for the majority of databases the data should be moved to the filesystem no the database.
I heartily disagree. Databases provide a quick and easy way of accessing data. Some data, such as photos, may be better of stored on a traditional filesystem, but you assertion that for the majority of databases is way off base, and indicates lack of experience within the industry. My entire job, and that of my colleagues, centers around programming applications to create, update, and maintain databases. The information we store could not be stored in the filesystem with any amount of security or safety. Most of the IT departments in neighboring corporations are much the same.
For Web-based corporations (Travelocity, Expedia, Amazon...), the same is pretty much true. A company with 20 to 30 32-CPU Irix machines is better off using a database backend for storing images and content. It makes more sense to utilize the indexing and storage capabilities of a database, both from a business perspective and from a safety/security/backup perspective. I know from personal experience it is much, much easier and quicker to restore a database than to restore a system (which is often necessary when a filesystem is corrupt).
Even for casual home use, a database-like system could provide benefits. It could make storage of such things as photos easier (for those without CD-Burners, e.g.) I definitely would recommend against using an RDBMS for file storage for the casual user. Most people here, I believe, are in it for the fun factor, though. Simply for the fun factor, using an RDBMS makes sense. For the practicality factor--not so much. However, in my experience, in the typical database useage scenario, what is in the database belongs in the database, and is best used in the database.
Let me, without forethought of malice, attempt to correct your misconceptions. You maintained:
"I have an idea. It's just a little thought. Please don't mod me down as a troll. Here goes... Perhaps, just maybe, the UK and French governments are more on-line than the US government because, (deep breath), they are better organised than the US government. There, I've said it. I'm probably going to burn in hell now"
You also made references to the size of the United States, and the American citizenry's assumption of superiority.
<rant>
For what it's worth, America may or may not suffer from a superiority complex. In general, however, America has been and always is willing to help out her neighbors. This has been a hallmark of US foreign policy over the last century or more, and I believe far outweighs whatever cimes conspiracy theorists allege the US has committed. Also, consider that the US is a literal melting pot of cultures and races, with each race and culture bringing its own ideas of 'superiority'. I don't think we have a superiority complex so much--rather, I think that Americans sometimes fail to understand that other countries lack some of the freedoms we consider essential, and that we oftentimes equate technological abiltity with the health of a country.
</rant>
Anyhow, neither our population, nor your perception of disorganization in our governmental system, contribute to our current lack of a centralized portal. Rather, our current lack of a highly centralized government (may it continue forever!!) is why it would be extremely difficult to create a centralized portal to government service. Consider that we have two levels of government--State and Federal. State may at their option delegate, of course, to counties, and occasionally to cities. So, we have a Federal level of services (Federal Taxes, Inter-state commerce regulation, Treasury services, Social Insecurity, etc). Then we have a State level of services (State income taxes, vehicle registration in most states, driver licensing, business licensing--e.g., doctors, nurses, lawyers--welfare, etc). Beyond that, there are county/city services (Some cities have income tax, Some cities have vehicle registration, city/county property taxes, building inspection, local business regulation--alcohol for instance, and health codes, voter registration, etc). Add to that school districts in many states--my school district also charges property taxes, and there are school registration considerations.
As you can see, there are many, many different levels of government which are independent of each other. It would be a great undertaking to tie the Federal, State, and Local services together into one portal.
Now, please don't confuse our diversity of government as disorganization. We are actually quite organized. We like things the way they are for the most part. State and Federal levels of government balance each other out and keep each other from screwing the citizens too badly. Local government--well, in non-Mafia areas, we are the local government.
Our government is divided into levels, and we like it that way. Some things are more difficult (e.g., we don't have a snazzy central portal to government services), but for the most part, our government is kept where it belongs: in the background. Americans, in general, truly do not appreciate government interference in their lives. We look to the government for things like 09/11, or the OK City bombing, or major hurricanes or earthquakes. Otherwise, we prefer the government do what we set it up to do, and to stay out of the way.
And where's the customer (the one actually paying for the service) in all of this? Left without net access even though they didn't actually break any laws since they claim they weren't even at home when the incident occurred (although I admit that's pretty weak, I can run a file server while I'm away from my computer or mess with the clock to change the upload timestamp and then claim I wasn't home when it happened). No one contacted the customer to confirm anything, it was all done because the MPAA claimed they had "evidence"!
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but did the article not maintain that the alleged piracy occurred via Usenet? Aren't Usenet 'uploads' generally posted interactively, via a news reader? So having a file server really does not matter if something is uploaded via Usenet, correct?
Also, you must consider that the retaliation was swift and unfounded. I mean, how easy is it to spoof an IP address? If you were going to upload illegal material, wouldn't you go to some effort to make sure it couldn't be traced back to you?
The fact of the matter is, the couple was punished for an infraction most likely committed by someone else, without having a chance to contest the charge, under a law which allows companies to bypass the all-important due-process concept, and presume guilt until innocence is proven. Those very things are part of the reason the United States was created in the first place. It may have taken a couple of hundreds of years, but it appears that the U.S. has come full circle and become the very thing it fought so hard to be free of...
Flood your Senators and Representatives. They're there for us, and I believe that if it comes to a choice between having a job and paycheck, or the occasional free vacation/hooker/dinner/whatever, the lure of job security will win out. If it doesn't, we indict for corruption...
Being so-called "GPL-compliant" has little to do with whether or not your license permits/prevents actions which are 'illegal' under the GPL. Being GPL-compliant has much to do with whether or not RMS got laid on the day he makes the decision.
Seriously, though, many, if not most, of the licenses that the FSF tags as "non-compliant" are indeed "compliant". Your lawyer is the final authority, not RMS. If you have a package under the GPL, and want to include packages not under the GPL, you should consult your lawyer, not RMS. Or hell, just read the damn licenses! If you have a GPL program, it is perfectly permissible to link against non-GPL libraries, provided you satisfy the license of the libraries (e.g., pay them their royalty, etc). The only time I can imagine this would be a problem is if the library owner required you to keep secret the exported API of the library.
The GPL requires that software licensed under the GPL must have the source code available and freely distributable. It does NOT require that packages you link against be under, or even "compatible" with, the GPL. As long as the package you link against does not require that it's API be kept secret (thereby requiring your code to be closed), link away and distribute under the GPL.
Personally, I feel the GPL is too restrictive. If I export an API, and other people use that API, that's perfectly OK, even if their package is proprietary! As long as the library license is satisfied (e.g., do I charge money for using the license, etc), people are free to link to it and keep their code closed or open, as they see fit. If they take my code (i.e., my library package), and modify it, then the modifications need to be returned to me, and kept public. THAT is the type of license we need--not some license which is getting too big for its britches.
RMS is not about creativity. He's not about fostering new and innovative development. RMS is about forcing every single piece of software in the world to be "open-source". The only reason for the LGPL is because if he didn't have it, RMS knew people would not use his beloved GNU system.
Me, I believe there is a valid and important need for proprietary software. "Free software" is not a duty of the developer. Providing quality software is. It is neither ethical nor even technically right, in spirit or in fact, to require a developer to make his/her source code open to the world. Whether or not a developer/company decides to publish program source is purely up to the company. Source code represents a significant investment of time and money, and the decision to just throw that away is a very serious decision. RMS condemns people/companies out-of-hand if they make what he considers a wrong decision. RMS is not God. RMS does not sign their paychecks. RMS does not pay their rent or house payments. RMS is not accountable to their stockholders. We are a capitalist society. Capitalism works, and works well. Even China has realized that, as she slowly begins to allow her citizens to venture into private enterprise. RMS wants to socialize software. Socializing software will never work. Software is an asset, and only belongs to the community when the owner makes it so. If I work on a house for Habitat for Humanity, I donate my skills--this is my choice. If I work on a house for profit, I sell my skills, and am not condemned for doing so. The same principle should apply to software. It's too bad so many people blindly follow RMS without truly thinking about it.
I'm realy gratified by many of the posts here./. readers can post some knee-jerk reactions at times, but this is not one of them. We can control big business, by our dollars and reverse engineering, and competing technologies. If you think back, most of what corporations now do wrong has been allowed or promoted by big government (excepting perhaps tax evasion). Things like the DMCA in the US are pointed and painful reminders of the reasons just why governemt should stay out of big business regulation.
Lay down the basic tenets: no murder, no/minimal pollution, no stealing (of money, anyhow--industrial espionage will never stop...). Yeah, maybe that's a dreamworld, but the less government interference, the better. IMO, this would definitely give consumers a more even chance in courts--right now, we have none or little, with respect to technology. Other industries vary some (witness McDonald's and hot coffee). Overall, however, fighting corporations (where we have a certain amount of choice) is much easier to do than fighting the government (and yes, I've called and dealt with tech support before...).
The "problem" arises when you expect to compile something "for linux" without releasing any source. In that case you have to support every distro, every version of kernel, every version of every dependent library... but that's your choice for being binary-only.
This is not strictly true. Most applications are well-written enough to work across glibc versions. Most glibc versions are written (or rather, unpatched enoughed, depending on distro) well enough that most applications will not break when glibc is upgraded. One glaring exception is StarOffice--if you'll recall, at one time StarOffice was using private internals of the c library. That's was bad coding on SO's part--not compatibility-breaking by glibc. Another example I can think of (please someone tell me if you've fixed this) is IBM's JDK 1.3--it doesn't work with glibc 2.1.94, as far as I can tell. Sun's JDK, however, works great still.
The point is, I can write an application, for profit, closed source, and distribute it in binary-only form, and have a sure expectation that it will work on a majority of glibc-based systems. That's making the very reasonable assumption that I write my code in such a way that it is NOT relying on private internals of the library, or on known bugs in the library.
Someone else made a suggestion that glibc should be a skeleton, and the internals stored elsewhere. I submit that that is already the type of model glibc follows. Even were glibc to store it's body somewhere else, and present only the skeleton, someone, somewhere, would figure out how to call functions in the hidden body--and that someone would complain very loud and long about the body changing. Even though that someone KNOWS that the body functions are off-limits and subject to change without notice.
Write and link your application and pay attention to the very few caveats revealed by the GNU glibc team, and your app will run well on many different versions of glibc. Ignore the prophecies of the GNU glibc team, and you may be assured that your app will go down in flames.
What about continental drift? I know the tectonic plates move but slowly, but they *do* move fast enough to cause violent earth quakes. What type of affect would the drift have on such a tunnel?
Does anybody else find it amusing that Ektanoor, on very little sleep, writes with the fractured syntax of an 8th grader while claiming he is
completely unaffected?
I noticed that. Most of his posts display similarly disjointed grammar. It appears that his irregular sleeping pattern is seriously degrading his ability to communicate effectively. =P
As for me, I'm worthless without my beauty rest. When I go to bed early I wake up more naturally the next morning, and I feel wonderful for the whole day. When I (as is more usual) go to bed late (11:00pm, midnight, etc.), I generally feel slow and groggy the next day. I especially noticed this when I was bartending, and I had similar experiences while in school (those late-night or all-night projects:/ ).
There will be exceptions to every study. Excpetions do not, however, negate the results of a study. Perhaps our poor gramatically-challenged Ektanoor is such an exception. Such a situation would not mean that the study is pure crap, though, as our thoughtful and forthright Ektanoor so boldly asserts. From both personal experience and observations of people I work with, I can testify to the veracity of the study. But then, I've always been a 'normal' person, physiologically.
With all due respect, who really cares? No woman is worth 12K a day unless she's your happy wife (in which case, 12K is probably not enough...). Not as far as companionship goes anyhow--professionally speaking, well, considering what today's athletes get paid...
Perhaps I'm just too parsimonious. But really, what has this got to do with plex86?
I stand sadly corrected. Evidently at one time Bush did not believe witchcraft is a religion, and possibly still does not. I'm not sure I can blame him for that. However, you may take solace in the fact that it's the judicial system which ultimately decides if something is a religion, or maybe the IRS. There's got to be some guidelines! E.g., me worshipping my car constitutes being deranged, not having a religion.
In any case, the ultimate decision on whether a belief system is a religion does not lie with the President--and we need to be careful about extending 'religion' status to just any old belief system. There must be some rational guidelines.
P.S. to the guy's comment about Alistair Crowley--he was a Satanist, technically. I'm sure some Wiccans might object to being lumped in with him...or vice versa, even. =P
Someone needs to explain what surplus and debt to the Republicrats.
We are 5 trillion dollars in the hole with our national debt.
The debt is increasing every year. Since the debt is increasing, this means:
- The budget is not balanced.
- THERE IS NO SURPLUS.
Please, refer back to your economics books.
0 debt would be somewhat harmful to the economy. Some debt is good.
A balanced budget has zero to do with how much debt you have. For a budget to be balanced for a given year, your budgeted expenses must be equal to or less than your expected income. There is nothing about debt in this equation. It's yearly spending vs. yearly income. The budget is currently considered balanced because the government expects to take more of our money in taxes than it expects to spend. Bush proposes to give some of that money back to us. How can you fault that?
Any money collected beyond what is required to meet annual expenditures is a surplus. Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the national debt. It's like this: when you write a check, it will either 1) bounce (you have a deficit), or 2) zero your account (perfectly balanced), or 3) leave you with money still in you account (a surplus). As you can plainly see, your mountain of credit card debt does not in any way affect this process.
We will never get rid of the national debt, and I personally don't think we should (savings bonds, anyone?).
I like Bush. He's done a great job in Texas, and I'm eager to see what he will be able to accomplish in Washington.
Bush has a good record as being able to get partisan groups to work together. To me, that outweighs all this other crap my fellow/.ers are spouting. And it is crap. Bush is only almost a politician--he doesn't have the spit-n-polish of a Gore or a Clinton. He's real, he's relatable, and he's open about his beliefs. To castigate a person for being open about his/her beliefs, especially on/., goes beyond being hypocritical.
Bush is not a perfect person, by any stretch. He has never insinuated that he's a perfect person. He admits his mistakes, and moves on. Wow, just like a normal person! Also, I've never heard Bush once claim to have invented the Internet! =P
Yes, Bush has had experience with alcohol, and possibly drugs. Generally, when you see an alcoholic or drug addict who has overcome that affliction, we say "Wow, what a strong person to have beat that beast!". With Bush, you people take and throw it in his face. His experience in that arena has more surely shaped his views and beliefs that any "Just say no" or M.A.D.D. campaign could ever do.
Bush is a person, just like the rest of us. Bush is a Christian, but that in no way implies that he denies the right of other religions to their own way of practice and belief, even if he doesn't enumerate all those religions in a speech. Bush opposes drug use, especially by children, because he's a father and wants a certain level of quality of life for his children--not because he's a politician.
I like Bush. Bush has done a good job for Texas--ask anyone who's not part of the Democratic machine. We've avoided an state income tax, and for what, 2? 3? years in a row, Bush was able to suspend the state sales tax for a few days on back-to-school items such as clothing and supplies. On top of the sales happening that weekend, not having to pay sales tax was a big savings--especially for lower-income people. We have a concealed-handgun license because of Bush, requiring a good training course (oops, shouldn't have mentioned that--the idiots at HCI might be reading!).
Overall, Bush has been good for Texas. He's a person, a father, and a good governor. I personally believe he will make an excellent president. You may believe differently--so vote on it.
This is probably wasted here, at the capital of flame wars, but read what Bush says in ligth of how he believes. Try taking what he says at face value, and not twisting it around. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt--God knows, he's nowhere near Slick Willie as a slippery politician! He's not nearly as accomplished at obfuscating and pulling the wool over your eyes as other politicians--and IMHO, he rarely if ever tries. Try not castigating him for his beliefs; but rather, identify where you disagree, and vote accordingly. This would be a sad, sad world if we all felt the same way on every issue.
Very very well put... of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But
that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Heck, if give then chance, since "Wicca" isn't a religion according to him, he'd probably like to have them tossed in jail with drug users (other than
himself, of course) because of the "moral damage" they do to him and this wonderful nation of Christians
I'm not sure exactly how you pick that up from what Bush said. I didn't read anything in his statement about Wicca not being a religion.
Bush said he intends to uphold Americans' right to practice the religion of their choice, and he listed some examples with which he was familiar. How could any person from half-sane to totally rational read that those are the only religions that merit protection under the Constitution? That's a ludicrous assumption--people should stop putting words into the candidates' mouths, and listen to what they are saying. It does no good to try and twist what a given candidate says, into something you want it to mean, simply based on whether or not you like the given candidate.
Re:We have a level playing field
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 1
You are incorrect. Gnome libraries (i.e., the stuff you link against to make nifty applications) are not GPL. They are LGPL. This means I can compile a commercial app against Gnome libraries (and gtk+, et al), and release my app under whatever license I please, because LGPL does not try to limit people/companies in this respect.
IMNSHO, Qt should either be LGPL, or it should be for-profit. What the Qt team is doing with their licensing fiasco serves only to confuse developers and obfuscate the situation. "Hmm, which version of Qt should I link with today". With GNOME, you always know where you stand. With Qt, it's a mystery.
I don't mind commercial software, or paying for a license to use libraries. And Qt is definitely a decent package. But Trolltech needs to decide one or the other how they want their libraries used--for profit totally, or always under a free license (i.e., never charging for it).
Besides which, more relevant to this issue, the license has never prevented GNOME and KDE from going head to head, based on performance, appearance, and ease of development and use.
I work in the industry, and currently code COBOL, Java, REXX, and Easel (does anyone remeber that piece of crap!!). I can say with authority and absolute confidence that a well coded application in C is lightyears faster than a well coded application written in Java. I attribute most of that to the JVM, though.
I've seen 'real' applications written in Java. I've used Moneydance personally, and several custom apps we've designed at work, and a couple of shrinkwrap apps written in Java, both stand-alone and Web-based. For the most part, they perform very well. Java does indeed rock as a programming language. That, however, is a seperate issue from it's execution speed, and it's speed (or lack thereof) cannot be attributed to the language as a whole, but rather to the implementation of the JVM. A good JVM and/or JIT greatly enhances the Java experience.
People who say that Java is slow are correct, for the most part. Even with the best JVM, Java cannot approach the speeds of a well-designed native-code application. This does not mean that Java is a bad programming language, or inappropriate for mission critical apps. We have several mission critical apps written in Java. They run well, and are stable. The loss of speed in the application, though, was not great enough to outweigh the benefits of the cross-platform execution. We can design the app on AIX, OS/390, OS/2, Windows NT, or Windows 2000, and we can compile that app once, and then we can take that compiled app and run it on AIX, OS/2, Windwos NT, or Windows 2000, or OS/390. The simple fact of 'compile once, run anywhere' so far outweighs the speed loss that it's worth it.
So, you are wrong when you say that "The very fact that someone claims that shows that they are not in the industry and have no idea what's going on in the Real World (tm)". I say that Java is slow, and I work in the "Real World (tm)". It's just that the slowness disadvantage is not near as important as the advantages.
The judge made a gross error in judgement, in my opinion, on several different levels.
Firstly, how can any sane person possibly equate code with assassination? That's ludicrous! If that's the Judges attitute, surely there must be a plethora of procedural errors you can use!
Code causes computers to perform functions. How-to books cause people to perform specific functions. How can the books be protected, but the code not be protected, under the First Amendment??
Secondly, the site posted links to said code. Those links, being part of the site's expression of its opinions, are definitely protected under the First Amendment. Since there was no child porn on the linked sites, presumably, then there was every reason to protect the site's expression (especially given that they weren't ripping of others' copyrighted material). Did y'all argue that point to the so-called judge?
Lastly, there's the point of reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is protected by law and precedent. Why did y'all not also point out that said code is a reverse engineering of the DVD encryption process?
As far as I can tell, the alleged 'judge' was wrong on all sides. What direction are y'all planning on taking the appeal?
P.S. Anyone know where I can get a copy of the DeCSS code?:)
Ummm... I don't know if you play many games or not, but the only game id has released has been the Quake series, which has sold VERY well. Id is not primarily a Linux developer, they are a Windows developer that ported their game. Please, do your homework before commenting.
What? Did you read my post? I said that id made Quake. Did I say they made any other games? Oh, wait, mustn't forget Doom! And Hexen II is for whatever reason offered on their Website--maybe some twisted relationship between id and Activision I don't know about. Before you go commenting on other people's comments, try reading the comment.
Basically, Quake is the only major series id has, and while they've released a Linux version, they sure don't bother pushing it. Whether or not they're complaining about low Linux sales, I don't know, because the 'article' was a bad link. However, I do know that sane people can only Quake for so long (unless ytu're born a Quaker, of course, but that's another story!), and id cannot go on trusting that Quake sales will last forever.
Everywhere I look are Loki games. They're packaged with other products, prominently displayed on store shelves, advertised in magazines...That's how you move products--you get them out where consumers will see them and buy them. And you provide a variety of games. I've never had a problem with a Loki game, btw, and I'm very satisfied with their products. I wasn't so satisfied with Quake, and I've heard horror stories about getting the latest id offering running on Linux. With those reviews, I'm truly amazed that id would even break even on Linux games! id needs to get a clue from Loki when it comes to gaming on Linux
Seriously, I've bought two of Loki's games, and am getting ready to get Sim City 3000. What has id released? Quake? Evidently so--that's all I see in the stores, anyhow. If id doesn't get it's stuff out in the stores, how does it expect to sell them?
Of the two games from Loki I've bought, I bought one at Hastings (a planned purchase), and the other one I bought at Microcenter (an impulse buy). I suppose I will eventually get Quake, maybe, but that's not really the type of game I play. If id wants to sell its games, then they've got to get them out into the stores, on shelves where people spend hours browsing game titles.
(You noticed I didn't buy my games online, right?)
Companies have started creating ROM flash programs that only work in Windows. They don't work in DOS, Linux, et al. I had that problem a while back with a Zoom modem--they're FlashROM updater only worked in Windows.
Now that DOS is going away, more or less, I foresee more and more hardware manufacturers are going to be providing Windows-only Flash ROM updaters. Where does this leave us who don't run Windows and Linux on the same machine? In a lurch, I'd say. When I update stuff now, most of it is in nice DOS-based updaters, and I can boot with a nice DOS 6.22 bootdisk. When the updaters are made to work only in Windows, I will no longer be able to do this.
We need to start bugging our hardware providers NOW to either:
(optimally) provide Flash ROM updaters that work in Linux,
or to never ever stop making updaters that run on DOS,
or (least preferable) go back to sending out new ROM chips.
The last item was what I had Zoom do for me. I was so indignant that I was going to have to install Windows just to upgrade my modem that the tech support finally suggested they send out a new chip. I still had to crack my case, but at I didn't have to either screw up that Linux machine by putting Windows on it, or crack the case on my Windows box (thereby cracking two cases).
We need to let our hardware manufactures know what OS we run, and start demanding support for it. And we need to give our money to the ones that do support it (i.e., the ones that do more than just putting a stamp on the box saying "Linux-compatible").
You're wrong, sadly (or gladly, really). In the U.S., you cannot be prosecuted for knowing that down the street, Joe Crack peddles his product. Hell, cops *pay* for that type of information (although they usually want the big fish). If you say, "yeah, you can get crack down on the corner", you are repeating commnon knowledge. There is no crime committed by you.
For anyone to get prosecuted or persecuted for providing a link is wrong. If someone has problems with something on the 'net, the offender should be the one targeted, not the bystanders. Further, if it's not a matter of national security, and if it's not child/snuff porn, then under *no* circumstances should the owner of the hardware or access provider be in any way implicated or censured. We need to protect our service providers, both from idiot script kiddie crackers and from corporate persecution and prosecution. The service providers need to be our level playing field, and for me to stand on that field and point at you, should in no way, form, or fashion be considered a criminal or civil offense.
Yes. Even if Perl wasn't a horribly designed language (to the extent that it was designed at all) with so many inherent flaws that it's amazing it gets used at all, much less commands the popular acclaim it gets. BASIC and COBOL are better-designed languages than Perl.
I work with COBOL every day. Almost exclusively. That, and Rexx. COBOL is a well-designed language, more or less, to a certain extent. But COBOL has a very specific purpose behind it. Now, Perl. I work with Perl quite a bit as well. It's my toolkit of choice. For anything from a simple one-liner to a full-blown application, Perl can do it. The moral of this story is, don't mistake idiotic programming technique, or the inability of a programmer to grasp simple logic, with a fallacy in the language. Perl was developed to allow the programmer to do a number of tasks quickly and easily. If the programmer is stupid, it makes absolutely no difference what language is used. I've seen C, COBOL, VB, and others, that would just make you cry, they were so poorly written. But they compiled and ran. God help the poor fool that has to maintain them.
But Perl's enormous set of weak points aside,
See above. Perl has few weaknesses. It's most glaring weakness is idiot pseudo-programmers. It's second weakness is people who don't know anything about Perl badmouthing it.
a diversity of tools is always a good thing. Not only do different languages and design methodologies have differing strengths suited to different problems, but a wider variety of tools better suits the variety of personalities among developers.
Ah, common ground. I'm sure Pike will have a place in the heart of millions soon. Personally, I'm tired of having to watch spacing (a la COBOL and Python). Those are the worst compile errors--"Oops, sorry, your period is in column 73, therefore it doesn't exist!". C is by far my favorite language, with Perl running a close 2nd. I've done quite a bit with Javascript and a smattering of VB. Having another language to add to the mix would be good, if that language does something better and easier than what I already have.
God forbid we ever end up in a world in which platform/language/methodology partisans have locked up all progress because their sacred cow is "good enough" or because of a misguided belief in portability. It only sounds good until the faddish wave of popularity you're riding has passed; other people's monochromatic fantasies are rarely as appealing.
I disagree on the portability issue. You presumably have no idea of the money spent by companies transporting programs from one platform to another. Or maybe you do, I dunno. But it's a staggering amount. My company is gearing up to spend several million to replatform just one system. Why do do you think consultants are so popular right now? What people want is a way to pick up a program and plop it down on another platform and run it right away, or at least compile it without having to change anything. COBOL fits that description, as does Java. C to a great extent (but C can also be written very platform specific). And, oh, yeah, mustn't forget Perl! C++? Well, pray to God it's not used any MFCs!! For Pike not to have good cross-platform support is a very large drawback. Fortunately, the nature of Open Source will soon remedy that situation, I'm sure.
If I was in charge, everyone would use ANSI C under some variety of Unix, and eschew all interpreted languages, object-orientation, and GUIs. Be as glad that I am not in charge as I am that you are not.
C would be good. I wouldn't mind that. Couldn't live without the interpreted languages, however. And I love my (non-Microsoft) GUIs. So, I will be glad that you're not in charge. =P
Moral: If it makes sense in biological evolution, it probably does in software as well. Diversity is a good thing.
Maybe we should start having diversity training which focuses on software rather than people? I know some of my MS-centric managers could definitely use some software-diversity training!
I disagree that standardization stifles innovation. Rather, standardization frees the developer from having to worry about where to find libraries in the system, and where to install his programs by default. I'm not saying you should hardcode all your programs to a certain structure--rather, make the standards the default, and let autoconf handle the rest. It's not really different from what it is now--except RedHat started a slightly (in some cases very) annoying habit of dumping everything under/usr./me really dislikes non-relocatable packages.:(
Anyhow, the way I see it, we do need a firm low-level standard. All vendors should have that universal standard to shoot for, to be "compliant". Vendors and users should be guaranteed that in a "compliant" distribution, certain libraries will be found in whatever directory, and that no matter which package manager is used, the program will be able to find the resources it needs (be it libraries, or locale), and also that a particular package will install it's libraries and resources in the standard location (ok, deep breath--whatamouthfull!!).
I do not think that this is stifling at all. What it does is provides a standard framework against which programs can be designed and implemented. In my mind, I equate what needs to be done with the LSB (nka FSG), with ANSI C. Most C compilers I've seen lay claim to, and do a good job with, ANSI C source code. They are not prevented one whit from adding extensions and "improvements". But there is a definition out for the C language, and in order to be ANSI-compliant, a compiler must at least meet that definition's specs.
The same should be true of Linux distributions. There should be a base standard against which they are measured. Then, when a vendor releases a package, they can say, "This will work on all FSG-compliant distributions. Minimum requirements are yada version 1 and yadayada version 2". In others words, provide a single target for compliance for vendors to look to, and for distributions to looks to. Where the twain shall meet, there will be happy users (unless you are using a devel kernel, of course--then you have *crazy* user--oh, wait, I use devel...).
It's a good deal all around. "Buy my C compiler (distribution)!! It's guaranteed ANSI/C (FSG) compliant!!" Good for vendors/developers, good for distributions, and most definitely good for users.
Note that I don't think that versions should be included in any standard--only a hierarchy of where to find resources. As for other standards, like what libraries are included on a compliant distributions, etc--I think that's a long and hard road to travel. Might be better to have the vendor specify what's needed, preferably in the docs and install process, than to try and define what libraries make up a compliant system. It's probably something that we're going to have to look at sooner or later, though.
How did he find out and how can you believe them?
on
GPL Violation - NVIDIA
·
· Score: 2
Firstly:
Given that the code is closed, and only binary drivers are released, how did the owner of the code spot the line-for-line copyright violation? Did he just mysteriously happen across a copy of the code?
Secondly:
(The following presupposes the truth of the violation)
I see a bunch of people posting messages to the point that, "well, at least they're fixing it!". Bullshit, people! They're possibly, maybe, if they get around to it, going to remove that section of code, supposing someone's not sick that day, or doesn't have anything better to do at lunch. C'mon, people, wake up and smell the crap! This is a gross violation of U.S and international copyright laws, as well as the GPL. While I do not agree with the GPL on all things, a license is a license. Number one--how could they possibly not realize that the code is GPLed? The whole Linux kernel is GPLed, for heaven's sake! And number two, were you, I, or anyone else to take nVidia's code and include it in our own program, without their consent, you can rest assured that they would take whatever steps (court injunctions, fines, hit men, etc) necessary to cause the immediate removal of the offending code.
It is my steadfast opinion that, if nVidia stole code from a GPLed module, they be required to immediately remove either the module, or the offending code, or the release the full and complete source of the module. Anything less is simply unacceptable, according to the terms of the license.
That being said, of course, they could always write a function which calls a separate trivial library which contains the code in question, and release the trivial library and it's source code. I reckon that's one way to satisfy (around?) the letter of the GPL.
I saw the movie in the theatre. I thoroughly loved it. Jar Jar was just as annoying as he was supposed to be (don't y'all realize, annoying characters are usually meant to be annoying??? Guess George got this one right! =P ). Yeah, maybe a 5-year-old isn't the greatest actor in the world, but I think he did a good job considering the pressure.
As for DVD, well, until I see a news release from an official Star Wars spokesperson, I'm not holding my breath. As much as I would love to have it on DVD, and the others, as well, there's nothing I can do about it. We should all be waiting for official news, and ignoring these idiotic rumors. Meanwhile, if you really want it on DVD, go to the Star Wars Web site, click on one of their e-mail links, and write a polite letter requesting the movie(s) on DVD.
Lastly, I really doubt that George Lucas either knows or cares about this discussion. This flame war wasn't created by some conspiratorial marketing machine! Jeez. It was created by the imagination of a select few who just can't wait to get on/. and flood us with uncomfirmed rumors and innuendo. This is not "Conspiracy Theory" here people!
This is me, patiently waiting for word one way or the other, from the people who actually produced the thing....
02/02/2000 02/04/2000 02/06/2000 02/08/2000 02/20/2000 and so on.
We must be living in a very special year to have all these dates which do not have any odd digits in them. Is it possible? Could all the experts be wrong, and mathematics twisted beyond recognition?? IS THIS REALLY THE START OF A NEW MILLENIUM??? instead of 2001?
Slashdot Mirror
for the majority of databases the data should be moved to the filesystem no the database.
I heartily disagree. Databases provide a quick and easy way of accessing data. Some data, such as photos, may be better of stored on a traditional filesystem, but you assertion that for the majority of databases is way off base, and indicates lack of experience within the industry. My entire job, and that of my colleagues, centers around programming applications to create, update, and maintain databases. The information we store could not be stored in the filesystem with any amount of security or safety. Most of the IT departments in neighboring corporations are much the same.
For Web-based corporations (Travelocity, Expedia, Amazon...), the same is pretty much true. A company with 20 to 30 32-CPU Irix machines is better off using a database backend for storing images and content. It makes more sense to utilize the indexing and storage capabilities of a database, both from a business perspective and from a safety/security/backup perspective. I know from personal experience it is much, much easier and quicker to restore a database than to restore a system (which is often necessary when a filesystem is corrupt).
Even for casual home use, a database-like system could provide benefits. It could make storage of such things as photos easier (for those without CD-Burners, e.g.) I definitely would recommend against using an RDBMS for file storage for the casual user. Most people here, I believe, are in it for the fun factor, though. Simply for the fun factor, using an RDBMS makes sense. For the practicality factor--not so much. However, in my experience, in the typical database useage scenario, what is in the database belongs in the database, and is best used in the database.
Let me, without forethought of malice, attempt to correct your misconceptions. You maintained:
"I have an idea. It's just a little thought. Please don't mod me down as a troll. Here goes... Perhaps, just maybe, the UK and French governments are more on-line than the US government because, (deep breath), they are better organised than the US government. There, I've said it. I'm probably going to burn in hell now"
You also made references to the size of the United States, and the American citizenry's assumption of superiority.
<rant> For what it's worth, America may or may not suffer from a superiority complex. In general, however, America has been and always is willing to help out her neighbors. This has been a hallmark of US foreign policy over the last century or more, and I believe far outweighs whatever cimes conspiracy theorists allege the US has committed. Also, consider that the US is a literal melting pot of cultures and races, with each race and culture bringing its own ideas of 'superiority'. I don't think we have a superiority complex so much--rather, I think that Americans sometimes fail to understand that other countries lack some of the freedoms we consider essential, and that we oftentimes equate technological abiltity with the health of a country. </rant>
Anyhow, neither our population, nor your perception of disorganization in our governmental system, contribute to our current lack of a centralized portal. Rather, our current lack of a highly centralized government (may it continue forever!!) is why it would be extremely difficult to create a centralized portal to government service. Consider that we have two levels of government--State and Federal. State may at their option delegate, of course, to counties, and occasionally to cities. So, we have a Federal level of services (Federal Taxes, Inter-state commerce regulation, Treasury services, Social Insecurity, etc). Then we have a State level of services (State income taxes, vehicle registration in most states, driver licensing, business licensing--e.g., doctors, nurses, lawyers--welfare, etc). Beyond that, there are county/city services (Some cities have income tax, Some cities have vehicle registration, city/county property taxes, building inspection, local business regulation--alcohol for instance, and health codes, voter registration, etc). Add to that school districts in many states--my school district also charges property taxes, and there are school registration considerations.
As you can see, there are many, many different levels of government which are independent of each other. It would be a great undertaking to tie the Federal, State, and Local services together into one portal.
Now, please don't confuse our diversity of government as disorganization. We are actually quite organized. We like things the way they are for the most part. State and Federal levels of government balance each other out and keep each other from screwing the citizens too badly. Local government--well, in non-Mafia areas, we are the local government.
Our government is divided into levels, and we like it that way. Some things are more difficult (e.g., we don't have a snazzy central portal to government services), but for the most part, our government is kept where it belongs: in the background. Americans, in general, truly do not appreciate government interference in their lives. We look to the government for things like 09/11, or the OK City bombing, or major hurricanes or earthquakes. Otherwise, we prefer the government do what we set it up to do, and to stay out of the way.
And where's the customer (the one actually paying for the service) in all of this? Left without net access even though they didn't actually break any laws since they claim they weren't even at home when the incident occurred (although I admit that's pretty weak, I can run a file server while I'm away from my computer or mess with the clock to change the upload timestamp and then claim I wasn't home when it happened). No one contacted the customer to confirm anything, it was all done because the MPAA claimed they had "evidence"!
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but did the article not maintain that the alleged piracy occurred via Usenet? Aren't Usenet 'uploads' generally posted interactively, via a news reader? So having a file server really does not matter if something is uploaded via Usenet, correct?
Also, you must consider that the retaliation was swift and unfounded. I mean, how easy is it to spoof an IP address? If you were going to upload illegal material, wouldn't you go to some effort to make sure it couldn't be traced back to you?
The fact of the matter is, the couple was punished for an infraction most likely committed by someone else, without having a chance to contest the charge, under a law which allows companies to bypass the all-important due-process concept, and presume guilt until innocence is proven. Those very things are part of the reason the United States was created in the first place. It may have taken a couple of hundreds of years, but it appears that the U.S. has come full circle and become the very thing it fought so hard to be free of...
Flood your Senators and Representatives. They're there for us, and I believe that if it comes to a choice between having a job and paycheck, or the occasional free vacation/hooker/dinner/whatever, the lure of job security will win out. If it doesn't, we indict for corruption...
Seriously, though, many, if not most, of the licenses that the FSF tags as "non-compliant" are indeed "compliant". Your lawyer is the final authority, not RMS. If you have a package under the GPL, and want to include packages not under the GPL, you should consult your lawyer, not RMS. Or hell, just read the damn licenses! If you have a GPL program, it is perfectly permissible to link against non-GPL libraries, provided you satisfy the license of the libraries (e.g., pay them their royalty, etc). The only time I can imagine this would be a problem is if the library owner required you to keep secret the exported API of the library.
The GPL requires that software licensed under the GPL must have the source code available and freely distributable. It does NOT require that packages you link against be under, or even "compatible" with, the GPL. As long as the package you link against does not require that it's API be kept secret (thereby requiring your code to be closed), link away and distribute under the GPL.
Personally, I feel the GPL is too restrictive. If I export an API, and other people use that API, that's perfectly OK, even if their package is proprietary! As long as the library license is satisfied (e.g., do I charge money for using the license, etc), people are free to link to it and keep their code closed or open, as they see fit. If they take my code (i.e., my library package), and modify it, then the modifications need to be returned to me, and kept public. THAT is the type of license we need--not some license which is getting too big for its britches.
RMS is not about creativity. He's not about fostering new and innovative development. RMS is about forcing every single piece of software in the world to be "open-source". The only reason for the LGPL is because if he didn't have it, RMS knew people would not use his beloved GNU system.
Me, I believe there is a valid and important need for proprietary software. "Free software" is not a duty of the developer. Providing quality software is. It is neither ethical nor even technically right, in spirit or in fact, to require a developer to make his/her source code open to the world. Whether or not a developer/company decides to publish program source is purely up to the company. Source code represents a significant investment of time and money, and the decision to just throw that away is a very serious decision. RMS condemns people/companies out-of-hand if they make what he considers a wrong decision. RMS is not God. RMS does not sign their paychecks. RMS does not pay their rent or house payments. RMS is not accountable to their stockholders. We are a capitalist society. Capitalism works, and works well. Even China has realized that, as she slowly begins to allow her citizens to venture into private enterprise. RMS wants to socialize software. Socializing software will never work. Software is an asset, and only belongs to the community when the owner makes it so. If I work on a house for Habitat for Humanity, I donate my skills--this is my choice. If I work on a house for profit, I sell my skills, and am not condemned for doing so. The same principle should apply to software. It's too bad so many people blindly follow RMS without truly thinking about it.
Lay down the basic tenets: no murder, no/minimal pollution, no stealing (of money, anyhow--industrial espionage will never stop...). Yeah, maybe that's a dreamworld, but the less government interference, the better. IMO, this would definitely give consumers a more even chance in courts--right now, we have none or little, with respect to technology. Other industries vary some (witness McDonald's and hot coffee). Overall, however, fighting corporations (where we have a certain amount of choice) is much easier to do than fighting the government (and yes, I've called and dealt with tech support before...).
This is not strictly true. Most applications are well-written enough to work across glibc versions. Most glibc versions are written (or rather, unpatched enoughed, depending on distro) well enough that most applications will not break when glibc is upgraded. One glaring exception is StarOffice--if you'll recall, at one time StarOffice was using private internals of the c library. That's was bad coding on SO's part--not compatibility-breaking by glibc. Another example I can think of (please someone tell me if you've fixed this) is IBM's JDK 1.3--it doesn't work with glibc 2.1.94, as far as I can tell. Sun's JDK, however, works great still.
The point is, I can write an application, for profit, closed source, and distribute it in binary-only form, and have a sure expectation that it will work on a majority of glibc-based systems. That's making the very reasonable assumption that I write my code in such a way that it is NOT relying on private internals of the library, or on known bugs in the library.
Someone else made a suggestion that glibc should be a skeleton, and the internals stored elsewhere. I submit that that is already the type of model glibc follows. Even were glibc to store it's body somewhere else, and present only the skeleton, someone, somewhere, would figure out how to call functions in the hidden body--and that someone would complain very loud and long about the body changing. Even though that someone KNOWS that the body functions are off-limits and subject to change without notice.
Write and link your application and pay attention to the very few caveats revealed by the GNU glibc team, and your app will run well on many different versions of glibc. Ignore the prophecies of the GNU glibc team, and you may be assured that your app will go down in flames.
I noticed that. Most of his posts display similarly disjointed grammar. It appears that his irregular sleeping pattern is seriously degrading his ability to communicate effectively. =P
As for me, I'm worthless without my beauty rest. When I go to bed early I wake up more naturally the next morning, and I feel wonderful for the whole day. When I (as is more usual) go to bed late (11:00pm, midnight, etc.), I generally feel slow and groggy the next day. I especially noticed this when I was bartending, and I had similar experiences while in school (those late-night or all-night projects :/ ).
There will be exceptions to every study. Excpetions do not, however, negate the results of a study. Perhaps our poor gramatically-challenged Ektanoor is such an exception. Such a situation would not mean that the study is pure crap, though, as our thoughtful and forthright Ektanoor so boldly asserts. From both personal experience and observations of people I work with, I can testify to the veracity of the study. But then, I've always been a 'normal' person, physiologically.
ciao,
Perhaps I'm just too parsimonious. But really, what has this got to do with plex86?
In any case, the ultimate decision on whether a belief system is a religion does not lie with the President--and we need to be careful about extending 'religion' status to just any old belief system. There must be some rational guidelines.
P.S. to the guy's comment about Alistair Crowley--he was a Satanist, technically. I'm sure some Wiccans might object to being lumped in with him...or vice versa, even. =P
Please, refer back to your economics books.
We will never get rid of the national debt, and I personally don't think we should (savings bonds, anyone?).
Bush has a good record as being able to get partisan groups to work together. To me, that outweighs all this other crap my fellow /.ers are spouting. And it is crap. Bush is only almost a politician--he doesn't have the spit-n-polish of a Gore or a Clinton. He's real, he's relatable, and he's open about his beliefs. To castigate a person for being open about his/her beliefs, especially on /., goes beyond being hypocritical.
Bush is not a perfect person, by any stretch. He has never insinuated that he's a perfect person. He admits his mistakes, and moves on. Wow, just like a normal person! Also, I've never heard Bush once claim to have invented the Internet! =P
Yes, Bush has had experience with alcohol, and possibly drugs. Generally, when you see an alcoholic or drug addict who has overcome that affliction, we say "Wow, what a strong person to have beat that beast!". With Bush, you people take and throw it in his face. His experience in that arena has more surely shaped his views and beliefs that any "Just say no" or M.A.D.D. campaign could ever do.
Bush is a person, just like the rest of us. Bush is a Christian, but that in no way implies that he denies the right of other religions to their own way of practice and belief, even if he doesn't enumerate all those religions in a speech. Bush opposes drug use, especially by children, because he's a father and wants a certain level of quality of life for his children--not because he's a politician.
I like Bush. Bush has done a good job for Texas--ask anyone who's not part of the Democratic machine. We've avoided an state income tax, and for what, 2? 3? years in a row, Bush was able to suspend the state sales tax for a few days on back-to-school items such as clothing and supplies. On top of the sales happening that weekend, not having to pay sales tax was a big savings--especially for lower-income people. We have a concealed-handgun license because of Bush, requiring a good training course (oops, shouldn't have mentioned that--the idiots at HCI might be reading!).
Overall, Bush has been good for Texas. He's a person, a father, and a good governor. I personally believe he will make an excellent president. You may believe differently--so vote on it.
This is probably wasted here, at the capital of flame wars, but read what Bush says in ligth of how he believes. Try taking what he says at face value, and not twisting it around. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt--God knows, he's nowhere near Slick Willie as a slippery politician! He's not nearly as accomplished at obfuscating and pulling the wool over your eyes as other politicians--and IMHO, he rarely if ever tries. Try not castigating him for his beliefs; but rather, identify where you disagree, and vote accordingly. This would be a sad, sad world if we all felt the same way on every issue.
Just my extended $.02
I'm not sure exactly how you pick that up from what Bush said. I didn't read anything in his statement about Wicca not being a religion.
Bush said he intends to uphold Americans' right to practice the religion of their choice, and he listed some examples with which he was familiar. How could any person from half-sane to totally rational read that those are the only religions that merit protection under the Constitution? That's a ludicrous assumption--people should stop putting words into the candidates' mouths, and listen to what they are saying. It does no good to try and twist what a given candidate says, into something you want it to mean, simply based on whether or not you like the given candidate.
IMNSHO, Qt should either be LGPL, or it should be for-profit. What the Qt team is doing with their licensing fiasco serves only to confuse developers and obfuscate the situation. "Hmm, which version of Qt should I link with today". With GNOME, you always know where you stand. With Qt, it's a mystery.
I don't mind commercial software, or paying for a license to use libraries. And Qt is definitely a decent package. But Trolltech needs to decide one or the other how they want their libraries used--for profit totally, or always under a free license (i.e., never charging for it).
Besides which, more relevant to this issue, the license has never prevented GNOME and KDE from going head to head, based on performance, appearance, and ease of development and use.
I've seen 'real' applications written in Java. I've used Moneydance personally, and several custom apps we've designed at work, and a couple of shrinkwrap apps written in Java, both stand-alone and Web-based. For the most part, they perform very well. Java does indeed rock as a programming language. That, however, is a seperate issue from it's execution speed, and it's speed (or lack thereof) cannot be attributed to the language as a whole, but rather to the implementation of the JVM. A good JVM and/or JIT greatly enhances the Java experience.
People who say that Java is slow are correct, for the most part. Even with the best JVM, Java cannot approach the speeds of a well-designed native-code application. This does not mean that Java is a bad programming language, or inappropriate for mission critical apps. We have several mission critical apps written in Java. They run well, and are stable. The loss of speed in the application, though, was not great enough to outweigh the benefits of the cross-platform execution. We can design the app on AIX, OS/390, OS/2, Windows NT, or Windows 2000, and we can compile that app once, and then we can take that compiled app and run it on AIX, OS/2, Windwos NT, or Windows 2000, or OS/390. The simple fact of 'compile once, run anywhere' so far outweighs the speed loss that it's worth it.
So, you are wrong when you say that "The very fact that someone claims that shows that they are not in the industry and have no idea what's going on in the Real World (tm)". I say that Java is slow, and I work in the "Real World (tm)". It's just that the slowness disadvantage is not near as important as the advantages.
Firstly, how can any sane person possibly equate code with assassination? That's ludicrous! If that's the Judges attitute, surely there must be a plethora of procedural errors you can use!
Code causes computers to perform functions. How-to books cause people to perform specific functions. How can the books be protected, but the code not be protected, under the First Amendment??
Secondly, the site posted links to said code. Those links, being part of the site's expression of its opinions, are definitely protected under the First Amendment. Since there was no child porn on the linked sites, presumably, then there was every reason to protect the site's expression (especially given that they weren't ripping of others' copyrighted material). Did y'all argue that point to the so-called judge?
Lastly, there's the point of reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is protected by law and precedent. Why did y'all not also point out that said code is a reverse engineering of the DVD encryption process?
As far as I can tell, the alleged 'judge' was wrong on all sides. What direction are y'all planning on taking the appeal?
P.S. Anyone know where I can get a copy of the DeCSS code? :)
What? Did you read my post? I said that id made Quake. Did I say they made any other games? Oh, wait, mustn't forget Doom! And Hexen II is for whatever reason offered on their Website--maybe some twisted relationship between id and Activision I don't know about. Before you go commenting on other people's comments, try reading the comment.
Basically, Quake is the only major series id has, and while they've released a Linux version, they sure don't bother pushing it. Whether or not they're complaining about low Linux sales, I don't know, because the 'article' was a bad link. However, I do know that sane people can only Quake for so long (unless ytu're born a Quaker, of course, but that's another story!), and id cannot go on trusting that Quake sales will last forever.
Everywhere I look are Loki games. They're packaged with other products, prominently displayed on store shelves, advertised in magazines...That's how you move products--you get them out where consumers will see them and buy them. And you provide a variety of games. I've never had a problem with a Loki game, btw, and I'm very satisfied with their products. I wasn't so satisfied with Quake, and I've heard horror stories about getting the latest id offering running on Linux. With those reviews, I'm truly amazed that id would even break even on Linux games! id needs to get a clue from Loki when it comes to gaming on Linux
Of the two games from Loki I've bought, I bought one at Hastings (a planned purchase), and the other one I bought at Microcenter (an impulse buy). I suppose I will eventually get Quake, maybe, but that's not really the type of game I play. If id wants to sell its games, then they've got to get them out into the stores, on shelves where people spend hours browsing game titles.
(You noticed I didn't buy my games online, right?)
Companies have started creating ROM flash programs that only work in Windows. They don't work in DOS, Linux, et al. I had that problem a while back with a Zoom modem--they're FlashROM updater only worked in Windows.
Now that DOS is going away, more or less, I foresee more and more hardware manufacturers are going to be providing Windows-only Flash ROM updaters. Where does this leave us who don't run Windows and Linux on the same machine? In a lurch, I'd say. When I update stuff now, most of it is in nice DOS-based updaters, and I can boot with a nice DOS 6.22 bootdisk. When the updaters are made to work only in Windows, I will no longer be able to do this. We need to start bugging our hardware providers NOW to either:
The last item was what I had Zoom do for me. I was so indignant that I was going to have to install Windows just to upgrade my modem that the tech support finally suggested they send out a new chip. I still had to crack my case, but at I didn't have to either screw up that Linux machine by putting Windows on it, or crack the case on my Windows box (thereby cracking two cases).
We need to let our hardware manufactures know what OS we run, and start demanding support for it. And we need to give our money to the ones that do support it (i.e., the ones that do more than just putting a stamp on the box saying "Linux-compatible").
Just my $.02
Matt
For anyone to get prosecuted or persecuted for providing a link is wrong. If someone has problems with something on the 'net, the offender should be the one targeted, not the bystanders. Further, if it's not a matter of national security, and if it's not child/snuff porn, then under *no* circumstances should the owner of the hardware or access provider be in any way implicated or censured. We need to protect our service providers, both from idiot script kiddie crackers and from corporate persecution and prosecution. The service providers need to be our level playing field, and for me to stand on that field and point at you, should in no way, form, or fashion be considered a criminal or civil offense.
Yes. Even if Perl wasn't a horribly designed language (to the extent that it was designed at all) with so many inherent flaws that it's amazing it gets used at all, much less commands the popular acclaim it gets. BASIC and COBOL are better-designed languages than Perl.
I work with COBOL every day. Almost exclusively. That, and Rexx. COBOL is a well-designed language, more or less, to a certain extent. But COBOL has a very specific purpose behind it. Now, Perl. I work with Perl quite a bit as well. It's my toolkit of choice. For anything from a simple one-liner to a full-blown application, Perl can do it. The moral of this story is, don't mistake idiotic programming technique, or the inability of a programmer to grasp simple logic, with a fallacy in the language. Perl was developed to allow the programmer to do a number of tasks quickly and easily. If the programmer is stupid, it makes absolutely no difference what language is used. I've seen C, COBOL, VB, and others, that would just make you cry, they were so poorly written. But they compiled and ran. God help the poor fool that has to maintain them.
But Perl's enormous set of weak points aside,
See above. Perl has few weaknesses. It's most glaring weakness is idiot pseudo-programmers. It's second weakness is people who don't know anything about Perl badmouthing it.
a diversity of tools is always a good thing. Not only do different languages and design methodologies have differing strengths suited to different problems, but a wider variety of tools better suits the variety of personalities among developers.
Ah, common ground. I'm sure Pike will have a place in the heart of millions soon. Personally, I'm tired of having to watch spacing (a la COBOL and Python). Those are the worst compile errors--"Oops, sorry, your period is in column 73, therefore it doesn't exist!". C is by far my favorite language, with Perl running a close 2nd. I've done quite a bit with Javascript and a smattering of VB. Having another language to add to the mix would be good, if that language does something better and easier than what I already have.
God forbid we ever end up in a world in which platform/language/methodology partisans have locked up all progress because their sacred cow is "good enough" or because of a misguided belief in portability. It only sounds good until the faddish wave of popularity you're riding has passed; other people's monochromatic fantasies are rarely as appealing.
I disagree on the portability issue. You presumably have no idea of the money spent by companies transporting programs from one platform to another. Or maybe you do, I dunno. But it's a staggering amount. My company is gearing up to spend several million to replatform just one system. Why do do you think consultants are so popular right now? What people want is a way to pick up a program and plop it down on another platform and run it right away, or at least compile it without having to change anything. COBOL fits that description, as does Java. C to a great extent (but C can also be written very platform specific). And, oh, yeah, mustn't forget Perl! C++? Well, pray to God it's not used any MFCs!! For Pike not to have good cross-platform support is a very large drawback. Fortunately, the nature of Open Source will soon remedy that situation, I'm sure.
If I was in charge, everyone would use ANSI C under some variety of Unix, and eschew all interpreted languages, object-orientation, and GUIs. Be as glad that I am not in charge as I am that you are not.
C would be good. I wouldn't mind that. Couldn't live without the interpreted languages, however. And I love my (non-Microsoft) GUIs. So, I will be glad that you're not in charge. =P
Moral: If it makes sense in biological evolution, it probably does in software as well. Diversity is a good thing.
Maybe we should start having diversity training which focuses on software rather than people? I know some of my MS-centric managers could definitely use some software-diversity training!
I disagree that standardization stifles innovation. Rather, standardization frees the developer from having to worry about where to find libraries in the system, and where to install his programs by default. I'm not saying you should hardcode all your programs to a certain structure--rather, make the standards the default, and let autoconf handle the rest. It's not really different from what it is now--except RedHat started a slightly (in some cases very) annoying habit of dumping everything under /usr. /me really dislikes non-relocatable packages. :(
Anyhow, the way I see it, we do need a firm low-level standard. All vendors should have that universal standard to shoot for, to be "compliant". Vendors and users should be guaranteed that in a "compliant" distribution, certain libraries will be found in whatever directory, and that no matter which package manager is used, the program will be able to find the resources it needs (be it libraries, or locale), and also that a particular package will install it's libraries and resources in the standard location (ok, deep breath--whatamouthfull!!).
I do not think that this is stifling at all. What it does is provides a standard framework against which programs can be designed and implemented. In my mind, I equate what needs to be done with the LSB (nka FSG), with ANSI C. Most C compilers I've seen lay claim to, and do a good job with, ANSI C source code. They are not prevented one whit from adding extensions and "improvements". But there is a definition out for the C language, and in order to be ANSI-compliant, a compiler must at least meet that definition's specs.
The same should be true of Linux distributions. There should be a base standard against which they are measured. Then, when a vendor releases a package, they can say, "This will work on all FSG-compliant distributions. Minimum requirements are yada version 1 and yadayada version 2". In others words, provide a single target for compliance for vendors to look to, and for distributions to looks to. Where the twain shall meet, there will be happy users (unless you are using a devel kernel, of course--then you have *crazy* user--oh, wait, I use devel...).
It's a good deal all around. "Buy my C compiler (distribution)!! It's guaranteed ANSI/C (FSG) compliant!!" Good for vendors/developers, good for distributions, and most definitely good for users.
Note that I don't think that versions should be included in any standard--only a hierarchy of where to find resources. As for other standards, like what libraries are included on a compliant distributions, etc--I think that's a long and hard road to travel. Might be better to have the vendor specify what's needed, preferably in the docs and install process, than to try and define what libraries make up a compliant system. It's probably something that we're going to have to look at sooner or later, though.
Secondly:
It is my steadfast opinion that, if nVidia stole code from a GPLed module, they be required to immediately remove either the module, or the offending code, or the release the full and complete source of the module. Anything less is simply unacceptable, according to the terms of the license.
That being said, of course, they could always write a function which calls a separate trivial library which contains the code in question, and release the trivial library and it's source code. I reckon that's one way to satisfy (around?) the letter of the GPL.
Well, that's my soapbox for the day
I saw the movie in the theatre. I thoroughly loved it. Jar Jar was just as annoying as he was supposed to be (don't y'all realize, annoying characters are usually meant to be annoying??? Guess George got this one right! =P ). Yeah, maybe a 5-year-old isn't the greatest actor in the world, but I think he did a good job considering the pressure.
As for DVD, well, until I see a news release from an official Star Wars spokesperson, I'm not holding my breath. As much as I would love to have it on DVD, and the others, as well, there's nothing I can do about it. We should all be waiting for official news, and ignoring these idiotic rumors. Meanwhile, if you really want it on DVD, go to the Star Wars Web site, click on one of their e-mail links, and write a polite letter requesting the movie(s) on DVD.
Lastly, I really doubt that George Lucas either knows or cares about this discussion. This flame war wasn't created by some conspiratorial marketing machine! Jeez. It was created by the imagination of a select few who just can't wait to get on /. and flood us with uncomfirmed rumors and innuendo. This is not "Conspiracy Theory" here people!
This is me, patiently waiting for word one way or the other, from the people who actually produced the thing....
02/02/2000
02/04/2000
02/06/2000
02/08/2000
02/20/2000
and so on.
We must be living in a very special year to have all these dates which do not have any odd digits in them. Is it possible? Could all the experts be wrong, and mathematics twisted beyond recognition?? IS THIS REALLY THE START OF A NEW MILLENIUM??? instead of 2001?
Makes ya wonder, don't it?
ciao,