He says Bowie is clueless and tells him to get over himself. He doesn't just comment on the interview. I consider calling Bowie a troll.
Of course he has a right to an opinion.
What personal attacks did I make? Stating his rights to like other music?
I agree with you that music choices are very subjective. But I also think that there is an objective part. If I grab a drum and beat it randomly, can I really call that music? It is in this sense that I find Bowie's music great. But I won't go and tell you why, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader (ah, let's just say I'm tired and don't think you want to read it anyway).
And, by the way, I find the whole BowieNet thing rather lame (but, again, I don't have time/energy to tell you why). I think Bowie should not try to make us think he's a geek, he should just continue to write great music.
He's a really great musician. A real genius... but he's not a computer geek!
Did you read what has changed in composing music these days? He doesn't know about the software and he doesn't have the time to learn it. That's okay. But when Reeves stays up being a real computer geek, what does Bowie say?
How on earth can such a troll be marked as insightful?
David Bowie is a very talented musician. I agree, he really is a genius.
Tsk! Boring? He has tried more styles than any musician. He has done many things. And he has surely written GREAT music.
I can't understand how can someone find him boring. Granted, the interview was rather lame, but please, David Bowie is one of the greatest musicians ever.
Anyway, you are free to prefer Ricky Martin and the Backstreet Boys.
I used Slackware ages ago. I was somewhat happy. I had updated it to the latest kernel (it was 2.0.26 or something like that) and glibc and things. But then everybody started to talk about how great Debian and its packaging system was. I started to consider moving to Debian.
Finally, I got Slink and installed it. I did not like it.
I don't get the concept of packages.
When a developer makes an application, he usually writes a configure script adhering to GNU's coding standards (usually because they use Autoconf to generate it). The configure script performs checks in the system it is running on and defines different C preprocessor symbols so different portions of the code are compiled according to the results of those tests.
For example, lets say I'm making an image manipulation program. My configure library will check for libpng, libgif, libtiff, libjpeg and many other libraries. It will define a different symbol in the Makefiles (which are usually created using Automake) so my application will be built to support different file formats according to the libraries I have installed in my system. After I compile the application, it will depend on those libraries. If I remove any of them, I will have to reinstall the application since it will no longer work (unless it called dlopen or did some other weird thing; I have never seen any application that does it).
With the packages, I download a precompiled binary/library. It has been linked against whatever libraries the one who made the package thought are a sane choice. If he who made the package linked it against a lot of libraries, I will have to go and download them, even if I don't want to use them at all. If he linked it against very few libraries, I will not be able to use other libraries, even if I have them installed and the original application supports them.
For example, my friend with a FreeBSD box installed Vim using his operating system's packages system (I think it is called the Ports, or something). Needless to say, when he passed the `-g' command line option to the executable, it was ignored. For those of you who don't know Vim, the `-g' option causes it to open a new window and show Vi in that window. For that to work, you need to have GTK installed in your system. When you run your configure script, it looks for it and, if it finds it, it links Vim against it. Since the one who made the package for Vim thought it was better not to link it against GTK, my friend was then unable to see Vim's GUI.
For this reason, I would much rather install an application and leave it running the way I want it to work, using all the libraries I have installed, than using the choice that some packager thought was sane.
When I install an application, I like to leave it's code hanging around for sometime. If it fails or crashes, I will recompile it with debugging symbols and use GDB to see where are the problems. If it does some interesting things, I will go and read the code if it is of any use for the applications I develop. That's one smaller reason why I don't like packages: I like to leave the code around for some time (most of the time I leave it compressed). Debian's packages don't even come with their C header files, you have to get a -devel package for that.
I know that in Debian I can install things by hand. In fact, most of the applications I use (let's see, jdk, games, windowmaker, acrobat, apache, bash, cvs, gimp, gnome, gmp, gpg, guile, gzilla, hb, kaffe, lesstif, lsh, memprof, mesa, mutt, netscape, postgres, perl, queso, rxvt, ssh, tex*, vim, tf, egcs, textutils, wget, xscreensaver, linux...) have been installed by hand. That way I can have them optimized to work the best way in my machine. As you see, I have even removed and installed my own version of some of Debian's Required packages.
So what are the advantages of packages?
Uninstalling software? That's just a matter of doing `rm -Rf/usr/local/app-x.y.z'. I mean, whenever I install something, I pass an appropiate `--prefix/usr/local/app-x.y.z' parameter so all of its files will go to that directory. I then modify my/etc/profile to add some paths to MANPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, PATH, CFLAGS (-I and -L options) and the like or I create symlinks from a standard location.
Keeping track of dependencies? I can use `ldd' to find out what libraries a given binary depends on, so I know those `hard' dependencies. Other are obvious. For example, I know I can't erase GnuPG or I won't be able to encrypt/sign my mail when I use Mutt.
Automatically updating software? That ignores the `don't fix what ain't broken' rule. I used to run `apt-get update' and `apt-get upgrade' often, now I avoid doing that as much as I can. I don't want to go into the `sorry, pal, this application now uses a different syntax for the configuration file, you're fucked up now' unless there is a real reason to update. So I don't really consider `apt-get upgrade' an advantage of packages over plain tar.gz files.
I suppose the problem I have with packages comes down to just a few things:
1. I, like you, hate things that do their work without my knowledge. Fuck linuxconf. Fuck packages. It's not that I want to know absolutely all of how my system works, but I at least want to know what files belong to what programs and to use the interfaces (ie. configuration files) provided by the applications themselves, rather than some scripts that create them for me. I like to go straight to the point, not talk with some stupid script that doesn't do what I want it to do. If I wanted wizards I would be using Windows.
2. Packages assume all GNU/Linux boxes are equal. Which is wrong.
Oh, and let's not mention all the practical problems with many of Debian's packages.
I have heard there is something called `source packages'. Could someone point some advantages of that over plain tar.gz's?
Anyway, I'm still running Debian, but I hardly use it's packaging system. If I had to start from scratch again, I would start with Slackware 7. But I suppose I don't have any reasons to update to Slackware. I can just continue to do things my way (not apt-get's and Debian's packager's way) and survive.
On a side note, something that I *really* like of Debian and does matter for me to choose it over others is their clear attitude towards freedom.
But the whole building is not on fire! Granted, some of the interfaces do suck in a big way (Netscape comes to mind). Granted, it would be better to have a mediocre widget set in every program than some extremely great and some extremely bad. But there used to be some XWindows programs with really *AWESOME* interfaces. So no, some (most) parts in XWindows tend to suck a lot, but there are really great interfaces out there. They should be in their hall of fame. Btw, all of this is becoming a little irrelevant since GNOME/KDE, which are getting all standarized now. Alejo.
I saw this some months ago. I found it rather superficial. First, it just covers applications that use the Windows widgets (well, perhaps MacOS too? I don't remember). As everybody knows, there are a LOT of different widget sets in the Unix world, where every program used to have it's own before Gnome/KDE. Also, some of the examples there are criticized as interface problems but are just plain bugs. For example, see the Netscape's Spelling Checking `interface problem' (a spell checker that suggest the word where it is reporting mispelled) or the `Error: The operation completed succesfully' window which we just know it's cause by a bug that thinks there was an error when there wasn't and then prints strerror o sys_errlist or whatever the equivalent of that in Windows is. Are those interface-design problems? (I pointed this to the author and he said he things so). Finally, I believe it has way too many examples but I'd like more analyzis. Some papers on interface design would be best. It just shows me many things I should't do (most are obvious) but does not tell me how to design a really good interface. I found Jakob Nielsen's and specially Neal Stephenson's essay on interfaces far more enlightening. Alejo.
You are right if you implement things the stupid way. You can still use a tree with no need for.com,.net,.edu,.mil,.int,.gov,.org and the like, just use the last letter in the domain name. Voila, you have a tree starting with 27 (including the `-') nodes. You could even group them. See? That's all it takes.
Many persons here are saying that the.com,.net,.int and so on are to split the load of the databases. That is really stupid. There is *NO* need of those top level domanis.
Hint: Now, split the database into 26 different databases and use the last letter to know which to use.
I have always found the.com,.net,.org and the like stupid. Wouldn't it be easier for the average Clueless User to just type Microsoft or perhaps www.Microsoft, billgates@Microsoft and the like in their telnet/web/ftp/mail/whatever software?
We are developing Hyper Builder, one server-side engine to develope dynamic content.
You may want to try it out. You create your sites using any text editor and embbeding some HTML tags that are mapped to callback functions. Kinda like server side includes.
It's functionality is provided by modules that are dynamically loaded at run time. For example, you may create a module that will make it so whenever you put a given HTML tag it gets replaced by a given content (similar to the way Server Side Includes do it). There are modules that allow it to talk with PostgreSQL (and soon MySQL), create polls, message walls, access counters, user authentication, use HTTP cookies and much more.
Whenever someone requests one of your pages, the parser loads the HB source files and builds the content that gets sent back to the browser. It communicates with the web server via CGI. However, work is in progress to build a threaded standalone server that talks with Apache through a socket. Whenever someone requests a file ending in.hb, Apache (mod_hb) connects to the HB daemon and passes it the request.
It currently works only on Unix, but there are efforts to port it to Windows and other platforms.
I urge you to consider it as an alternative for building both big and small sites. It is *far* easier to use than other alternatives such as C, Perl or Java via CGI, PHP and ASP. Sites developed using HB are *far* easier to update, understand and modify. And you can get things done really faster (true both for big and for small sites).
You can find more information at the following locations:
And there is www.yupi.com (in spanish) and www.ozu.com (pronounced in spanish the same way you pronounce Yahoo in english). Check out the similarities. Lame, lame, LAME people.:)
I think the current moderation system should be reviewed. I would implement it in a completely different fashion.
Instead of giving moderation points to some persons at some times, I think everyone with user accounts should be allowed to moderate all posts. All posts would have a list with 5 possible scores and anyone can select any and submit their vote. Whenever someone does, the comments for the post get sorted again (or you could store the submited information in some temporal files and re-sort the posts every x minutes). The sorting algorithm counts the mean scores of posts with more than x votes.
One of the problems I see with the current moderation system is that posts only get sorted after most people have read them. Another problem is that a message posted at the beginning of a discussion (first posts) get moderated up or down much more than messages posted afterwards. So in order to have your message receive a high score you don't have to write a really good (informative, insightful,..) message, you also have to post it early after the news appears and most moderators have not read it.
In math, a theorem is one proposition that you can prove. If you have not proved it, it is not a theorem. It only becomes a theorem once you have proved it using other theorems or axioms.
In science in general, an hypothesis is something you think might be true. You are not sure if it is or if it is not.
In math, a proof is a series of steps where you apply inference rules to an already proved theorem or to an axiom and arrive at the theorem you are proving.
In science in general, an experiment is the act of watching the world to see if it behaves the way the hypothesis say it does.
There are big differences between a theorem and an hypothesis. The first is proved and there is no way it can be refuted. The second is uncertain and is just an statement of what the scientist thinks might be.
There are big differences between a proff and an experiment. The proof is just the sequence of steps. The experiment is an act of observation.
The name is Linux Standard Base. You can find more about them at http://www.linuxbase.org/. They have mailing lists for you to contribute. I suppose it is `taking so long' because the number of persons asking why it is taking so long is far bigger than the number of persons actively working on it.
we will see some very natural fragmentation in the community which is the fragmentation that occurs when developers realise that Linux isn't bleeding-edge anymore and goes on to work on something else which in time will probably replace at least the Linux kernel.
I'm developing a higly modular application and would like to read them. Could someone please point out where can I find them?
Thanks.
Alejo.
Re:New look Themes.org -- It's a disaster!
on
Quickie Sunday
·
· Score: 0
Well, fsck you guys, I do like the new look and I'm extremely thankful with the guys behind themes.org for making such a high quality site available to the public, without receiving anything in exchange.
You don't like the new design? Don't bitch, create a replacement or something. Or go surf elsewhere, no one's forcing you to use their site.
I have recently started to develop open source applications and I suppose I could say that most of them have no use for the documentation you describe.
I have not seen any of such documents accompanying any of the most popular open source applications. I wonder if there is something like that for stuff like GCC, Linux, Emacs, WM, XWindows, Apache and the like. As I said, I have yet to see it. Umm, at most I could mention the GNU Standards document, but that does not document an architecture or anything like that.
While some applications (GNOME comes to mind) do have some sort of Manifesto describing the architecture behind them, I believe that is not really important in the development of open source applications.
Most open source applications begin because the original author has a problem and needs to get it fixed. They usually start with something small, not very ambitious... just a little set of hacks to solve the problems the authors have. Over the course of time others will play with the code and begin to improve it and improve it and improve it. And suddenly the set of patches and hacks become something like Apache or Linux.
I believe `Start small, grow fast' would be the best way to go in open source and, in some situations, closed source applications.
The original author usually does not have a clear idea on how he'll implement all of the things he knows he will have to. As ESR points out in C&B, he will usually realize of new solutions to the problem only after he has implemented things.
The time spent documenting the architecture behind the applications is time not spent actually coding them. The architecture is constantly changing as other persons are always suggesting new ideas and sending code back to the original author. The latter has to be willing to throw lots of code away and begin again continuously. And I don't think stoping to write documents explaining the framework will really help.
I'm not saying the design process should be taken lightly; it is very important and can really save time. But once the author knows how to do the thing, he will just go and code it, not document it.
On the other hand, most open source applications have a developers mailing list behind them. It is not uncommon to see discussion about the framework on the lists. I believe the messages passing through it can play the same role of the design documentation you mention.
What is often important to provide is documentation on how the application *currently* works, documentation on the latest implementation. For example, you can go and find documents stating how to create Apache modules: explaining the structs and the functions you can use to get things done. But their purpose is not to document how Apache should be built; they are just provided to help persons interested in using Apache (creating a module). And they are written after the application is written, not before. They follow the implementation, not otherwise.
Yes, this is something completely different than serial or parallel ports.
This are the network ports. Whenever you open an internet network connection (a socket of the AF_INET family) and attempt to connect, you will give a port number of the remote server that you want to connect to. On the other end, each port number has a different application listening to it. So if I start MyApplication to listen on port, say, 2064, and you start YourApplication to connect to port 2064 of my machine, my computer will know that you are attempting to connect to MyApplication and will then pass all your information from YourAppication to MyApplication. Needless to say, only one application can be listening for network connections to a given port.
Oh, well, actually there are two ports involved in a connection, one for each machine.
Standard internet services have default numbers. Port 80, for instance, is the number associated with HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections. You can use any port number with HTTP, but the default is port 80.
Try to do telnet to the port 80 of the machine www.slashdot.org. Then, after the connection is establshed, enter "GET/" and hit enter. What you will see is an HTTP connection. This happens because on Slahsdot's server one application (Apache) is listening on to port 80, so it is the one who receives the connection request and gets to attend it. Now try to telnet to port 25 of Slashdot. Port 25 is associated with Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), which is the protocol used to, well, tranfer mail between different machines (there are others such as Post Office Protoco 3 and IMAP but they do a different things). One you get connected type "VRFY malda" and hit enter. In Slashdot, a different application (Sendmail) instructed the operating system to pass it connection requests to the port 25. So when you attempt to connect to this port, you won't be talking with Apache but with Sendmail. Granted, there is nothing that stops you from making Sendmail listen at port 80 and Apache at 25, but that would be just stupid, since standard services (HTTP, SMTP) have standard assigned ports (80, 25). When you attempt to connect to port 80, you expect an application speaking HTTP to receive you.
If you want to see which ports are assigned to which services, take a look at the/etc/services file distributed with any Unix. There you will find the service name on the same line as its port number.
"built on NT technology" (which is redundant, given what NT stands for, but that's okay, this is MS)
Hahahah!
So on one hand we have GNU is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix ad infinitum, but on the other we have NT Technology which can't do more than just one iteration without cracking?:P
Slashdot Mirror
He says Bowie is clueless and tells him to get over himself. He doesn't just comment on the interview. I consider calling Bowie a troll.
:)
Of course he has a right to an opinion.
What personal attacks did I make? Stating his rights to like other music?
I agree with you that music choices are very subjective. But I also think that there is an objective part. If I grab a drum and beat it randomly, can I really call that music? It is in this sense that I find Bowie's music great. But I won't go and tell you why, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader (ah, let's just say I'm tired and don't think you want to read it anyway).
And, by the way, I find the whole BowieNet thing rather lame (but, again, I don't have time/energy to tell you why). I think Bowie should not try to make us think he's a geek, he should just continue to write great music.
Yawn.
Alejo.
He's not a computer geek!
:)
He's a really great musician. A real genius... but he's not a computer geek!
Did you read what has changed in composing music these days? He doesn't know about the software and he doesn't have the time to learn it. That's okay. But when Reeves stays up being a real computer geek, what does Bowie say?
Heh.
Alejo.
His music is AWESOME!
Alejo.
How on earth can such a troll be marked as insightful?
David Bowie is a very talented musician. I agree, he really is a genius.
Tsk! Boring? He has tried more styles than any musician. He has done many things. And he has surely written GREAT music.
I can't understand how can someone find him boring. Granted, the interview was rather lame, but please, David Bowie is one of the greatest musicians ever.
Anyway, you are free to prefer Ricky Martin and the Backstreet Boys.
Alejo.
I used Slackware ages ago. I was somewhat happy. I had updated it to the latest kernel (it was 2.0.26 or something like that) and glibc and things. But then everybody started to talk about how great Debian and its packaging system was. I started to consider moving to Debian.
Finally, I got Slink and installed it. I did not like it.
I don't get the concept of packages.
When a developer makes an application, he usually writes a configure script adhering to GNU's coding standards (usually because they use Autoconf to generate it). The configure script performs checks in the system it is running on and defines different C preprocessor symbols so different portions of the code are compiled according to the results of those tests.
For example, lets say I'm making an image manipulation program. My configure library will check for libpng, libgif, libtiff, libjpeg and many other libraries. It will define a different symbol in the Makefiles (which are usually created using Automake) so my application will be built to support different file formats according to the libraries I have installed in my system. After I compile the application, it will depend on those libraries. If I remove any of them, I will have to reinstall the application since it will no longer work (unless it called dlopen or did some other weird thing; I have never seen any application that does it).
With the packages, I download a precompiled binary/library. It has been linked against whatever libraries the one who made the package thought are a sane choice. If he who made the package linked it against a lot of libraries, I will have to go and download them, even if I don't want to use them at all. If he linked it against very few libraries, I will not be able to use other libraries, even if I have them installed and the original application supports them.
For example, my friend with a FreeBSD box installed Vim using his operating system's packages system (I think it is called the Ports, or something). Needless to say, when he passed the `-g' command line option to the executable, it was ignored. For those of you who don't know Vim, the `-g' option causes it to open a new window and show Vi in that window. For that to work, you need to have GTK installed in your system. When you run your configure script, it looks for it and, if it finds it, it links Vim against it. Since the one who made the package for Vim thought it was better not to link it against GTK, my friend was then unable to see Vim's GUI.
For this reason, I would much rather install an application and leave it running the way I want it to work, using all the libraries I have installed, than using the choice that some packager thought was sane.
When I install an application, I like to leave it's code hanging around for sometime. If it fails or crashes, I will recompile it with debugging symbols and use GDB to see where are the problems. If it does some interesting things, I will go and read the code if it is of any use for the applications I develop. That's one smaller reason why I don't like packages: I like to leave the code around for some time (most of the time I leave it compressed). Debian's packages don't even come with their C header files, you have to get a -devel package for that.
I know that in Debian I can install things by hand. In fact, most of the applications I use (let's see, jdk, games, windowmaker, acrobat, apache, bash, cvs, gimp, gnome, gmp, gpg, guile, gzilla, hb, kaffe, lesstif, lsh, memprof, mesa, mutt, netscape, postgres, perl, queso, rxvt, ssh, tex*, vim, tf, egcs, textutils, wget, xscreensaver, linux...) have been installed by hand. That way I can have them optimized to work the best way in my machine. As you see, I have even removed and installed my own version of some of Debian's Required packages.
So what are the advantages of packages?
Uninstalling software? That's just a matter of doing `rm -Rf /usr/local/app-x.y.z'. I mean, whenever I install something, I pass an appropiate `--prefix /usr/local/app-x.y.z' parameter so all of its files will go to that directory. I then modify my /etc/profile to add some paths to MANPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, PATH, CFLAGS (-I and -L options) and the like or I create symlinks from a standard location.
Keeping track of dependencies? I can use `ldd' to find out what libraries a given binary depends on, so I know those `hard' dependencies. Other are obvious. For example, I know I can't erase GnuPG or I won't be able to encrypt/sign my mail when I use Mutt.
Automatically updating software? That ignores the `don't fix what ain't broken' rule. I used to run `apt-get update' and `apt-get upgrade' often, now I avoid doing that as much as I can. I don't want to go into the `sorry, pal, this application now uses a different syntax for the configuration file, you're fucked up now' unless there is a real reason to update. So I don't really consider `apt-get upgrade' an advantage of packages over plain tar.gz files.
I suppose the problem I have with packages comes down to just a few things:
1. I, like you, hate things that do their work without my knowledge. Fuck linuxconf. Fuck packages. It's not that I want to know absolutely all of how my system works, but I at least want to know what files belong to what programs and to use the interfaces (ie. configuration files) provided by the applications themselves, rather than some scripts that create them for me. I like to go straight to the point, not talk with some stupid script that doesn't do what I want it to do. If I wanted wizards I would be using Windows.
2. Packages assume all GNU/Linux boxes are equal. Which is wrong.
Oh, and let's not mention all the practical problems with many of Debian's packages.
I have heard there is something called `source packages'. Could someone point some advantages of that over plain tar.gz's?
Anyway, I'm still running Debian, but I hardly use it's packaging system. If I had to start from scratch again, I would start with Slackware 7. But I suppose I don't have any reasons to update to Slackware. I can just continue to do things my way (not apt-get's and Debian's packager's way) and survive.
On a side note, something that I *really* like of Debian and does matter for me to choose it over others is their clear attitude towards freedom.
Flame as much as you want.
Alejo.
Netscape is not open source.
Mozilla is open source but, until Netscape 5 (based on Mozilla), Netscape is not open source.
So it would not be included in a `open source' version of RedHat either.
Sorry, that was meant to be Jakob Nielsen's essays (specially The AntiMac Interface) and Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning was the Command Line far more enlightening..
I find Jakob highly overrated (but still far better than this interface hall of shame). I consider Stephenson's essay an absolute must-read.
Alejo
But the whole building is not on fire! Granted, some of the interfaces do suck in a big way (Netscape comes to mind). Granted, it would be better to have a mediocre widget set in every program than some extremely great and some extremely bad. But there used to be some XWindows programs with really *AWESOME* interfaces. So no, some (most) parts in XWindows tend to suck a lot, but there are really great interfaces out there. They should be in their hall of fame. Btw, all of this is becoming a little irrelevant since GNOME/KDE, which are getting all standarized now. Alejo.
I saw this some months ago. I found it rather superficial. First, it just covers applications that use the Windows widgets (well, perhaps MacOS too? I don't remember). As everybody knows, there are a LOT of different widget sets in the Unix world, where every program used to have it's own before Gnome/KDE. Also, some of the examples there are criticized as interface problems but are just plain bugs. For example, see the Netscape's Spelling Checking `interface problem' (a spell checker that suggest the word where it is reporting mispelled) or the `Error: The operation completed succesfully' window which we just know it's cause by a bug that thinks there was an error when there wasn't and then prints strerror o sys_errlist or whatever the equivalent of that in Windows is. Are those interface-design problems? (I pointed this to the author and he said he things so). Finally, I believe it has way too many examples but I'd like more analyzis. Some papers on interface design would be best. It just shows me many things I should't do (most are obvious) but does not tell me how to design a really good interface. I found Jakob Nielsen's and specially Neal Stephenson's essay on interfaces far more enlightening. Alejo.
You are right if you implement things the stupid way. You can still use a tree with no need for .com, .net, .edu, .mil, .int, .gov, .org and the like, just use the last letter in the domain name. Voila, you have a tree starting with 27 (including the `-') nodes. You could even group them. See? That's all it takes.
Alejo.
Many persons here are saying that the .com, .net, .int and so on are to split the load of the databases. That is really stupid. There is *NO* need of those top level domanis.
.com, .net, .org and the like stupid. Wouldn't it be easier for the average Clueless User to just type Microsoft or perhaps www.Microsoft, billgates@Microsoft and the like in their telnet/web/ftp/mail/whatever software?
Hint: Now, split the database into 26 different databases and use the last letter to know which to use.
I have always found the
Alejo.
I just wanted to say I completely agree.
Alejo.
We are developing Hyper Builder, one server-side engine to develope dynamic content.
You may want to try it out. You create your sites using any text editor and embbeding some HTML tags that are mapped to callback functions. Kinda like server side includes.
It's functionality is provided by modules that are dynamically loaded at run time. For example, you may create a module that will make it so whenever you put a given HTML tag it gets replaced by a given content (similar to the way Server Side Includes do it). There are modules that allow it to talk with PostgreSQL (and soon MySQL), create polls, message walls, access counters, user authentication, use HTTP cookies and much more.
Whenever someone requests one of your pages, the parser loads the HB source files and builds the content that gets sent back to the browser. It communicates with the web server via CGI. However, work is in progress to build a threaded standalone server that talks with Apache through a socket. Whenever someone requests a file ending in .hb, Apache (mod_hb) connects to the HB daemon and passes it the request.
It currently works only on Unix, but there are efforts to port it to Windows and other platforms.
I urge you to consider it as an alternative for building both big and small sites. It is *far* easier to use than other alternatives such as C, Perl or Java via CGI, PHP and ASP. Sites developed using HB are *far* easier to update, understand and modify. And you can get things done really faster (true both for big and for small sites).
You can find more information at the following locations:
Good luck.
Alejo.
And there is www.yupi.com (in spanish) and www.ozu.com (pronounced in spanish the same way you pronounce Yahoo in english). Check out the similarities. Lame, lame, LAME people. :)
Alejo.
I think the current moderation system should be reviewed. I would implement it in a completely different fashion.
..) message, you also have to post it early after the news appears and most moderators have not read it.
Instead of giving moderation points to some persons at some times, I think everyone with user accounts should be allowed to moderate all posts. All posts would have a list with 5 possible scores and anyone can select any and submit their vote. Whenever someone does, the comments for the post get sorted again (or you could store the submited information in some temporal files and re-sort the posts every x minutes). The sorting algorithm counts the mean scores of posts with more than x votes.
One of the problems I see with the current moderation system is that posts only get sorted after most people have read them. Another problem is that a message posted at the beginning of a discussion (first posts) get moderated up or down much more than messages posted afterwards. So in order to have your message receive a high score you don't have to write a really good (informative, insightful,
Alejo.
No.
Theorems and hypothesis are different.
In math, a theorem is one proposition that you can prove. If you have not proved it, it is not a theorem. It only becomes a theorem once you have proved it using other theorems or axioms.
In science in general, an hypothesis is something you think might be true. You are not sure if it is or if it is not.
In math, a proof is a series of steps where you apply inference rules to an already proved theorem or to an axiom and arrive at the theorem you are proving.
In science in general, an experiment is the act of watching the world to see if it behaves the way the hypothesis say it does.
There are big differences between a theorem and an hypothesis. The first is proved and there is no way it can be refuted. The second is uncertain and is just an statement of what the scientist thinks might be.
There are big differences between a proff and an experiment. The proof is just the sequence of steps. The experiment is an act of observation.
Alejo.
The name is Linux Standard Base. You can find more about them at http://www.linuxbase.org/. They have mailing lists for you to contribute. I suppose it is `taking so long' because the number of persons asking why it is taking so long is far bigger than the number of persons actively working on it.
Alejo.
Go Hurd!
Alejo.
Which are Linus' comments on modularity?
I'm developing a higly modular application and would like to read them. Could someone please point out where can I find them?
Thanks.
Alejo.
Well, fsck you guys, I do like the new look and I'm extremely thankful with the guys behind themes.org for making such a high quality site available to the public, without receiving anything in exchange.
You don't like the new design? Don't bitch, create a replacement or something. Or go surf elsewhere, no one's forcing you to use their site.
Kudos on their redesign!
Alejo.
Oh, and I would suggest looking at ESR's C&B, which describes how most free software gets designed and implemented.
Alejo.
I have recently started to develop open source applications and I suppose I could say that most of them have no use for the documentation you describe.
I have not seen any of such documents accompanying any of the most popular open source applications. I wonder if there is something like that for stuff like GCC, Linux, Emacs, WM, XWindows, Apache and the like. As I said, I have yet to see it. Umm, at most I could mention the GNU Standards document, but that does not document an architecture or anything like that.
While some applications (GNOME comes to mind) do have some sort of Manifesto describing the architecture behind them, I believe that is not really important in the development of open source applications.
Most open source applications begin because the original author has a problem and needs to get it fixed. They usually start with something small, not very ambitious... just a little set of hacks to solve the problems the authors have. Over the course of time others will play with the code and begin to improve it and improve it and improve it. And suddenly the set of patches and hacks become something like Apache or Linux.
I believe `Start small, grow fast' would be the best way to go in open source and, in some situations, closed source applications.
The original author usually does not have a clear idea on how he'll implement all of the things he knows he will have to. As ESR points out in C&B, he will usually realize of new solutions to the problem only after he has implemented things.
The time spent documenting the architecture behind the applications is time not spent actually coding them. The architecture is constantly changing as other persons are always suggesting new ideas and sending code back to the original author. The latter has to be willing to throw lots of code away and begin again continuously. And I don't think stoping to write documents explaining the framework will really help.
I'm not saying the design process should be taken lightly; it is very important and can really save time. But once the author knows how to do the thing, he will just go and code it, not document it.
On the other hand, most open source applications have a developers mailing list behind them. It is not uncommon to see discussion about the framework on the lists. I believe the messages passing through it can play the same role of the design documentation you mention.
What is often important to provide is documentation on how the application *currently* works, documentation on the latest implementation. For example, you can go and find documents stating how to create Apache modules: explaining the structs and the functions you can use to get things done. But their purpose is not to document how Apache should be built; they are just provided to help persons interested in using Apache (creating a module). And they are written after the application is written, not before. They follow the implementation, not otherwise.
Alejo.
Yes, this is something completely different than serial or parallel ports.
/" and hit enter. What you will see is an HTTP connection. This happens because on Slahsdot's server one application (Apache) is listening on to port 80, so it is the one who receives the connection request and gets to attend it. Now try to telnet to port 25 of Slashdot. Port 25 is associated with Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), which is the protocol used to, well, tranfer mail between different machines (there are others such as Post Office Protoco 3 and IMAP but they do a different things). One you get connected type "VRFY malda" and hit enter. In Slashdot, a different application (Sendmail) instructed the operating system to pass it connection requests to the port 25. So when you attempt to connect to this port, you won't be talking with Apache but with Sendmail. Granted, there is nothing that stops you from making Sendmail listen at port 80 and Apache at 25, but that would be just stupid, since standard services (HTTP, SMTP) have standard assigned ports (80, 25). When you attempt to connect to port 80, you expect an application speaking HTTP to receive you.
/etc/services file distributed with any Unix. There you will find the service name on the same line as its port number.
This are the network ports. Whenever you open an internet network connection (a socket of the AF_INET family) and attempt to connect, you will give a port number of the remote server that you want to connect to. On the other end, each port number has a different application listening to it. So if I start MyApplication to listen on port, say, 2064, and you start YourApplication to connect to port 2064 of my machine, my computer will know that you are attempting to connect to MyApplication and will then pass all your information from YourAppication to MyApplication. Needless to say, only one application can be listening for network connections to a given port.
Oh, well, actually there are two ports involved in a connection, one for each machine.
Standard internet services have default numbers. Port 80, for instance, is the number associated with HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections. You can use any port number with HTTP, but the default is port 80.
Try to do telnet to the port 80 of the machine www.slashdot.org. Then, after the connection is establshed, enter "GET
If you want to see which ports are assigned to which services, take a look at the
Hope I was clear enough.
Alejo.
I meant to say without crashing. Typos. :P
Hahahah!
So on one hand we have GNU is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix is Not Unix ad infinitum, but on the other we have NT Technology which can't do more than just one iteration without cracking?
Alejo.