Well, the idea behind Perl is a little bit different; it has too many decently implemented features to just be a scripting language, no matter how some people use it. It's humble, too--although it has the few useful features of Java, (packages and object-orientation, at least) it doesn't take the NIH approach and pointlessly rename everything like Java does.:)
I like C, too; because Perl is generally interpreted, and because of some of the features it has now, writing your average C-looking code in Perl isn't worth it--it'll be up to 10 times slower. However, writing code that takes advantage of Perl's features will perform much better, and can be expressed in much fewer (and easier to read) lines of code.
Examples:
- Being able to use a hash for quick lookup, or as an arbitrary name-space is really handy.
- A reference to a sub-routine functions as a closure, not as a function pointer; without this, functional programming can be more difficult to do...:)
- Arrays are readily growable, and can function as a stack, or other linear data structure.
- Extra types, like arbitrary-precision number routines, are readily available.
- CGI and database programming is ridiculously easy to do.
Finally, I wrote a program that takes arbitrary input line-by-line, and outputs sorted unique lines with a count of how many of each line it found. It took me 7 lines of Perl code, (counting the comment to run the Perl interpreter:) and 50 lines of C.
The C approach dynamically grows the strings as needed, and using a dynamic array of pointers and qsort takes up a little bit more code than using a binary tree with a reference count, but they are both around 50 lines of code.
I haven't tested the two of them against each other yet, but the Perl code should be faster in general, for big files, because the built-in hash routines are algorithmically superior. (i.e. I don't think they have a worst-case of Order-n-squared...)
So, yes, a place for everything, and everything in its place. There are many times when Perl is the right tool for the job, and C isn't. I wouldn't write an Operating System Kernel in Perl unless I could make a *really* optimized compiler for it, but for many other tasks it's a much better choice. Besides, if you *need* to write something in C, you still *can*. And if you still don't like it, well, you can write a better language in C, just like they wrote Perl.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, a "web-pad" is like having an actual notebook that you carry around and use, sort of like a large palm pilot; a laptop is generally larger, but more importantly has to be unfolded; it's inconvenient on planes and many other places.
Of course, I probably still wouldn't get one because it would get lost or stolen too easily, but at least I could live with a web-pad...
Of course, I'd still want to run whatever OS I want; I'd be happy with one optional lap-top style port or bay for a device, at least for installation purposes. And of course, built-in networking...
It wouldn't surprise me if they had a lot of MediaGX's lying around, though...;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, you'd want some sort of encryption layer over it, for one. Also, you'd want to do redundant calculations where possible, to verify accurate results. But I think a lot of those issues have already been taken care of...
Yes, most people don't care. They know it's a screensaver, they're getting a check, and maybe they're helping someone else out. While we monitor the packets and wonder what they're actually doing, why we have no bandwidth, or why their box just tried to use an NFS exploit on their network segment...:| --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It's cheaper for companies to outsource some projects to another company and have them do the computing however they can than to rent time on a mainframe.
If you design a cool screensaver to go with it, and make it run on Windows, I'm sure you'll get the support of college students everywhere, even if it beams information back to an evil corporation, does tests on nuclear missle aging, DNA analysis, or hacking your friend's box... They won't know the difference. Of course, it'd be nice to check these things for trojans too.
Yes, this is an application for Beowulf clusters as well; for massively parallel problems, it might be worth setting up shop in that business instead. I bet IBM does just that, for one, but I'm sure they'd rather sell you a mainframe, where possible...:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
This sounds like a cool little web pad, but I don't think I want to use a "Cyrix Media GX" processor running at only 166Mhz. I'm sure having all that stuff on a chip is great for production, and all your standard web-surfing, but this still won't be very powerful.
What I *really* want is the "web-pad" that works like a laptop, and has some decent specs, (say, a good desktop from a year or two ago, not three or four years...) but I gues I'll be waiting a bit longer.
And yes, if you read the article, the specs are in there; I'm sure someone will post them, regardless. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I was going to say that MainWin sucks, just based on my experiences with attempting to use Microsoft-ported products, like IE (Aieee!) on Solaris; no web browser should require kernel patches. REALLY.
...therefore, Wind/U must really suck. I guess if Wine ever stabilizes and tracks the Win32 API decently, (Ha ha... It's gotten a lot better, but I'll be impressed if and when they ever do catch up; by then, the dominant processors will probably have x86 compatibility built into the hardware...) it can be ported to other processors. (since a lot of it really is reimplemented in C) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, yeah, that's only half the problem, you'd still have to make a unified graphical interface for it all, somehow. They'll probably both support themes, though, so you could just make GNOME look like KDE, and get one wm to have hooks for both...
I could care less about the unified desktop; I run fvwm2 and bash; but I know a lot of people want that, especially (a) for linux newbies and (b) to get the Mac Zealots to shut up.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I wouldn't mind seeing some more cross-pollination in the GNOME/KDE world. I know it happens already, somewhat, but it seems wasteful to have so many of the same apps re-coded from the ground up.
Ask yourselves: could a Qt compatibility layer be implemented on top of GTK? Could a common library be used for all these widget sets? I know the Harmony project died horribly, and I don't code X stuff yet, but still...
After that, how different would all these apps *really* be? Could they settle on a common component model? With a common component model and a common look-and-feel (customizable, of course!), the two projects would overlap, and if not double, then at least increase in size by, say, sqrt(2), and therefore grow much faster.
I don't want a homogenous Linux desktop, I want a customizable one, but if we could merge these projects one day, everyone could have all their apps for Linux looking the same and playing nice with each other, AND they wouldn't have to worry that GBar is only GNOME and KFoo is only KDE, and the two don't look the same, and this toolkit isn't Free yet, and blah blah blah... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It was a loong time ago, something about re-negotiating their license for the NT Source.
IIRC, Microsoft was acting like "Crazy Eddie": I'll sell company a product x for $y, but I'll sell it to company b for $z, and I won't sell it to company c at all, because they might compete with me...
And now things must look even bleaker for MS, since they own MainWin, and therefore *really* have a conflict of interests over this one, and with everyone else getting money out of them too, in the wake of the last big lawsuit...
I have a copy of Heroes III for Linux, and that game rules. I know a lot of people with Q3A for Linux, and that's even better...
About the Mac: I just call the numbers as I see them. Statistics count in *my* definition of proof.
Just because everyone uses Word documents doesn't mean you can't do the same stuff on Linux; last I saw, StarOffice worked just fine, it just wasn't called "MS-Office". Call it Office, don't use the StarOffice formats, and add a frickin' paperclip, and they'll never know the difference.:)
Would you call the NT stations we have as *public workstations* Desktop machines? If so, so are the Linux and Sun boxes. I guarantee you they don't SERVE anything, and they're accessible to the student body; that's what we call DESKTOPS.
The market grows along with the apps, but as it stands, Linux is getting more attention than MacOS, even without Office. Maybe Microsoft can read the writing on the wall; hopefully their Apps department will. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
1) I use it on the Desktop.
2) A lot of people on Slashdot do as well.
3) There are retail boxes for WordPerfect's Office Suite, Quake 3, and several other products for Linux; brick-and-mortar software stores often have 'Linux' sections now.
4) Last I saw, Linux was about on par with MacOS for a regular user-base.
5) Many people use Linux as both a Desktop *and* a server as well.
6) My University is converting Sun boxes into Linux boxes; they're more powerful at a lower cost, and run the same stuff (and more!) for what we have around here; University students generally count as Desktop users.
7) Let Microsoft release 'Office for Linux', and watch businesses, universities, and individuals collectively put their money where their mouths are, and make Microsoft Apps richer and Microsoft OS poorer. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Wouldn't Microsoft *want* to port its applications to an OS that had no desktop market share?
I mean, not everyone can use Windows for everything, but Microsoft could still sell them apps. And if Microsoft had no competition, well, that just makes it easier for them.
Of course, people *do* use Linux on the desktop; I know, because I'm one of them. And there *are* other apps, but I'm sure if they ever released "MS-Office for Linux", a lot of people and businesses would buy it. (And then replace Windows, which is why Apps & OS need to be broken up in Microsoft; the Chinese Wall never worked.) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Gotcha; I haven't played those games, and therefore didn't realize it was an issue. I'd like to try EverQuest, but I wouldn't pay $10/month for it. I'd be willing to pay, say, $30 up-front, and maybe $50 if I knew it was a really good game and could test it out (a la Q3DEMO)...
Actually, I think I'll look into Mangband instead; that looks like fun, and it badly needs a graphical Linux client...
Thanks! That section in particular is a really interesting read.
I thought about 'fair use' somewhere in there, but I figured I wouldn't confuse the issue any, especially since I'm not that familiar with anything complicated in the copyright code--but now that I have that link, I might just get familiar with it.:)
I take it a computer with a CD-ROM drive and a sound card counts as a 'digital recording device', and therefore my non-commercial use of it is fine, eh?;)
All you have to do is just keep trying to connect to the guy that is... who never purchased a copy, either.
He analyzes the packets and writes the server, and occasionally says, "Hey buddy, try to connect to this machine, will ya? I can't get it to work yet...";) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Emulators, server emulators, and mp3's are all legal.
Using copyrighted material without permission (purchasing it or otherwise) probably isn't. This includes goods, ROMs, music, video, photos and text, although many of these are often not enforced... (which is how people often use tapes, video tapes, hard drives, photo-copy machines...)
In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo. They aren't even copying anything they shouldn't. I mean, what should you care what they do in their own time, and who are you to tell your customers how they should use your product? You should help them, and give them some specs, and they'll like you better, and support you in the future.
In my case, I'm pretty happy with Loki, for example. They produce great games, and they respond to the community. I beta-tested Heroes III, and I bought a copy, too. They added a lot of stuff they said they would, like fullscreen mode for non-root, and I think the map editor is in beta. I just need to ask them if the Expansion Packs will work with Linux, and if I could just get those separately, or if they have plans to port them... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What, you don't think I realize that? Don't be a moron.
I want to do *exactly* that; I was just pointing out that now they aren't necessarily 'volunteers' all the time, and might have other conflicts of interest as well. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I haven't looked at the CREDITS lately, but I know just from the LKML that a lot of the people working on the kernel have real Linux-related jobs too, like working for SuSE...
Is it still "Mostly Volunteers"? Even in lines of code? I'm sure a lot of these people are still doing it out of love, but realize that they're also getting paid now.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, I meant, say, each individual build of NT, 9x, 3.1... There should be 3 versions of Windows (or so), not 3,000... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the idea behind Perl is a little bit different; it has too many decently implemented features to just be a scripting language, no matter how some people use it. It's humble, too--although it has the few useful features of Java, (packages and object-orientation, at least) it doesn't take the NIH approach and pointlessly rename everything like Java does. :)
:)
:) and 50 lines of C.
:)
I like C, too; because Perl is generally interpreted, and because of some of the features it has now, writing your average C-looking code in Perl isn't worth it--it'll be up to 10 times slower. However, writing code that takes advantage of Perl's features will perform much better, and can be expressed in much fewer (and easier to read) lines of code.
Examples:
- Being able to use a hash for quick lookup, or as an arbitrary name-space is really handy.
- A reference to a sub-routine functions as a closure, not as a function pointer; without this, functional programming can be more difficult to do...
- Arrays are readily growable, and can function as a stack, or other linear data structure.
- Extra types, like arbitrary-precision number routines, are readily available.
- CGI and database programming is ridiculously easy to do.
Finally, I wrote a program that takes arbitrary input line-by-line, and outputs sorted unique lines with a count of how many of each line it found. It took me 7 lines of Perl code, (counting the comment to run the Perl interpreter
The C approach dynamically grows the strings as needed, and using a dynamic array of pointers and qsort takes up a little bit more code than using a binary tree with a reference count, but they are both around 50 lines of code.
I haven't tested the two of them against each other yet, but the Perl code should be faster in general, for big files, because the built-in hash routines are algorithmically superior. (i.e. I don't think they have a worst-case of Order-n-squared...)
So, yes, a place for everything, and everything in its place. There are many times when Perl is the right tool for the job, and C isn't. I wouldn't write an Operating System Kernel in Perl unless I could make a *really* optimized compiler for it, but for many other tasks it's a much better choice. Besides, if you *need* to write something in C, you still *can*. And if you still don't like it, well, you can write a better language in C, just like they wrote Perl.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, that's the point; it really had a built-in couch, by design!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I want one of the old couch-shaped ones--that actually *would* look great in my dorm room! :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, a "web-pad" is like having an actual notebook that you carry around and use, sort of like a large palm pilot; a laptop is generally larger, but more importantly has to be unfolded; it's inconvenient on planes and many other places.
;)
Of course, I probably still wouldn't get one because it would get lost or stolen too easily, but at least I could live with a web-pad...
Of course, I'd still want to run whatever OS I want; I'd be happy with one optional lap-top style port or bay for a device, at least for installation purposes. And of course, built-in networking...
It wouldn't surprise me if they had a lot of MediaGX's lying around, though...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, you'd want some sort of encryption layer over it, for one. Also, you'd want to do redundant calculations where possible, to verify accurate results. But I think a lot of those issues have already been taken care of...
:|
Yes, most people don't care. They know it's a screensaver, they're getting a check, and maybe they're helping someone else out. While we monitor the packets and wonder what they're actually doing, why we have no bandwidth, or why their box just tried to use an NFS exploit on their network segment...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It's cheaper for companies to outsource some projects to another company and have them do the computing however they can than to rent time on a mainframe.
:)
If you design a cool screensaver to go with it, and make it run on Windows, I'm sure you'll get the support of college students everywhere, even if it beams information back to an evil corporation, does tests on nuclear missle aging, DNA analysis, or hacking your friend's box... They won't know the difference. Of course, it'd be nice to check these things for trojans too.
Yes, this is an application for Beowulf clusters as well; for massively parallel problems, it might be worth setting up shop in that business instead. I bet IBM does just that, for one, but I'm sure they'd rather sell you a mainframe, where possible...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
This sounds like a cool little web pad, but I don't think I want to use a "Cyrix Media GX" processor running at only 166Mhz. I'm sure having all that stuff on a chip is great for production, and all your standard web-surfing, but this still won't be very powerful.
What I *really* want is the "web-pad" that works like a laptop, and has some decent specs, (say, a good desktop from a year or two ago, not three or four years...) but I gues I'll be waiting a bit longer.
And yes, if you read the article, the specs are in there; I'm sure someone will post them, regardless.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I think I saw that movie...
:)
Good thing this is just Slashdot, so it isn't real or anything...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"Maybe they landed there later"...
;)
It'll be interesting to see if they can come up with anything better.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Really? Wow!
I was going to say that MainWin sucks, just based on my experiences with attempting to use Microsoft-ported products, like IE (Aieee!) on Solaris; no web browser should require kernel patches. REALLY.
...therefore, Wind/U must really suck. I guess if Wine ever stabilizes and tracks the Win32 API decently, (Ha ha... It's gotten a lot better, but I'll be impressed if and when they ever do catch up; by then, the dominant processors will probably have x86 compatibility built into the hardware...) it can be ported to other processors. (since a lot of it really is reimplemented in C)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, yeah, that's only half the problem, you'd still have to make a unified graphical interface for it all, somehow. They'll probably both support themes, though, so you could just make GNOME look like KDE, and get one wm to have hooks for both...
:)
I could care less about the unified desktop; I run fvwm2 and bash; but I know a lot of people want that, especially (a) for linux newbies and (b) to get the Mac Zealots to shut up.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I wouldn't mind seeing some more cross-pollination in the GNOME/KDE world. I know it happens already, somewhat, but it seems wasteful to have so many of the same apps re-coded from the ground up.
Ask yourselves: could a Qt compatibility layer be implemented on top of GTK? Could a common library be used for all these widget sets? I know the Harmony project died horribly, and I don't code X stuff yet, but still...
After that, how different would all these apps *really* be? Could they settle on a common component model? With a common component model and a common look-and-feel (customizable, of course!), the two projects would overlap, and if not double, then at least increase in size by, say, sqrt(2), and therefore grow much faster.
I don't want a homogenous Linux desktop, I want a customizable one, but if we could merge these projects one day, everyone could have all their apps for Linux looking the same and playing nice with each other, AND they wouldn't have to worry that GBar is only GNOME and KFoo is only KDE, and the two don't look the same, and this toolkit isn't Free yet, and blah blah blah...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It was a loong time ago, something about re-negotiating their license for the NT Source.
IIRC, Microsoft was acting like "Crazy Eddie": I'll sell company a product x for $y, but I'll sell it to company b for $z, and I won't sell it to company c at all, because they might compete with me...
And now things must look even bleaker for MS, since they own MainWin, and therefore *really* have a conflict of interests over this one, and with everyone else getting money out of them too, in the wake of the last big lawsuit...
;)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I have a copy of Heroes III for Linux, and that game rules. I know a lot of people with Q3A for Linux, and that's even better...
:)
About the Mac: I just call the numbers as I see them. Statistics count in *my* definition of proof.
Just because everyone uses Word documents doesn't mean you can't do the same stuff on Linux; last I saw, StarOffice worked just fine, it just wasn't called "MS-Office". Call it Office, don't use the StarOffice formats, and add a frickin' paperclip, and they'll never know the difference.
Would you call the NT stations we have as *public workstations* Desktop machines? If so, so are the Linux and Sun boxes. I guarantee you they don't SERVE anything, and they're accessible to the student body; that's what we call DESKTOPS.
The market grows along with the apps, but as it stands, Linux is getting more attention than MacOS, even without Office. Maybe Microsoft can read the writing on the wall; hopefully their Apps department will.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I believe I mentioned this already, but...
1) I use it on the Desktop.
2) A lot of people on Slashdot do as well.
3) There are retail boxes for WordPerfect's Office Suite, Quake 3, and several other products for Linux; brick-and-mortar software stores often have 'Linux' sections now.
4) Last I saw, Linux was about on par with MacOS for a regular user-base.
5) Many people use Linux as both a Desktop *and* a server as well.
6) My University is converting Sun boxes into Linux boxes; they're more powerful at a lower cost, and run the same stuff (and more!) for what we have around here; University students generally count as Desktop users.
7) Let Microsoft release 'Office for Linux', and watch businesses, universities, and individuals collectively put their money where their mouths are, and make Microsoft Apps richer and Microsoft OS poorer.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Wouldn't Microsoft *want* to port its applications to an OS that had no desktop market share?
I mean, not everyone can use Windows for everything, but Microsoft could still sell them apps. And if Microsoft had no competition, well, that just makes it easier for them.
Of course, people *do* use Linux on the desktop; I know, because I'm one of them. And there *are* other apps, but I'm sure if they ever released "MS-Office for Linux", a lot of people and businesses would buy it. (And then replace Windows, which is why Apps & OS need to be broken up in Microsoft; the Chinese Wall never worked.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Gotcha; I haven't played those games, and therefore didn't realize it was an issue. I'd like to try EverQuest, but I wouldn't pay $10/month for it. I'd be willing to pay, say, $30 up-front, and maybe $50 if I knew it was a really good game and could test it out (a la Q3DEMO)...
Actually, I think I'll look into Mangband instead; that looks like fun, and it badly needs a graphical Linux client...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Thanks! That section in particular is a really interesting read.
I thought about 'fair use' somewhere in there, but I figured I wouldn't confuse the issue any, especially since I'm not that familiar with anything complicated in the copyright code--but now that I have that link, I might just get familiar with it.
I take it a computer with a CD-ROM drive and a sound card counts as a 'digital recording device', and therefore my non-commercial use of it is fine, eh?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Who says you have to reverse-engineer it?
;)
All you have to do is just keep trying to connect to the guy that is... who never purchased a copy, either.
He analyzes the packets and writes the server, and occasionally says, "Hey buddy, try to connect to this machine, will ya? I can't get it to work yet..."
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Emulators, server emulators, and mp3's are all legal.
Using copyrighted material without permission (purchasing it or otherwise) probably isn't. This includes goods, ROMs, music, video, photos and text, although many of these are often not enforced... (which is how people often use tapes, video tapes, hard drives, photo-copy machines...)
In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo. They aren't even copying anything they shouldn't. I mean, what should you care what they do in their own time, and who are you to tell your customers how they should use your product? You should help them, and give them some specs, and they'll like you better, and support you in the future.
In my case, I'm pretty happy with Loki, for example. They produce great games, and they respond to the community. I beta-tested Heroes III, and I bought a copy, too. They added a lot of stuff they said they would, like fullscreen mode for non-root, and I think the map editor is in beta. I just need to ask them if the Expansion Packs will work with Linux, and if I could just get those separately, or if they have plans to port them...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What, you don't think I realize that? Don't be a moron.
I want to do *exactly* that; I was just pointing out that now they aren't necessarily 'volunteers' all the time, and might have other conflicts of interest as well.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I haven't looked at the CREDITS lately, but I know just from the LKML that a lot of the people working on the kernel have real Linux-related jobs too, like working for SuSE...
:)
Is it still "Mostly Volunteers"? Even in lines of code? I'm sure a lot of these people are still doing it out of love, but realize that they're also getting paid now.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, I meant, say, each individual build of NT, 9x, 3.1... There should be 3 versions of Windows (or so), not 3,000...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No fair counting *each* Windows build as a separate Operating System!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Maybe he apprentices to Mace Wendu; he's one bad mutha... ;)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.