Anonymous Stranger: Where do the druggies hang out? Me: around the corner in the back alley. Anonymous Stranger: Can they get me drugs? Me: probably; they always seem to have drugs. Anonymous Stranger: Drug trafficker! You're so busted! Me: WTF??
"The Wayback Machine" has been a pet project for a long time, and we're only now seeing results. I know for a fact that they have pages back at least as far as 1996, and it's a damn shame they don't have anything that much earlier...
And yes, it obeys the Robot Exclusion Principle.
"Ask Google" strikes again; I would hope that you could find all of this information by searching, or reading an "About" page, or something. Fortunately, these abortions to journalism don't appear on the Front Page very often.
I took a look at OS X, actually, and I didn't like it very much. It took me a while to find where they buried the command prompt, but I was heartened to see that it was there, at least.
I wouldn't be using their OS, though; my original post was really just talking about their hardware, and there's no reason to pay a premium for that.
Macromedia and Adobe monopolize their niches, they're just small niches. Macromedia has Flash and now ColdFusion, and neither product is improving any. Adobe has Photoshop, and is (still) trying to get a stranglehold on publishing, with moderate success; they're also responsible for turning PS into PDF, which was probably the smartest thing they ever did for themselves, but not necessarily a good thing for the consumer. However, trust me; given the opportunity, they'd both take Microsoft's place--that's every corporations' wet dream.
Word 6 on Windows 3.1 was also completely unusable. It was huge, slow, and was the first Word to support Word Macro Viruses; that's about it.
In the meantime, Wordperfect for Windows looked like just another word processor on Windows to me, but I didn't get to use it much due to it's non-rampant success...
---- And I quote: Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment.
Jesus, how much time of yours does Slashdot have to waste to let you reply to a thread; that's pathetic. And when did they raise it from one minute, anyhow. Give 'em an inch, and they take a parsec.
I don't want an experience, and no Mac has never worked the way I want it to.
Sell it to the masses; I've tried it, and for me, it's patently false, and I'm not a normal guy, either.
I can be 100% Microsoft-free by simply running Linux, which I can also do on a Mac; however, there is no point paying a premium for a Mac if I'm going to run Linux on it.
Adobe and Macromedia aren't apps; they are other big evil companies that aren't Microsoft, but wish they could have been...
I did remember, actually, but I never had to pay for a new monitor because I didn't need one. I've had this same 17" monitor for over 4 years, and originally got it with a P133; I think it cost ~$250 then, and would cost $200 now. This is one of the benefits of owning a PC; you aren't forced to buy a new monitor when you don't need one.
If I wanted video editing software, I suppose I'd look for it, but I really have no talent for it; maybe a little more talent than I have for music tracking, but still no talent.:)
The GUI I use (and am using now) is fvwm2, and for what I do, it might very well be the best GUI ever designed. It can open xterms, maintain virtual desktops, and stay out of my way, and that's a beautiful thing.
I agree that Macs do have some advantages in some areas; I am staunchly not in those areas, but am, rather, in those areas where they have disadvantages. Therefore, by only comparing cost and not mentioning features, I am being more than fair. However, the OS doesn't really matter since I'd probably *still* install Linux on it.:)
I paid the same amount for my PC, and my PC has the same specs--40GB HD, USB, ethernet, Unix...
The difference is, I bought mine TWO YEARS ago.
So, really, what are you waiting for?
Just FYI, I always price compare whatever I want to the equivalent Mac, because the hardware platform isn't that important to me. (Linux runs on Macs:) And before Apple killed the clones, I really was hopeful that there would be some price-competitive Macs on the market. But don't kid yourself; there aren't.
Of course there will be trade-offs--there are so many HTML pages out there that it isn't surprising that there is some feature that IE renders faster than Opera.
One (bizarre) area I've found where IE is massively slow, Mozilla is somewhat sluggish, and Opera is blazing fast is when you need to paste a LARGE amount of text into a TEXTAREA. (I mean like 1MB or more) AFAICT, IE is completely CPU-bound here; maybe it has something to do with the implementation of textareas in Windows? Also, Netscape 4 truncates these to 30,000 characters.
What we're talking about isn't stealing, exactly. Remember that the BSA considers every instance of pirating to be a case of lost revenue. This only holds up in the cases where the pirate would buy the software if he couldn't pirate it.
Therefore, anyone who wouldn't buy the software if they couldn't pirate it (i.e. they don't really need it) shouldn't be counted as an instance of lost revenue--if anything, it's free publicity.
Also, monopolies allow businesses to mistreat their customers without losing their business. And true competition undermines much of the need for piracy that people have under a monopoly.
Therefore, I believe (almost) the converse of what you stated: if we had a healthier market (i.e. more competition, lower prices...), we'd have less piracy, and perhaps no real need for the BSA.
"A healthy market leads to more attractive prices for consumers".
By this standard, I suppose the music industry and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the software industry are "unhealthy". In fact, this makes piracy look pretty attractive, unless these "attractive prices" are cheaper than "free".
Obviously, the reason we have piracy is *because* the current prices aren't "more attractive". Also, not everyone who pirates a program really needs it, especially not for the price that it is selling at.
This goes double for programs that have free alternatives; most people don't really need that new copy of Photoshop 6, but why bother learning about The Gimp when you can just pirate the industry standard? Actually, bundling free alternatives to commercial software would be a good way to decrease piracy, but I doubt that most companies would agree to this, because it might also decrease *SALES*, which is all they really care about. They don't care about their customers, just their money...
I am anything but a microsoft fan, but I see no problem with this as long as Microsoft obeys the GPL. And it looks like they are.
As for accusing a company like Microsoft of, say, having inconsistent values, I have this to say.
1. Duh.
2. Any company of that size willl have different divisions (legal, marketing...) that do different things. And sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In cases like that, don't expect consistency, because you won't find it.
Gee, yeah, who would want file permissions on files, anyhow? Feel free to delete all my MP3's, since they're just music, after all.
Usually this sort of presentation is up to the application, not the filesystem, and Windows is no exception here. The thing presenting the "My Music" folder with ID3 tags and whatnot is the shell (explorer.exe); it's a graphical file browser. There are many of them available for Linux as well.
And personally, I don't really care if my file browser supports this, as long as my MP3 player can read ID3 tags...
And how do people put licensing restrictions on what people implement from the documentation, anyhow... all of this still sounds quite bizarre to me.
Ah well, time to join in to the evil silliness, and write up a spec for something popular, and require any implementations to be licensed under something DFSG-compliant, and require any patents derived from this to be licensed to ME...
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
Note the "or (c)"; oh no, free of charge! What will those godless zealots think of next, and how will Scrooge McDuck hold onto his billions this week!
This is a case of customs intercepting what they perceive to be illegal (mod-chips and whatnot); however, it's disturbing that they don't know or check what the merchandise is, and that they do this under the DMCA, the most far-reaching and untried piece of crappy legislation since the CDA.
However, it might work to everyone's advantage if you pursue this; I would love to see the DMCA overturned, and I'm sure the EFF would too. Therefore, I'm sure many people would be happy to contribute time, effort, or money if you have a case and can pursue it. (it's hard to sue the gov't; I wonder why...)
Re:Perl, Python under .NET?
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2
Well, I agree, and if they had, they wouldn't be compatible with Perl or Python.
However, I think they managed to do something else, like use the.NET framework within Perl, and somehow wrap Perl programs into.NET components.
ActiveState has a lot of documentation about this on their site, specifically under PerlNET; it's worth taking a look.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Stranger: Where do the druggies hang out?
Me: around the corner in the back alley.
Anonymous Stranger: Can they get me drugs?
Me: probably; they always seem to have drugs.
Anonymous Stranger: Drug trafficker! You're so busted!
Me: WTF??
"The Wayback Machine" has been a pet project for a long time, and we're only now seeing results. I know for a fact that they have pages back at least as far as 1996, and it's a damn shame they don't have anything that much earlier...
And yes, it obeys the Robot Exclusion Principle.
"Ask Google" strikes again; I would hope that you could find all of this information by searching, or reading an "About" page, or something. Fortunately, these abortions to journalism don't appear on the Front Page very often.
I took a look at OS X, actually, and I didn't like it very much. It took me a while to find where they buried the command prompt, but I was heartened to see that it was there, at least.
I wouldn't be using their OS, though; my original post was really just talking about their hardware, and there's no reason to pay a premium for that.
Macromedia and Adobe monopolize their niches, they're just small niches. Macromedia has Flash and now ColdFusion, and neither product is improving any. Adobe has Photoshop, and is (still) trying to get a stranglehold on publishing, with moderate success; they're also responsible for turning PS into PDF, which was probably the smartest thing they ever did for themselves, but not necessarily a good thing for the consumer. However, trust me; given the opportunity, they'd both take Microsoft's place--that's every corporations' wet dream.
Word 6 on Windows 3.1 was also completely unusable. It was huge, slow, and was the first Word to support Word Macro Viruses; that's about it.
In the meantime, Wordperfect for Windows looked like just another word processor on Windows to me, but I didn't get to use it much due to it's non-rampant success...
----
And I quote:
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment.
Jesus, how much time of yours does Slashdot have to waste to let you reply to a thread; that's pathetic. And when did they raise it from one minute, anyhow. Give 'em an inch, and they take a parsec.
I don't want an experience, and no Mac has never worked the way I want it to.
Sell it to the masses; I've tried it, and for me, it's patently false, and I'm not a normal guy, either.
I can be 100% Microsoft-free by simply running Linux, which I can also do on a Mac; however, there is no point paying a premium for a Mac if I'm going to run Linux on it.
Adobe and Macromedia aren't apps; they are other big evil companies that aren't Microsoft, but wish they could have been...
I did remember, actually, but I never had to pay for a new monitor because I didn't need one. I've had this same 17" monitor for over 4 years, and originally got it with a P133; I think it cost ~$250 then, and would cost $200 now. This is one of the benefits of owning a PC; you aren't forced to buy a new monitor when you don't need one.
:)
:)
If I wanted video editing software, I suppose I'd look for it, but I really have no talent for it; maybe a little more talent than I have for music tracking, but still no talent.
The GUI I use (and am using now) is fvwm2, and for what I do, it might very well be the best GUI ever designed. It can open xterms, maintain virtual desktops, and stay out of my way, and that's a beautiful thing.
I agree that Macs do have some advantages in some areas; I am staunchly not in those areas, but am, rather, in those areas where they have disadvantages. Therefore, by only comparing cost and not mentioning features, I am being more than fair. However, the OS doesn't really matter since I'd probably *still* install Linux on it.
I paid the same amount for my PC, and my PC has the same specs--40GB HD, USB, ethernet, Unix...
:) And before Apple killed the clones, I really was hopeful that there would be some price-competitive Macs on the market. But don't kid yourself; there aren't.
The difference is, I bought mine TWO YEARS ago.
So, really, what are you waiting for?
Just FYI, I always price compare whatever I want to the equivalent Mac, because the hardware platform isn't that important to me. (Linux runs on Macs
Exactly when did the gov't switch to Word; I thought they used Wordperfect for everything...
What kind of a moron would expect mac users to run Emacs.
And why aren't they using GNU instead of *BSD? Someone call RMS!
Of course there will be trade-offs--there are so many HTML pages out there that it isn't surprising that there is some feature that IE renders faster than Opera.
One (bizarre) area I've found where IE is massively slow, Mozilla is somewhat sluggish, and Opera is blazing fast is when you need to paste a LARGE amount of text into a TEXTAREA. (I mean like 1MB or more) AFAICT, IE is completely CPU-bound here; maybe it has something to do with the implementation of textareas in Windows? Also, Netscape 4 truncates these to 30,000 characters.
What we're talking about isn't stealing, exactly. Remember that the BSA considers every instance of pirating to be a case of lost revenue. This only holds up in the cases where the pirate would buy the software if he couldn't pirate it.
:)
Therefore, anyone who wouldn't buy the software if they couldn't pirate it (i.e. they don't really need it) shouldn't be counted as an instance of lost revenue--if anything, it's free publicity.
Also, monopolies allow businesses to mistreat their customers without losing their business. And true competition undermines much of the need for piracy that people have under a monopoly.
Therefore, I believe (almost) the converse of what you stated: if we had a healthier market (i.e. more competition, lower prices...), we'd have less piracy, and perhaps no real need for the BSA.
And yes, all this is just my opinion too.
"A healthy market leads to more attractive prices for consumers".
By this standard, I suppose the music industry and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the software industry are "unhealthy". In fact, this makes piracy look pretty attractive, unless these "attractive prices" are cheaper than "free".
Obviously, the reason we have piracy is *because* the current prices aren't "more attractive". Also, not everyone who pirates a program really needs it, especially not for the price that it is selling at.
This goes double for programs that have free alternatives; most people don't really need that new copy of Photoshop 6, but why bother learning about The Gimp when you can just pirate the industry standard? Actually, bundling free alternatives to commercial software would be a good way to decrease piracy, but I doubt that most companies would agree to this, because it might also decrease *SALES*, which is all they really care about. They don't care about their customers, just their money...
I am anything but a microsoft fan, but I see no problem with this as long as Microsoft obeys the GPL. And it looks like they are.
As for accusing a company like Microsoft of, say, having inconsistent values, I have this to say.
1. Duh.
2. Any company of that size willl have different divisions (legal, marketing...) that do different things. And sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In cases like that, don't expect consistency, because you won't find it.
Microsoft *can* manufacture a stripped-down version of Windows without all the unnecessary bells and whistles.
This new product is called 'DOS'.
;)
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/sect2/N5019.html
:)
It doesn't want to be a programming language.
It says it does profiling, and Itanium-specific optimizations, along with some more standard compiler tricks...
;)
I'm sure it produces faster code on average than gcc, but it'd be interesting to see a gcc/Intel Athlon/P4 showdown.
Gee, yeah, who would want file permissions on files, anyhow? Feel free to delete all my MP3's, since they're just music, after all.
Usually this sort of presentation is up to the application, not the filesystem, and Windows is no exception here. The thing presenting the "My Music" folder with ID3 tags and whatnot is the shell (explorer.exe); it's a graphical file browser. There are many of them available for Linux as well.
And personally, I don't really care if my file browser supports this, as long as my MP3 player can read ID3 tags...
So? Install it yourself, then.
:)
People are willing to pay for convenience, but maybe not that much.
Actually, you can take a *BSD-licensed project, slap a copy of the GPL on it, and distribute it, just as you can make it a closed project and sell it.
The only clause in the BSD-style license that was incompatible with the GPL was the advertising clause, and that is gone now.
Ah, but is that such a bad thing?
And how do people put licensing restrictions on what people implement from the documentation, anyhow... all of this still sounds quite bizarre to me.
Ah well, time to join in to the evil silliness, and write up a spec for something popular, and require any implementations to be licensed under something DFSG-compliant, and require any patents derived from this to be licensed to ME...
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
Note the "or (c)"; oh no, free of charge! What will those godless zealots think of next, and how will Scrooge McDuck hold onto his billions this week!
Didn't I see this in the Final Fantasy Movie?
This is a case of customs intercepting what they perceive to be illegal (mod-chips and whatnot); however, it's disturbing that they don't know or check what the merchandise is, and that they do this under the DMCA, the most far-reaching and untried piece of crappy legislation since the CDA.
...)
However, it might work to everyone's advantage if you pursue this; I would love to see the DMCA overturned, and I'm sure the EFF would too. Therefore, I'm sure many people would be happy to contribute time, effort, or money if you have a case and can pursue it. (it's hard to sue the gov't; I wonder why
Well, I agree, and if they had, they wouldn't be compatible with Perl or Python.
.NET framework within Perl, and somehow wrap Perl programs into .NET components.
However, I think they managed to do something else, like use the
ActiveState has a lot of documentation about this on their site, specifically under PerlNET; it's worth taking a look.
For once, I'm glad that it is; that should be compatible with Wine. :)