You need to have Sun JRE/JDK installed, but that's it. MSDN works as well, though it's bit more traditional instead of the icky dhtml folding trees and other crap they have there for IE.
Yes, this is absolutely the single most important thing in making the decision.
As the others have noted, Greens are unique in that they have unified stance on this matter with good guys across whole Europe. And quite a few other things seem to be pretty nice in that direction.
Unfortunately, they're Greens. I can't stand their pseudo-environmental knee-jerk reaction against nuclear power and biotechnology, that has nothing to do with rational thought of real environmental issues and more with feelings. Looks like Left Alliance has to do as a compromise, not that there aren't problems in their views as well..
Treaties should be constrained to only adopt existing US laws in a global context.
Did I read that correctly? You just stated that: The notoriously bad US laws should be extended to plaque the whole world, but nothing from the outside should in any way influence the US.
Are there NO LIMITS at all for your self centricism? If you want to isolate, it should work both ways.
Thus, I propose the following alternative: US should be separated from the rest of the world, any communication or transportation of persons or objects to/from it should be prevented, either by law or something bit more effective.
A patent is not invalid just because it's obvious.
Yes it is. Saying that confirms you know nothing about patents. Well, not really, since you confirmed it earlier by ranting about blah not being as smart as someone else and patenting it first, because something that has already been done by someone else can not be patented, it doesn't matter if that someone applied a patent for it first or not, it's still prior art.
People who say "THEY CAN'T HAVE THAT PATENT!! IT'S TOO OBVIOUS!!" are in the realm of sour grapes.
No, they are in realm of reality, and withing scope of law(s), USPTO is in real of wonderland.
"1. A computer-implemented method for managing development-related tasks, the method comprising: during an interactive code development session, " shows pretty clearly that the patent is about an IDE.
The title may be about an IDE, "interactive code development session" CAN be about one too, but then again it can also be about something that is not an IDE. Its nowhere specific enough. It doesn't matter "what the patent is about", if it can be interpreted to be about something else as well and used as a weapon that way, sooner or later it will be.
Secondly, the patent consists of 75 claims...
Sure. There may be some valid claims. Since when that means that invalid ones should be allowed to hitchhike along with them? Unfortunately "violating" one of the invalid claims is enough.
If by "complex" and "ingenious" you mean perhaps 10 lines of code it takes to check if buffer has been changed (=realtime), search it for a TODO and put results in a listbox, then yes, it's very complex and ingenious. I generally reserve bit more weight for those words, "trivial" and "obvious" would be the fitting ones.
Some of the other claims may indeed be valid, but compromising ANY of them is enough to violate.
I know for a fact that the KT133 had no such feature.
It had (or at least most MB's had), but it was a BIOS feature and too slow to react to something like fallen off hs unlike the mobern mb's. But fine for failed fan, which is much more likely scenario anyway.
More often than not, "choked" CPU's are only slightly slower than their hi-end counterparts and are nevertheless much slower. I much prefer good price/performance ratio to few percent speed increase.
Joe Sixpacks, on the other hand, don't know what they need and fall prey to snake oil salesmen and Big Numbers -syndrome.
Re:Using the right tool for the job
on
OpenGL in PHP
·
· Score: 1
And one more time. Explain to me how the object orientation of PHP is that much different then python.
You're talking about PHP5, right? Everyone agress that PHP4's OO is piece of crap and nothing more than bit of syntactic sugar. PHP5 that hasn't even been released yet...
OO implementation in PHP5 may well be quite nice and full-featured, but, just like Perls, it's still add-on in a late stage of language and the combination is whole lot different from something like Python that's build from ground up to be OO and only OO.
Most obvious example would be the libraries. Are you willing to write everything from scratch instead of using whatever comes with PHP or can be found as 3rd party code. No? Oops, no OO here, your code will be a hodgepodge of OO and non-OO. Python's standard library is obviously OO since Python has been OO from the beginning.
Why am I even explaining this, it should be obvious to anyone...
Perl fan lecturing that language should promote, or better yet, ENFORCE, good programming practices? And blaming another language for that fault?
If there's language that doesn't do that, it's Perl, if you need to name one language that has most unreadable code in the world written in it, it's Perl.
Re:Are there any advantages other than licensing?
on
Mandrakelinux Goes X.org
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
New features to X protocol have always been done as extensions that are not needed for core parts but may be useful for specialized applications, no reason for this to change, focus in desktop or not.
Is this new "desktop" going to be like Aqua where you can only use a tiny handful of high end video cards?
Yes. In a sense that they may allow extensions and patches that make use of features in high-end video cards. This stuff is not unheard of in XFree86 either. XRender, XVideo anyone?
Or are they going to cater to the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop until it can do Doom at 333FPS! crowd?
Yes. Again, if someone has something to give that makes Doom (it already goes way over 333FPS btw) or 3D graphics in general run faster, why not? DRI anyone?
Are they going to dump their traditional policy-neutral stance and tell us what window managers and environments to use?
No.
And what about those of us who don't use Linux, will we be left behind as X.org makes the software kernel specific?
Linus would never allow graphics core in kernel, Linux is not Windows. Nevertheless let's pretend it is, if X.org would do, for example, performance sensitive parts of drivers in kernel space like NVidia and ATI, again: So what? It would still work in your OS, albeit bit slower.
They are _adding_ optional stuff. Not removing. Not replacing.
Don't think that cuddly penguin hasn't helped Linux.
Now that Linux and effect naming has in success both came up, can't help but wonder would the history have been different if Funet folks would have kept the name (Freax) Linus gave to his newborn OS?
No idea about NVidia, but current ATI drivers do not work "out of the box", they need unofficial patches and even with them there are problems with XVideo that were not there with XFree86 4.3.0.
So, for most part you're correct but it takes a bit of work and some things aren't quite optimal... I'm sure this will be fixed with next official release, though.
Yes, everyone and their mother knows java is fast enough for number crunching and server-side applications that are never restarted and have gigs of memory dedicated for themselves.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's "fast" enough for desktop were the deal is not how fast it is but how fast it FEELS. Java still has problems in this area, most importantly: startup times are too slow, swing is slow, it's a memory hog.
Both are quite useful and easy languages for all kinds of tasks, having used both for a while, I now prefer Python to be quite a lot better since it has, including but not limited to:
a) Vastly better library support for most things (can be quite important even for non-GUI tasks, even more so for them) both out-of-the box and available as 3rd party software. b) I'm having severe case of '$' allergy (no, not money!). If they had to cross C with something, why, oh why it had to be Perl or SH? c) Syntax. I know some people (well, at least those who haven't tried ) hate the whitespace sensitivity, but it grows to you... d) Much better interactive interpreter for testing simple things and changing them on the fly out before you write them to stone.
The SCO fiasco crap could have easily ended if Linus could produce some sort of audit trail, send it to SCO, and say "here's who contributed what, go take it up with the author".
No it couldn't have.
As others have stated, there IS a trail, but that's not even important. SCO was not looking for facts - heck, they knew damn well from the beginning that there was no violation - they would've ran away from any such documents, no point starting a good FUD-show just to spoil it with truth.
The other option is, of course, Longhorn, using XAML and various other Windows technologies. An open standard available before Longhorn is released would almost definitely become the defacto standard, simply because there is a demand for this.
Have you looked at XUL? It's rather similar to XAML (xml based interface/application definition framework), and they don't come much more open than that.
Mozilla and *fox/bird are built on top of it so it ought to be "rich" enough for just about everything, not to mention very cross-platform.
Sun did this years ago with Java. Why wasn't it successful?
Because applets take aeons to start up and hog tremendous amounts of memory. JVM start-up is a big problem with every stand-alone java app and vastly more so with applets.
Because it was implemented as a plugin instead of part of web browser for better integrated approach.
Because Microsoft tried hard to kill it with broken implementation in IE.
If MS releases XAML specs so that it is indeed a standard and allows everyone to make their own compatible implementation of it, fine, it's not evil.
But every last one person should see how unlikely that is, and that is why they're against XAML.
Here's an idea! If YOU want to be the one to make the standards, think of stuff first, rather than bitching about it when you have to play catch-up.
Mozilla already thought of it. They even implemented it. Then they proceeded to built their flagships on top of it. What was it, six or five YEARS ago? Microsoft is the one playing catch-up, despite the fact that XUL isn't very widely used outside the Mozilla browsers themselves.
Mozilla already has a way of developing non-html-hack web applications, and has had since it's beginning since Mozilla itself is built on that framework.
Slashdot Mirror
Java works just fine on both FF and Moz.
You need to have Sun JRE/JDK installed, but that's it. MSDN works as well, though it's bit more traditional instead of the icky dhtml folding trees and other crap they have there for IE.
Neither Firefox or Konqueror render any fonts themselves, that'd be reinventing the wheel in worst way possible.
Anyway, are you using GTK2 builds of FF, instead of versions built against ancient gtk+ 1.x?
Yes, this is absolutely the single most important thing in making the decision.
As the others have noted, Greens are unique in that they have unified stance on this matter with good guys across whole Europe. And quite a few other things seem to be pretty nice in that direction.
Unfortunately, they're Greens. I can't stand their pseudo-environmental knee-jerk reaction against nuclear power and biotechnology, that has nothing to do with rational thought of real environmental issues and more with feelings. Looks like Left Alliance has to do as a compromise, not that there aren't problems in their views as well..
No single MEP seems to fit, parties even less so.
You are early.
But that's the "main" voting, pre-election was everywhere last week, AFAIK.
That can't hurt, but it won't really help either.
The real place to start is this weekend at voting booth.
Treaties should be constrained to only adopt existing US laws in a global context.
Did I read that correctly? You just stated that:
The notoriously bad US laws should be extended to plaque the whole world, but nothing from the outside should in any way influence the US.
Are there NO LIMITS at all for your self centricism? If you want to isolate, it should work both ways.
Thus, I propose the following alternative: US should be separated from the rest of the world, any communication or transportation of persons or objects to/from it should be prevented, either by law or something bit more effective.
A patent is not invalid just because it's obvious.
Yes it is. Saying that confirms you know nothing about patents. Well, not really, since you confirmed it earlier by ranting about blah not being as smart as someone else and patenting it first, because something that has already been done by someone else can not be patented, it doesn't matter if that someone applied a patent for it first or not, it's still prior art.
People who say "THEY CAN'T HAVE THAT PATENT!! IT'S TOO OBVIOUS!!" are in the
realm of sour grapes.
No, they are in realm of reality, and withing scope of law(s), USPTO is in real of wonderland.
"1. A computer-implemented method for managing development-related tasks, the method comprising: during an interactive code development session, " shows pretty clearly that the patent is about an IDE.
The title may be about an IDE, "interactive code development session" CAN be about one too, but then again it can also be about something that is not an IDE. Its nowhere specific enough. It doesn't matter "what the patent is about", if it can be interpreted to be about something else as well and used as a weapon that way, sooner or later it will be.
Secondly, the patent consists of 75 claims...
Sure. There may be some valid claims. Since when that means that invalid ones should be allowed to hitchhike along with them? Unfortunately "violating" one of the invalid claims is enough.
If by "complex" and "ingenious" you mean perhaps 10 lines of code it takes to check if buffer has been changed (=realtime), search it for a TODO and put results in a listbox, then yes, it's very complex and ingenious. I generally reserve bit more weight for those words, "trivial" and "obvious" would be the fitting ones.
Some of the other claims may indeed be valid, but compromising ANY of them is enough to violate.
I know for a fact that the KT133 had no such feature.
It had (or at least most MB's had), but it was a BIOS feature and too slow to react to something like fallen off hs unlike the mobern mb's. But fine for failed fan, which is much more likely scenario anyway.
That as much as we like to rip on 'choked' CPU's
We do? Really?
More often than not, "choked" CPU's are only slightly slower than their hi-end counterparts and are nevertheless much slower. I much prefer good price/performance ratio to few percent speed increase.
Joe Sixpacks, on the other hand, don't know what they need and fall prey to snake oil salesmen and Big Numbers -syndrome.
And one more time. Explain to me how the object orientation of PHP is that much different then python.
You're talking about PHP5, right? Everyone agress that PHP4's OO is piece of crap and nothing more than bit of syntactic sugar. PHP5 that hasn't even been released yet...
OO implementation in PHP5 may well be quite nice and full-featured, but, just like Perls, it's still add-on in a late stage of language and the combination is whole lot different from something like Python that's build from ground up to be OO and only OO.
Most obvious example would be the libraries. Are you willing to write everything from scratch instead of using whatever comes with PHP or can be found as 3rd party code. No? Oops, no OO here, your code will be a hodgepodge of OO and non-OO. Python's standard library is obviously OO since Python has been OO from the beginning.
Why am I even explaining this, it should be obvious to anyone...
Perl fan lecturing that language should promote, or better yet, ENFORCE, good programming practices? And blaming another language for that fault?
If there's language that doesn't do that, it's Perl, if you need to name one language that has most unreadable code in the world written in it, it's Perl.
New features to X protocol have always been done as extensions that are not needed for core parts but may be useful for specialized applications, no reason for this to change, focus in desktop or not.
Is this new "desktop" going to be like Aqua where you can only use a tiny handful of high end video cards?
Yes. In a sense that they may allow extensions and patches that make use of features in high-end video cards. This stuff is not unheard of in XFree86 either. XRender, XVideo anyone?
Or are they going to cater to the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop until it can do Doom at 333FPS! crowd?
Yes. Again, if someone has something to give that makes Doom (it already goes way over 333FPS btw) or 3D graphics in general run faster, why not? DRI anyone?
Are they going to dump their traditional policy-neutral stance and tell us what window managers and environments to use?
No.
And what about those of us who don't use Linux, will we be left behind as X.org makes the software kernel specific?
Linus would never allow graphics core in kernel, Linux is not Windows. Nevertheless let's pretend it is, if X.org would do, for example, performance sensitive parts of drivers in kernel space like NVidia and ATI, again: So what? It would still work in your OS, albeit bit slower.
They are _adding_ optional stuff. Not removing. Not replacing.
Don't think that cuddly penguin hasn't helped Linux.
Now that Linux and effect naming has in success both came up, can't help but wonder would the history have been different if Funet folks would have kept the name (Freax) Linus gave to his newborn OS?
No idea about NVidia, but current ATI drivers do not work "out of the box", they need unofficial patches and even with them there are problems with XVideo that were not there with XFree86 4.3.0.
So, for most part you're correct but it takes a bit of work and some things aren't quite optimal... I'm sure this will be fixed with next official release, though.
Yes, everyone and their mother knows java is fast enough for number crunching and server-side applications that are never restarted and have gigs of memory dedicated for themselves.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's "fast" enough for desktop were the deal is not how fast it is but how fast it FEELS. Java still has problems in this area, most importantly: startup times are too slow, swing is slow, it's a memory hog.
As if Python hasn't got useful and fun CLI mode.
Both are quite useful and easy languages for all kinds of tasks, having used both for a while, I now prefer Python to be quite a lot better since it has, including but not limited to:
a) Vastly better library support for most things (can be quite important even for non-GUI tasks, even more so for them) both out-of-the box and available as 3rd party software.
b) I'm having severe case of '$' allergy (no, not money!). If they had to cross C with something, why, oh why it had to be Perl or SH?
c) Syntax. I know some people (well, at least those who haven't tried ) hate the whitespace sensitivity, but it grows to you...
d) Much better interactive interpreter for testing simple things and changing them on the fly out before you write them to stone.
The SCO fiasco crap could have easily ended if Linus could produce some sort of audit trail, send it to SCO, and say "here's who contributed what, go take it up with the author".
No it couldn't have.
As others have stated, there IS a trail, but that's not even important. SCO was not looking for facts - heck, they knew damn well from the beginning that there was no violation - they would've ran away from any such documents, no point starting a good FUD-show just to spoil it with truth.
Bah. Real joysticks (read: TAC-2) could not be worn out no matter how hard you tried.
The other option is, of course, Longhorn, using XAML and various other Windows technologies. An open standard available before Longhorn is released would almost definitely become the defacto standard, simply because there is a demand for this.
Have you looked at XUL? It's rather similar to XAML (xml based interface/application definition framework), and they don't come much more open than that.
Mozilla and *fox/bird are built on top of it so it ought to be "rich" enough for just about everything, not to mention very cross-platform.
There are quite a few fancy and slick CSS tricks that IE hasn't even dreamt of that work on Mozilla.
So yes it does, but the problem is you never see those outside nifty demo sites, since no web developer will do anything that doesn't work in IE.
XAML is not evil because it's from Microsoft.
It's evil because it's Microsoft _ONLY_.
If MS releases XAML specs so that it is indeed a standard and allows everyone to make their own compatible implementation of it, fine, it's not evil.
But every last one person should see how unlikely that is, and that is why they're against XAML.
Here's an idea! If YOU want to be the one to make the standards, think of stuff first, rather than bitching about it when you have to play catch-up.
Mozilla already thought of it. They even implemented it. Then they proceeded to built their flagships on top of it. What was it, six or five YEARS ago? Microsoft is the one playing catch-up, despite the fact that XUL isn't very widely used outside the Mozilla browsers themselves.
Mozilla already has a way of developing non-html-hack web applications, and has had since it's beginning since Mozilla itself is built on that framework.
It's called XUL.