1. IP is connectionless, but somehow TCP works anyway. Session is a layer.
That is a good point, but I feel it's just too many layers; you're being very inefficient.
On IP (connectionless) you add TCP (adds a persistent connection), then you add HTTP (takes that persistence away), then you add session state (adds persistent connection again). You solve the same problem if you take HTTP away, but with about 1/10th of the bandwidth (and that's a conservative approximation).
I have received several comments to the effect of "Who cares how old she is?". In response: certainly not me. This blog is about government censorship and state sponsored fraud. I am attempting to demonstrate the power of free citizens to subvert government censorship. The finer points of gymnastics competitions are outside the scope of this post.
Parent said "far more dangerous than bare unencrypted HTTP". If your bank changed to bare HTTP you'd have just as much cause for worry as if it changed to self-signed.
Did we not just have an article in which Microsoft claimed OSS were copying all their ideas and not innovating? We all scoffed and had a good ol' laugh at Microsoft, how silly they are to see OSS in that light!
And now it seems the future of the web is to try implementing their standards. Miguel even admits that it isn't open enough for him to implement all of it. Talk about innovation, or lack thereof.
False. Somewhere around here I've still got a spool with a copy of the NCSA server and Mosaic sources [wikipedia.org] from way back when. And lookee here, you can still download Mosaic source for X Windows [uiuc.edu], version 1.2 in the directory called 'old'.
Gaahhh! I just spent 30 minutes trying to compile this damn thing. Got through to the linker stage. But no cigar:(
1: If they activelly avoid compatibility with open source, they're being evil. 2: If they just ignore it, they're being evil. 3: If they try to co-operate with any open source project, they're being evil.
What, to be blunt, the fuck is going on?
What you're saying here is "we're being unfair to Microsoft - since no matter what they do from this point, they'll be shunned by the open source community". Correct?
Then yes, that's entirely appropriate. Microsoft have thirty years of history proving that we as a community cannot trust them. They do not deserve our trust if they actively avoid compatibility. They do not deserve our trust if they ignore it. They do not deserve our trust if they try to cooperate. We're past "benefit of the doubt". No matter how many leaves they turn over, I and a great deal of the OSS community will *never* trust Microsoft.
Anyone who isn't at least skeptical about moves Microsoft makes in the open source world is selling something.
(Note: Even if the entire company's staff was replaced with free-thinking open source idealists, I still wouldn't trust them because of their scary patent / copyright portfolio).
The Riddler's character will be too much like the Joker to make it work immediately. (Obviously they can be played extremely different). But, you know what I mean... both crazy clown villains.
Freeze and Ivy are quite simply ruined forever. Ditto for Catwoman (think Halle Berry). Penguin seems pretty silly. So I'm stumped.
And clearly I've reached the limit of my Batman villains knowledge! Perusing the list on wikipedia, the rest look pretty damn silly too.
Having a single exit point can make a function easier to debug. Not using GDB, but when you're eye-hunting for bugs - if you have return statements all throughout the code, you have to trace through to see the various exit points and figure out all the possible different return states.
Having said that, I don't deliberately write code with one exit point. It's just something you have to look out for while debugging. IMHO if you code around it, then you're crapping up your code just to make debugging slightly easier.
What you describe your co-workers doing is *extreme* crapping up of code. It's completely retarded. They still have lots of exit points; it's just that they're called "break" now instead of "return".
Sounds like a case of hearing somewhere that "having a single exit point makes your code easier to debug", and so just blindly writing a single exit point in every function, without thinking about what it's really doing to the code.
But how does a company get to be Microsoft centric? I don't get it.
Last year for a university project, I worked for a client who ran a software company. He demanded we use.NET to write a web service. Not just content with us using Microsoft, he would preach for hours whenever we met about how Microsoft was Great. How Microsoft "Just Worked". (Well that wasn't our experience).
It wasn't just a case of "Use Microsoft.NET and Microsoft SQL Server". It was "For any given technology decision, use a Microsoft solution if possible, or if not find another solution." (This was literally our mandate).
I can understand if a person/company loves.NET. Or loves Visual Basic. Or loves any particular product, because of its merits. But I don't get how you can blindly follow a single company and favour all their products over competitors. It just doesn't seem like good business.
Rather depends on your definition of "utilise". Doesn't say anything there about using the program in the manner intended by its creators (and nor should it, or Photoshop would be out).
Do you ask them to read the License prior to opening every game you buy? Surely it's too late if you've already opened it.
Also you're supposed to decline the license before you install and play it. How does this help you judge a shitty game? (Unless you play it, then return it and claim you didn't play it - then that's cheating;))
The problem with the "total altruism" of BSD ("makes all software better") is that it doesn't actually serve the greater good in the long run.
If you release your code under BSD, and a big company uses it in their proprietary software, then in your altruistic view you've made one piece of software better. (And let's ignore the ideology of whether it's proprietary or not).
If you release your code under GPL, and the big company uses it, and return their changes back to your code, now the original source is much better and everyone in the community can benefit from it. Derived works are better for it.
Hence the GPL option has a greater overall benefit to software. This has been shown time and time again.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Python have a JIT? I've been hacking CPython for awhile now, and haven't seen any evidence of that... got a link?
(Or when you said "like Python" did you mean similar to but not equal?)
That is a good point, but I feel it's just too many layers; you're being very inefficient.
On IP (connectionless) you add TCP (adds a persistent connection), then you add HTTP (takes that persistence away), then you add session state (adds persistent connection again). You solve the same problem if you take HTTP away, but with about 1/10th of the bandwidth (and that's a conservative approximation).
Well if it's an improvement on any of them, judging from the name, it'll be C++ ... er, right?
</confused>
From the Stryde Hax blog:
Parent said "far more dangerous than bare unencrypted HTTP". If your bank changed to bare HTTP you'd have just as much cause for worry as if it changed to self-signed.
It doesn't matter how little good it will do. Someone is wrong on the Internet!
YOU'RE
Do you actually know this guy? Or do you just have an implicit open invitation to all slashdotters to enter your house?
Did we not just have an article in which Microsoft claimed OSS were copying all their ideas and not innovating? We all scoffed and had a good ol' laugh at Microsoft, how silly they are to see OSS in that light!
And now it seems the future of the web is to try implementing their standards. Miguel even admits that it isn't open enough for him to implement all of it. Talk about innovation, or lack thereof.
Gaahhh! I just spent 30 minutes trying to compile this damn thing. Got through to the linker stage. But no cigar :(
What you're saying here is "we're being unfair to Microsoft - since no matter what they do from this point, they'll be shunned by the open source community". Correct?
Then yes, that's entirely appropriate. Microsoft have thirty years of history proving that we as a community cannot trust them. They do not deserve our trust if they actively avoid compatibility. They do not deserve our trust if they ignore it. They do not deserve our trust if they try to cooperate. We're past "benefit of the doubt". No matter how many leaves they turn over, I and a great deal of the OSS community will *never* trust Microsoft.
Anyone who isn't at least skeptical about moves Microsoft makes in the open source world is selling something.
(Note: Even if the entire company's staff was replaced with free-thinking open source idealists, I still wouldn't trust them because of their scary patent / copyright portfolio).
We mod up placeholder jokes as funny now?
I'm guessing you don't know what Atari made. It wasn't Zork ...
Really? I'm in 5th year university and I'm already starting to bring out the "back in my day" to the younguns.
So let me get this straight. Your strategy is:
1. Patent overused Slashdot memes.
2. Write witty self-referential post invoking as many such memes as possible.
3. ???
4. Profit!
"You see I had to save them both. Because I am both Bruce Wayne and Batman."
- Batman Forever
Can't argue with that logic, mate :)
"The pen ... is truly mightier than the sword!"
The Riddler's character will be too much like the Joker to make it work immediately. (Obviously they can be played extremely different). But, you know what I mean ... both crazy clown villains.
Freeze and Ivy are quite simply ruined forever. Ditto for Catwoman (think Halle Berry). Penguin seems pretty silly. So I'm stumped.
And clearly I've reached the limit of my Batman villains knowledge! Perusing the list on wikipedia, the rest look pretty damn silly too.
Having a single exit point can make a function easier to debug. Not using GDB, but when you're eye-hunting for bugs - if you have return statements all throughout the code, you have to trace through to see the various exit points and figure out all the possible different return states.
Having said that, I don't deliberately write code with one exit point. It's just something you have to look out for while debugging. IMHO if you code around it, then you're crapping up your code just to make debugging slightly easier.
What you describe your co-workers doing is *extreme* crapping up of code. It's completely retarded. They still have lots of exit points; it's just that they're called "break" now instead of "return".
Sounds like a case of hearing somewhere that "having a single exit point makes your code easier to debug", and so just blindly writing a single exit point in every function, without thinking about what it's really doing to the code.
But how does a company get to be Microsoft centric? I don't get it.
Last year for a university project, I worked for a client who ran a software company. He demanded we use .NET to write a web service. Not just content with us using Microsoft, he would preach for hours whenever we met about how Microsoft was Great. How Microsoft "Just Worked". (Well that wasn't our experience).
It wasn't just a case of "Use Microsoft .NET and Microsoft SQL Server". It was "For any given technology decision, use a Microsoft solution if possible, or if not find another solution." (This was literally our mandate).
I can understand if a person/company loves .NET. Or loves Visual Basic. Or loves any particular product, because of its merits. But I don't get how you can blindly follow a single company and favour all their products over competitors. It just doesn't seem like good business.
Forget Batman! How many years will it take for me to be Superman?
Rather depends on your definition of "utilise". Doesn't say anything there about using the program in the manner intended by its creators (and nor should it, or Photoshop would be out).
Do you ask them to read the License prior to opening every game you buy? Surely it's too late if you've already opened it.
Also you're supposed to decline the license before you install and play it. How does this help you judge a shitty game? (Unless you play it, then return it and claim you didn't play it - then that's cheating ;))
An excellent point.
Also if I was writing a library (esp. a programming language standard lib), I think I would choose a permissive license such as BSD.
LGPL is too complicated and scary for people not writing GPL'd code, so I think that would scare people away from using my library.
The problem with the "total altruism" of BSD ("makes all software better") is that it doesn't actually serve the greater good in the long run.
If you release your code under BSD, and a big company uses it in their proprietary software, then in your altruistic view you've made one piece of software better. (And let's ignore the ideology of whether it's proprietary or not).
If you release your code under GPL, and the big company uses it, and return their changes back to your code, now the original source is much better and everyone in the community can benefit from it. Derived works are better for it.
Hence the GPL option has a greater overall benefit to software. This has been shown time and time again.