Windows is. I've been waiting to see the Delphi language on a non-Windows platform for ages; it's a *great* language for teaching OOP to people (in fact, it's how I learned true OOP, and why my C++ is so good :) and has a much simpler, saner object model while still being natively-compiled code. It also has proper (and implicit) namespaces, and the fact that it defines a *very* nice OO windowing toolkit which completely abstracts everything away from the underlying API while still retaining low-level power (it's very similar to GTK/GDK in many respects) makes it probably the best RAD platform around while still being incredible for traditional, long-term development as well.

For those who seem to think that Delphi is "VB which looks like Pascal" (some FUD I see quite often), at a language level, Delphi is to VB as Java is to Fortran, and at an API level, Delphi is to VB as GTK is to Athena, roughly speaking. Delphi can also be used for TTY-based apps, unlike VB. Delphi has an object model, unlike VB, and its object model is MUCH nicer than C++'s; everything inherits from a base class, so it doesn't need templates or multiple inheritance, it uses very sane, simple mechanisms for vtables and the RTTI-equivalents, and the like. The only things I'd like to see in Delphi (and these may have been added since I used it last) would be function and operator overloading; they're hell on the compiler, but damned nice language features to have, as long as they're used responsibly.

Oops, wandered off topic there. In any case, they raise some very nice points regarding Linux zealot-hypocrites, Windows FUDmongers, and their ilk. I also appreciate how this guy writes as a person, not as a marketroid.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Re: Personally, I don't think Linux is ... (none / 0) (#21)
by Zer0 on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 06:42:48 PM EST

The only things I'd like to see in Delphi (and these may have been added since I used it last) would be function and operator overloading; they're hell on the compiler, but damned nice language features to have, as long as they're used responsibly.

Function overloading is in there now, but i dont think operator overloading is (not that i know of anyways :) ). I must admit tho, overloading is fun and i tend to abuse it a bit :).

[ Parent ]

Re: Personally, I don't think Linux is ... (none / 0) (#22)
by fluffy grue on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 09:45:22 PM EST

Ah, but function overloading is? Neat... operator overloading I can live without, but function overloading makes a whole class of things immediately easier, such as complex constructor behavior (of course, Delphi has always solved that problem by having named constructors, which has its own set of plusses and minuses).

The only other language feature I'd like to see (forgot to mention this earlier) is more robust C-style pointers, or at least dynamic arrays of some sort (even with range checking, as long as it can still be turned off). Yes, that's a backpedal on what I said before, but dynamic arrays are much more useful than linked lists, and Delphi's sets seem that they'd have too much overhead, though I have no idea how they're implemented internally (they could be a range-checked vector, or a dlist, or something else entirely for all I know). The only way I could ever figure out how to do dynamic arrays was a MAJOR hack where I'd do something like this, at least in Turbo Pascal: (forgive me if my syntax is wrong; I've actually not used Delphi since it was version 1.0 :)

type Ainteger = integer[0..0];
var myarray: ^Ainteger;
begin
  getmem(myarray, 100*sizeof(integer));
  myarray^[57] = 42;
end.

Of course, this is nice in that it reflects exactly how the semantics of arrays and pointers are, unlike in C where they're actually different things except that there's an operator[](T*) which just happens to make pointers look like arrays. This leads to lots of shooting in the foot, and is why in C, whenever I want a pointer to the first element of an array, I always do it as &(myarray[0]), rather than assuming that the int myarray[100]; declaration above would be treated as either an array or a pointer. I'd rather not have to keep track of which circumstances make an array declaration act as an array vs. a pointer. Things get even more confusing in C++. (Of course, int *myarray; is safe, since it's explicitly a pointer.)

So Delphi finally has function overloading, huh? :)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Has dynamic arrays now, too. (none / 0) (#35)
by Dacta on Mon Mar 13, 2000 at 12:37:37 AM EST

From the Delphi 5 help file (I hope the formatting works okay):

Dynamic arrays do not have a fixed size or length. Instead, memory for a dynamic array is reallocated when you assign a value to the array or pass it to the SetLength procedure. Dynamic-array types are denoted by constructions of the form

array of baseType

For example,

var MyFlexibleArray: array of Real;

declares a one-dimensional dynamic array of reals. The declaration does not allocate memory for MyFlexibleArray. To create the array in memory, call SetLength. For example, given the declaration above,

SetLength(MyFlexibleArray, 20);

allocates an array of 20 reals, indexed 0 to 19. Dynamic arrays are always integer-indexed, always starting from 0.

There's a whole lot more, but that should give you the idea.

[ Parent ]

Reading old threads.. (none / 0) (#37)
by Zer0 on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:56:33 AM EST

I got bored and started reading this old thread.

Delphi now has dynamic arrays (i think theyve been in there since version 4?) :). Kylix will be released with all the language features of delphi + operator overloading. The only feature it wont have is generic types, but no language is perfect.

I'm not sure but i *think* sets are implemented by bit shifting, this would seem the most efficient way to handle them to me.

[ Parent ]
Delphi has supported non-Windows OS for a while (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 11:45:55 PM EST


Fluffimous Gruemae sayeth:
> I've been waiting to see the Delphi language on a
> non-Windows platform for ages

You mean besides OS/400 which it has supported for a number of years now?

[ Parent ]
Wrong, but a common misconception. (none / 0) (#34)
by Dacta on Mon Mar 13, 2000 at 12:30:13 AM EST

The OS/400 thing is simply a connectivity kit to allow you to connect Delphi apps (on Windows) to data on AS/400s

I'm not sure if they still sell it anyway.

[ Parent ]

Quite an interesting read -- it's a... (none / 0) (#11)
by locutus074 on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 07:34:32 AM EST

locutus074 voted 1 on this story.

Quite an interesting read -- it's an impartial (IMO) view of the OS holy wars, especially Linux (from a confessed non-supporter (but non-detractor) of Linux)

Here's a quote from the story:

People who do choose NT for their servers do it for the Microsoft name and perception of corporate stability and safety of investment.
Emphasis (as you may have guessed) is mine. :)
--
"If you haven't gotten where you're going,
you aren't there yet." --George Carlin
This is a sort of good article. Ob... (none / 0) (#4)
by bmetzler on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 09:43:28 AM EST

bmetzler voted 1 on this story.

This is a sort of good article. Obviously the writer doesn't understand some concepts, and what's more he doesn't care. But he doesn't need to understand. He doesn't take the chance to advocate one OS over another, and surprising doesn't take the chance to attack MS for their offenses against Borland.

However, he had one answer that I had to clip and pass on to important people. "How is this different from testing Windows applications on the many flavors of the Win32 platform? Proper testing of Win32 apps today should include testing on the following distinct platforms: "virgin" Win95, Win95 OSR2, Win 95 with IE4, Win95 with IE5, Win95 with DCOM, Win98, Win98 release 2, Win98 with IE5, WinNT 4.0 SP3, WinNT 4 with IE 5, and Windows 2000. " I've been telling people this same answer for a long time. Microsoft likes to tell people that unlike Unix, their OS Line isn't fragmented. Well, all I have to say for that is I can get an application to run on all Unix' with less of a change to the source, then anyone can ever get an application to run on every line and version of Windows.

-Brent
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.

Re: This is a sort of good article. Ob... (none / 0) (#12)
by Emacs on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 02:27:04 PM EST

Bingo.

I've always marveled at the great job of marketing MS has done. They are the masters! They have spent billions on marketing to give the perception that they really do have THE plan and they know the path to take. In reality they don't know any more than the rest of us. Heck... looking at that mess of a product line I have to wonder about that.

One of my favorite MS-isms is when one of the developers at my company told me that the modifications he was working on for one of our apps(which has nothing to do with the net or a web browser) would only work on windows boxes with IE4 or IE5. It seems that there are some controls(nothing exotic) that are only part of IE, and not the common windows API. Why not make them standard controls that IE takes advantage of instead of controls that can only be accessed if the browser was installed on your system. Sheesh...yeah...and they only care about innovating...

FWIW- Today is day two with my Win2000 box and I had to reboot 4 times this morning, having some major problems seeing the network. In all fairness I can't yet blame in on the OS, but Outlook2000 locked up twice...and I lost my taskbar once...that I can blame on the boys from redmond.

It does seem pretty smooth though...makes me wish that X worked better than it does.


[ Parent ]
Re: This is a sort of good article. Ob... (none / 0) (#17)
by bmetzler on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 03:58:37 PM EST

Why not make them standard controls that IE takes advantage of instead of controls that can only be accessed if the browser was installed on your system.

I don't think we need to guess why that is. What's worse however is that at the same time people complain about all the different widget choices that are available on Linux (QT, gtk, others) they (I guess) don't realize that there are many more widget choices on Windows. Windows standard widgets, IE widgets, Office Widgets. These widgets often change between versions, and as is a case with the Office widgets aren't usable by third-parties. Which, of course, means that you'll never get your app to smoothlessly blend into Windows, like MS 'promises'.

It does seem pretty smooth though...makes me wish that X worked better than it does.

XFree86 4.0 should help, and it's finally released now :)

-Brent
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
[ Parent ]
excellent article.... (none / 0) (#3)
by asad on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 11:48:51 AM EST

asad voted 1 on this story.

excellent article.

Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (none / 0) (#14)
by henrik on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 02:56:06 PM EST

thank you - i'd had a bit too many beers when i wrote that. I remember it striking me as enormously funny and insightful at the time.. :)

Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (none / 0) (#15)
by henrik on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 03:11:40 PM EST

does this only happen do me? This post was supposed to go here. . I'm fairly sure i hit reply at the right place, so why did this comment come here?

Sorry everybody.

Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (none / 0) (#16)
by rusty on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 03:26:55 PM EST

That is puzzling. What platform/browser are you using? It's never happened to me, but I've seen a couple other comments like this. They might all have been you, though. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (none / 0) (#26)
by henrik on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 10:41:58 AM EST

Yes - it's happened to me once before, also when trying to reply to a comment of yours. Do you have some built in stupid comment protection? :) (the other one was fairly pointless aswell) (linux/netscape 4.72 is the platform) oh well - let's see if this goes where it should.

Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
[ Parent ]
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (none / 0) (#27)
by rusty on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 01:43:39 PM EST

No, no protection at all. What determines where a comment will show up is just the cid= and sid= in the GET string up there. Actually, they're duplicated in the comment form, in hidden fields. I have no idea why it'd do that. You must have yourself a demon in your computer.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (2.00 / 1) (#23)
by Anonymous Hero on Fri Mar 10, 2000 at 11:46:34 PM EST

Hello World!?

Is anyone awake? I mean c'mon, GNU/Linux is about freedom, not about the latest _commercial_ IDE/dev kit.

The FSF gave us freedom, let's not abuse/destroy it.

With the proliferation of commercialware for linux, think about this for a second:

Linux + 20years == MS Windows

I sure hope you got a chill.

Supporting Borland is sleeping with the devil.

Read some Stallman, and be enlightened:
http://www.gnu.org

Let's not be suckered into giving up our liberties for a shortlived waregasm.


Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by rusty on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 02:14:28 AM EST

I don't think so. The FSF gave us a powerful idea. All the hackers who've followed in their footsteps have given us wonderful software based on this idea. The idea proliferated, despite having no rational tie to the prevailing mindset. If linux becomes microsoft in 20 years (not sure how that could happen, but what if), we'll just all be running GNU/HURD 2.2 by then. The freedom is not the software. The freedom is the idea, and the collective will of a lot of people to make it their reality. And they can't take that away from us. Ever. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anonymous Hero on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 03:06:08 PM EST

>The FSF gave us a powerful idea.
>The freedom is not the software. The freedom is the
>idea, and the collective will of a lot of people to make
>it their reality. And they can't take that away from us.
>Ever. :-)

By embracing the corporate will and the commercial software, we are lowering ourselves. The free software movement aims to give each and every citizen the liberty to control their own destiny, and to not be tracked by "Comet Cursors" and their brethren.

We should not accept these forbidden fruit, this closed software, into our open systems. The only way that they can take these ideals away from us is if WE choose to give up our own freedom for short term gain.

If we all start using Borland Delphi and their ilk, development of free software will _slow down_, hurting the movement that has spawned this internet age.

Become a part of the solution.


[ Parent ]
Re: Is Linux Ready for Delphi? (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by rusty on Sat Mar 11, 2000 at 03:27:26 PM EST

Well, I won't be using it. I write perl anyway. And I doubt you'll see an awful lot of free software authors using it. But who am I to say they *can't* relese it? They can do whatever they want, just like us. If the systems are really open, then borland is just as welcome to release software for them as any of us, and under whatever license they feel is best. If the market ignores them, well, maybe a clue will come dawning on it's own.

In any case, Delphi is basically just another IDE. The people who need this to code are generally not the people who will be creating free software anyway, now or ever. If I'm not mistaken, this is mostly used by internal programmers who need to create apps for their company fast, which will probably never see the light of day. I don't think this is a threat to freedom, in any way.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Misunderstanding of GNU/Linux (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Mar 12, 2000 at 08:57:23 AM EST

> Is anyone awake? I mean c'mon, GNU/Linux is about freedom,
> not about the latest _commercial_ IDE/dev kit. The FSF gave
> us freedom, let's not abuse/destroy it.

Linux was built with GNU tools and eventually (not at first) released under the GPL in order to facillitate contributions. Linus Torvalds has never held the ideology of the FSF to be a religion. For Linux, the GPL is a step of pragmatism, not a step of faith.

GNU is about freedom.

Linux is about people that just want to get the job done.

Obviously the second philosophy can include non-free add-ons. The best tool for the job is not always free software.

To confuse the ideologies of Linux with the ideologies of GNU is to confuse the issues at hand.

[ Parent ]
Re: Misunderstanding of GNU/Linux (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Hero on Sun Mar 12, 2000 at 10:44:49 PM EST

>GNU is about freedom.

>Linux is about people that just want to get the job
>done.

Look jooky, you're a little screwed here. Don't generalize people who work on a free software project to hold ANY sort of ideology. Doing so, only makes you look like an ijit.

>Obviously the second philosophy can include non-free add-
>ons. The best tool for the job is not always free
>software.

No my little jooky, the best tool for the job is one that can benefit all of humanity by building on the strengths of our predecessors and extending good will to the lowest of the low. Namely, Free Software is the best tool for 'the job'.


[ Parent ]
Re: Misunderstanding of GNU/Linux (none / 0) (#33)
by rusty on Mon Mar 13, 2000 at 12:20:48 AM EST

the best tool for the job is one that can benefit all of humanity by building on the strengths of our predecessors and extending good will to the lowest of the low

<MONOLOGUE TYPE="internal">
...hmmm, I need to find all occurences of the phrase "unnecessary politicizing" in this directory, and all others below it recursively. I was gonna use grep, but does grep benefit all humanity by building on the strengths of our predecessors and extending goodwill to the lowest of the low? Better keep looking...
</MONOLOGUE>

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Re: Misunderstanding of GNU/Linux (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Mar 13, 2000 at 04:28:48 PM EST

> No my little jooky, the best tool for the job is one that can benefit all of > humanity by building on the strengths of our predecessors and extending > good will to the lowest of the low. Namely, Free Software is the best tool > for 'the job'. Hmm. I've yet to ever enter a technical discussion on whether a given tool is efficacious in its handling of a given task and have the wider benefits of humanity enter the discussion.

[ Parent ]
Is Linux Ready for Delphi? | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!