Well, haXe is a Java-like language which compiles to Javascript among other languages. It's definitely general purpose enough to use in the client as well as the back-end, and it has nice libraries which make communication between them easy. It happens to compile to Flash, too. I'd imagine that any reasonably complex project could be built just about entirely in haXe.
Don't bother looking up facts for yourself or forming your own counter-argument. Just offer us the glib "citation needed" and we'll take you seriously. Right...
Counter-argument to what? He was responding to a post that made sweeping statements but contained no supporting facts at all...
Then his job of refuting the OP's claims should have been easy, if he had bothered spending a few minutes on Google. Or he might have found out that the OP was right. Either way, if he was truly interested in knowing the truth of the matter rather than expecting others to do his research for him, the rest of us wouldn't have to wade through the dozens of useless "citation needed" responses from slashdotters who think they're terribly clever.
"Citation needed" simply doesn't progress the conversation to anything useful, whether or not the OP really should have substantiated his claims.
It's true that Windows has been losing ground, but it's OSX that has been gaining, they are up to almost 10% share last time I looked, just a few years ago they were at less than 5%, so that's pretty darn good.
Not sure where the 10% is coming from, but your supposed 5% stat from a few years ago seems to be more accurate for today'smarketshare.
If you're running your business on OS X Server, I'd be quite concerned if it was internet-facing or doing anything critical on a local network with smart people attached. OS X may be a great desktop operating system (apart from security concerns), but it's really got a scary security track record at this point.
Students have to have their machines pass registration? That would be more than enough to make me not even consider your college. Or maybe that's more typical than I realize... I hope not.
Although I suspect it happens with less frequency these days, too many open source users are met with hostile "code it yourself" or "I'm not interested in that..." responses when they ask for help with a problem.
Generally, I agree with each of your items, but on this bit I think you overstate the (mostly unfair IMO) perception that open source developers are unhelpful. We can be unhelpful or even hostile, but in my own experience, the vast majority of developers are very helpful and willing to offer suggestions even if they're not completely interested in producing a coded solution. I don't think it's hostile for an open source developer to tell you he isn't interested; after all, that's the only reason he's coding anything in the first place. If it then happens that his software is not going to be able to be what you need, you may find someone else who is interested in solving that problem. The bottom line is, open source developers like it when other people find their software useful and are often willing to make people happy, so I wouldn't say that open source developers have a more hostile attitude toward customers than many developers and support departments of proprietary software. Otherwise, good points.
As a GPL advocate, the GP can't fathom why a company like Apple would willingly release code under a free license so that the community can benefit. He has been living by his apparently false belief that we need the over-complicated GPL (along with its inherent incompatibilities with other freer licenses) to force companies to give back. He's been conditioned to believe that the GPL has high value and utility in keeping code free, when in reality companies do give to non-GPL licensed free software projects like Apache PostgreSQL without being coerced.
Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason.
I'm not one who looks for every excuse to not like Microsoft, but I'm responding here because I personally don't know anyone in my own circle who thinks this is true. On the contrary, most people I've come across find it rather bloated and clunky as an IDE. That's not to say that Microsoft doesn't have good development tools in general;.NET and C#, although nice, aren't my cup of tea since I tend to stick with very cross-platform solutions.
but I suppose Linus' strange opinion on in-kernel audio mixing is really the problem.
It would be nice if Linus would ever admit that he's wrong. I mean, okay Linus, you made a mistake. It turns out that mixing works out better in the kernel. We don't think any less of you just because you made a mistake, so just change your opinion, allow OSS4 into the kernel, and we'll all move on. Actually, we think a lot less of you every time you're too sissy or big-headed to admit you're human.
Who cares what the human resource department thinks of the software that comes on the computers around the office? Is computer buying a responsibility of your organization's HR department? Glad I don't work where you work.
Yes they are confused. The point of the distinction between "free" and "open source" software is not a matter of monetary price but rather the difference between forcing derivative works under like terms versus giving software with as few strings attached as possible.
If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
The reason for this is because the day of the Linux desktop may very well come at the cost of making proprietary software easier to write and use on a Linux system. To many of us, that would equal greater freedom since it means more choice. To RMS and his disciples, that means bondage because you can't examine every single line of code on your system (which nobody ever does anyway). Therefore, in many ways, RMS and the FSF actually work against the hope of Linux making significant headway on the desktop. In my mind, the only organization which has and does make significant desktop penetration with Linux is Canonical which is not exactly a beacon of openness, but at least their idea of freedom is more in line with what the rest of us believe. That's not to say that FOSS isn't an ideal we should be pushing heavily, but at the end of the day people have got to get stuff done, and sometimes (unfortunately) the best tool for the job is proprietary.
And for those who don't want to use the GPL for whatever reason they don't have to, but they really should stop drooling over other peoples GPLed code and it does them no good to continue the endless whining about the GPL. They should spend their time writing their own software and releasing it under whatever license they want instead of writing inane articles about the GPL.
I don't see very much whining from BSD-style license advocates wanting to use GPL code, although it is sometimes the other way around (i.e. Linux users wanting ZFS, etc). Most of the whining from the BSD side is actually about Linux people taking BSD code, and that usually originates from OpenBSD. Such types are noteably more uptight than the vast majority on the BSD side who are much more chill and probably enjoy life more.
The point, though, is that the supposed "drooling" over GPL code by BSD people is mostly your own fabrication. That doesn't mean that many BSD license advocates don't express their more liberal point-of-view while pointing out reasons why they prefer BSD/X11/MIT/zlib-type licenses over the GPL, but I don't know why you would take offense to people sharing their opinions and pass it off as "whining."
Err, have you checked the android app store lately? Does you iphone have turn-by-turn directions?
Umm, yeah.
Can you i-phone be used as a metal-detector?
Thank god no.
Did you iphone come with copy-and-paste enabled?
Yeah...
Can your iphone use google voice?
Don't know, don't care. I don't use it.
How much do your iphone apps add to the total cost of your phone?
I've spent ~ $10 on 3rd-party apps. Most of them were free, the rest I have no problems shelling out a couple bucks to support development of useful apps (in case I wasn't clear, I wouldn't put a metal detector under this category).
I've yet to have to pay for an andriod app, but did dump some money toward andnav2. Is there anything even close to Enkin for iPhone?
No clue, don't know what that is. Apparently I'm living fine without it though, however amazing it may be.
There is nothing wrong with the hardware; pictures / advertisements of the Android don't do it any justice. The functionality that the keyboard and trackball on the G1 provides crush any hardware extras the iPhone may have.
I'm glad you like it. I haven't been able to use one personally because I've never even seen one. The majority of opinions I've seen from the few people who have actually held one, however, is that the G1 is bulky. If that's true, it would be worth it to me to shell out some more dough to have a phone that doesn't bulge in my pocket. My own opinion of course.
At $97 the Android is more than competitively priced. How much did all your iPhone apps end up costing you?
We've been over this: ~ $10. And I do have plenty of them which I use regularly. Hasn't exactly broken the bank.
Every app I've downloaded for android has been free (most in both senses). Most of all, why would i want to buy a phone that requires me to void my warranty if I ever wanted to develop my own personal apps for it?
I don't know, but you seem to be under the delusion that voiding the warranty of an iPhone is required to put your own apps on it. If you had any credibility left at this point, it completely evaporated. Pay a measly $99 bucks and load your apps on your own phone to your heart's content. Unlike developing apps on Android, you'll be happy to know the iPhone SDK documentation is very good, so you'll have your apps written and loaded in no time.
Why must every criticism of Obama be related back to racism?
Of course the answer is that it's an easy way for people to ignore and get away without confronting the real issues when other people bring up valid criticisms of President Obama's policies.
I believe Microsoft invented the idea of "licensing" software. They licensed DOS, which they bought from some other guy, to IBM and made bank. Such deals with IBM et al. allowed them to quickly dominate the relatively infant "PC" market, and the rest is history. They've been delivering abuse ever since.
I think you are generally right, however I agree with the exception in this case only because Microsoft is a proven monopoly, and we need things like this to put them on a more even playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I think the name of that document is quite tame. I know of other projects with a lot more "personality" than that...
Well, haXe is a Java-like language which compiles to Javascript among other languages. It's definitely general purpose enough to use in the client as well as the back-end, and it has nice libraries which make communication between them easy. It happens to compile to Flash, too. I'd imagine that any reasonably complex project could be built just about entirely in haXe.
Don't bother looking up facts for yourself or forming your own counter-argument. Just offer us the glib "citation needed" and we'll take you seriously. Right...
Counter-argument to what? He was responding to a post that made sweeping statements but contained no supporting facts at all...
Then his job of refuting the OP's claims should have been easy, if he had bothered spending a few minutes on Google. Or he might have found out that the OP was right. Either way, if he was truly interested in knowing the truth of the matter rather than expecting others to do his research for him, the rest of us wouldn't have to wade through the dozens of useless "citation needed" responses from slashdotters who think they're terribly clever.
"Citation needed" simply doesn't progress the conversation to anything useful, whether or not the OP really should have substantiated his claims.
It's true that Windows has been losing ground, but it's OSX that has been gaining, they are up to almost 10% share last time I looked, just a few years ago they were at less than 5%, so that's pretty darn good.
Not sure where the 10% is coming from, but your supposed 5% stat from a few years ago seems to be more accurate for today's market share.
If you're running your business on OS X Server, I'd be quite concerned if it was internet-facing or doing anything critical on a local network with smart people attached. OS X may be a great desktop operating system (apart from security concerns), but it's really got a scary security track record at this point.
Students have to have their machines pass registration? That would be more than enough to make me not even consider your college. Or maybe that's more typical than I realize... I hope not.
Nowadays, the Wall Street Journal is looking considerably more respectable compared to the unfortunate rag which the New York Times has turned into.
Is the NYT hurting that badly for advertisers? ...
Although I suspect it happens with less frequency these days, too many open source users are met with hostile "code it yourself" or "I'm not interested in that..." responses when they ask for help with a problem.
Generally, I agree with each of your items, but on this bit I think you overstate the (mostly unfair IMO) perception that open source developers are unhelpful. We can be unhelpful or even hostile, but in my own experience, the vast majority of developers are very helpful and willing to offer suggestions even if they're not completely interested in producing a coded solution. I don't think it's hostile for an open source developer to tell you he isn't interested; after all, that's the only reason he's coding anything in the first place. If it then happens that his software is not going to be able to be what you need, you may find someone else who is interested in solving that problem. The bottom line is, open source developers like it when other people find their software useful and are often willing to make people happy, so I wouldn't say that open source developers have a more hostile attitude toward customers than many developers and support departments of proprietary software. Otherwise, good points.
Switch to Gentoo.
As a GPL advocate, the GP can't fathom why a company like Apple would willingly release code under a free license so that the community can benefit. He has been living by his apparently false belief that we need the over-complicated GPL (along with its inherent incompatibilities with other freer licenses) to force companies to give back. He's been conditioned to believe that the GPL has high value and utility in keeping code free, when in reality companies do give to non-GPL licensed free software projects like Apache PostgreSQL without being coerced.
Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason.
I'm not one who looks for every excuse to not like Microsoft, but I'm responding here because I personally don't know anyone in my own circle who thinks this is true. On the contrary, most people I've come across find it rather bloated and clunky as an IDE. That's not to say that Microsoft doesn't have good development tools in general; .NET and C#, although nice, aren't my cup of tea since I tend to stick with very cross-platform solutions.
but I suppose Linus' strange opinion on in-kernel audio mixing is really the problem.
It would be nice if Linus would ever admit that he's wrong. I mean, okay Linus, you made a mistake. It turns out that mixing works out better in the kernel. We don't think any less of you just because you made a mistake, so just change your opinion, allow OSS4 into the kernel, and we'll all move on. Actually, we think a lot less of you every time you're too sissy or big-headed to admit you're human.
Who cares what the human resource department thinks of the software that comes on the computers around the office? Is computer buying a responsibility of your organization's HR department? Glad I don't work where you work.
Yes they are confused. The point of the distinction between "free" and "open source" software is not a matter of monetary price but rather the difference between forcing derivative works under like terms versus giving software with as few strings attached as possible.
If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
The reason for this is because the day of the Linux desktop may very well come at the cost of making proprietary software easier to write and use on a Linux system. To many of us, that would equal greater freedom since it means more choice. To RMS and his disciples, that means bondage because you can't examine every single line of code on your system (which nobody ever does anyway). Therefore, in many ways, RMS and the FSF actually work against the hope of Linux making significant headway on the desktop. In my mind, the only organization which has and does make significant desktop penetration with Linux is Canonical which is not exactly a beacon of openness, but at least their idea of freedom is more in line with what the rest of us believe. That's not to say that FOSS isn't an ideal we should be pushing heavily, but at the end of the day people have got to get stuff done, and sometimes (unfortunately) the best tool for the job is proprietary.
Protip:
Even better.
Plus distcc and crossdev make building a small cluster braindead simple, even with many different architectures.
Or the fact that they didn't bother to change the guy's hand or at least lighten the tone a bit.
And for those who don't want to use the GPL for whatever reason they don't have to, but they really should stop drooling over other peoples GPLed code and it does them no good to continue the endless whining about the GPL. They should spend their time writing their own software and releasing it under whatever license they want instead of writing inane articles about the GPL.
I don't see very much whining from BSD-style license advocates wanting to use GPL code, although it is sometimes the other way around (i.e. Linux users wanting ZFS, etc). Most of the whining from the BSD side is actually about Linux people taking BSD code, and that usually originates from OpenBSD. Such types are noteably more uptight than the vast majority on the BSD side who are much more chill and probably enjoy life more.
The point, though, is that the supposed "drooling" over GPL code by BSD people is mostly your own fabrication. That doesn't mean that many BSD license advocates don't express their more liberal point-of-view while pointing out reasons why they prefer BSD/X11/MIT/zlib-type licenses over the GPL, but I don't know why you would take offense to people sharing their opinions and pass it off as "whining."
Err, have you checked the android app store lately? Does you iphone have turn-by-turn directions?
Umm, yeah.
Can you i-phone be used as a metal-detector?
Thank god no.
Did you iphone come with copy-and-paste enabled?
Yeah...
Can your iphone use google voice?
Don't know, don't care. I don't use it.
How much do your iphone apps add to the total cost of your phone?
I've spent ~ $10 on 3rd-party apps. Most of them were free, the rest I have no problems shelling out a couple bucks to support development of useful apps (in case I wasn't clear, I wouldn't put a metal detector under this category).
I've yet to have to pay for an andriod app, but did dump some money toward andnav2. Is there anything even close to Enkin for iPhone?
No clue, don't know what that is. Apparently I'm living fine without it though, however amazing it may be.
There is nothing wrong with the hardware; pictures / advertisements of the Android don't do it any justice. The functionality that the keyboard and trackball on the G1 provides crush any hardware extras the iPhone may have.
I'm glad you like it. I haven't been able to use one personally because I've never even seen one. The majority of opinions I've seen from the few people who have actually held one, however, is that the G1 is bulky. If that's true, it would be worth it to me to shell out some more dough to have a phone that doesn't bulge in my pocket. My own opinion of course.
At $97 the Android is more than competitively priced. How much did all your iPhone apps end up costing you?
We've been over this: ~ $10. And I do have plenty of them which I use regularly. Hasn't exactly broken the bank.
Every app I've downloaded for android has been free (most in both senses). Most of all, why would i want to buy a phone that requires me to void my warranty if I ever wanted to develop my own personal apps for it?
I don't know, but you seem to be under the delusion that voiding the warranty of an iPhone is required to put your own apps on it. If you had any credibility left at this point, it completely evaporated. Pay a measly $99 bucks and load your apps on your own phone to your heart's content. Unlike developing apps on Android, you'll be happy to know the iPhone SDK documentation is very good, so you'll have your apps written and loaded in no time.
Why must every criticism of Obama be related back to racism?
Of course the answer is that it's an easy way for people to ignore and get away without confronting the real issues when other people bring up valid criticisms of President Obama's policies.
It goes back to the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" thing. Apple certainly is not a monopoly in the PC industry. Different rules apply.
I believe Microsoft invented the idea of "licensing" software. They licensed DOS, which they bought from some other guy, to IBM and made bank. Such deals with IBM et al. allowed them to quickly dominate the relatively infant "PC" market, and the rest is history. They've been delivering abuse ever since.
I think you are generally right, however I agree with the exception in this case only because Microsoft is a proven monopoly, and we need things like this to put them on a more even playing field.
So again, how does that apply to companies who try to sell proprietary versions of Apache software?