Whether Alan Cox (or whomever) uses patches or some other source control (like arch) (a) you still have to download the software from a remote site (i.e., the Net) and (b) Alan still has control over what makes it into his repository.
The point is that it allows separate developers (AC, AA, LT, etc. in the kernal case) all to maintain their OWN trees while enjoying the powers of source control software. The added benefit of arch is that their separate trees are all connected without having to give write-permission to each other.
While I love many things about python, one thing bothers me. It seems that it's the interpreter that defines the language rather than a language defining how the interpreter should act.
One example is the "++", "--" etc. operators and another is the functionality path module. I often write scripts with 2.0 at work only to find thy don't run on my Debian 2.2 system at home (stable Debian's python is 1.5.2).
Are there any plans to set some kind of standard language specification that will hold for a while?
Does being allowed to settle such a suit with rebates worth less than the cost of a zipdrive strike anyone as a little odd? (Maybe the cigarette companies should have tried this tactic.)
Sure does! My damn drive hasn't worked in over a year. What a waste. I'll pay the $3.50 to mail it back for a $30-$40 rebate.
Besides, with the current state of CD Writer and Re-Writers why would I want to carry around a 100 Mb (or even 250 Mb) hunk of disk. My thesis won't even fit on that!
Release early and often sucks when you pay big bucks for each release
The current status of bugs and features is well known, documented and available
This quick feedback is the result of a suddenly increased user (i.e., debugger) base and is part of the open source model. These same fixes may have taken months with out the x.0 relase
Don't be so sure. I've read most of Knuth's The TeXBook which describes how TeX (and hence LaTeX) actually works. It's remarcably complex. The first sentance of a paragraph can't be outputted (displayed) until the entire paragraph AND entire page are read, parsed, and optimized for display. This is how TeX minimizes hyphenation, orphans, poor inter-word spacing due to justification, etc.
In light of this, what others have said about (La)TeX not having to "re-render" the page if a window is resized is wrong. That would be akin to changing margins, page length, etc. That would be starting from scratch
What others have said is correct. (La)TeX is not meant for the web environment. That being said, it would be nice if there was a better way to unify the power of *Tex and the flexablity of HTML, XML, etc. (Perhaps XHTML does this -- I don't know). For this reason, I've actually been looking more into RMS's TeXInfo system. The downfall there is that one has to know all of the languages in questions: (La)Tex, HTML, INFO, etc.
Wouldn't it be nice -- espically for people who move often -- if you could have an online account with the USPS which would have your current smail address. Then, on letters or other postal mail, you could just write patnotz@usps.gov; the USPS would pull your physical address off your account... just a thought
Ok, so your nameserver might be a tad slower so what? Why not just http://gnu/, http://slashdot/, http://microsoft/, etc. ? Then the FSF could hand out emacs.gnu, gnome.gnu etc.
When publishing a article in a (respectable) research journal, academic peers always write reviews making recommendations and criticisms of the work. I'm always amazed at how my research advisor can read a review and pin-point who reviewed it within in minutes. Granted, the lists of suspects is fairly small but still. From the style of the writing (even how it's formatted: MS Word/LaTeX, etc), references, spelling (color or colour?), and criticisms (i.e., what the reviewer thinks is interesting and what s/he doesn't).
It's not useless either. Knowing the reviewer really helps in writing a rebutal that will get your paper accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether Alan Cox (or whomever) uses patches or some other source control (like arch) (a) you still have to download the software from a remote site (i.e., the Net) and (b) Alan still has control over what makes it into his repository.
The point is that it allows separate developers (AC, AA, LT, etc. in the kernal case) all to maintain their OWN trees while enjoying the powers of source control software. The added benefit of arch is that their separate trees are all connected without having to give write-permission to each other.
My mistake. I meant "+=", "-=" etc. operators. Sorry.
Are there any plans to set some kind of standard language specification that will hold for a while?
Sure does! My damn drive hasn't worked in over a year. What a waste. I'll pay the $3.50 to mail it back for a $30-$40 rebate.
Besides, with the current state of CD Writer and Re-Writers why would I want to carry around a 100 Mb (or even 250 Mb) hunk of disk. My thesis won't even fit on that!
Give me the open development model any day!
#include "debian-has-done-this-for-years.h"
Don't be so sure. I've read most of Knuth's The TeXBook which describes how TeX (and hence LaTeX) actually works. It's remarcably complex. The first sentance of a paragraph can't be outputted (displayed) until the entire paragraph AND entire page are read, parsed, and optimized for display. This is how TeX minimizes hyphenation, orphans, poor inter-word spacing due to justification, etc.
In light of this, what others have said about (La)TeX not having to "re-render" the page if a window is resized is wrong. That would be akin to changing margins, page length, etc. That would be starting from scratch
What others have said is correct. (La)TeX is not meant for the web environment. That being said, it would be nice if there was a better way to unify the power of *Tex and the flexablity of HTML, XML, etc. (Perhaps XHTML does this -- I don't know). For this reason, I've actually been looking more into RMS's TeXInfo system. The downfall there is that one has to know all of the languages in questions: (La)Tex, HTML, INFO, etc.
Wouldn't it be nice -- espically for people who move often -- if you could have an online account with the USPS which would have your current smail address. Then, on letters or other postal mail, you could just write patnotz@usps.gov; the USPS would pull your physical address off your account... just a thought
Ok, so your nameserver might be a tad slower so what? Why not just http://gnu/, http://slashdot/, http://microsoft/, etc. ? Then the FSF could hand out emacs.gnu, gnome.gnu etc.
The Rocket Guy Package
Includes:
- 1 rocket
- 6 boosters
- 1 centrifuge
- 1 launch pad
- 7,000 gallons of fuel
- And other accessories
(batteris not included). All this for just $249,999.95!Or, try The Rocket Guy Deluxe Package: Includes everything from the Rocket Guy Package plus
- Cosmonaut training
- Skydiving training
- Funeral Arrangments (Just in case).
For just $399,999.95!(Now where'd I put my Christmas list...?)
"Hey, that's not our fault! It must be a Pentium bug!"
When publishing a article in a (respectable) research journal, academic peers always write reviews making recommendations and criticisms of the work. I'm always amazed at how my research advisor can read a review and pin-point who reviewed it within in minutes. Granted, the lists of suspects is fairly small but still. From the style of the writing (even how it's formatted: MS Word/LaTeX, etc), references, spelling (color or colour?), and criticisms (i.e., what the reviewer thinks is interesting and what s/he doesn't).
It's not useless either. Knowing the reviewer really helps in writing a rebutal that will get your paper accepted.