I don't mean to rain on SEGV's parade or dismiss his talents as a reviewer, but: 1. Having not read K&R and the UPE, is a major drawback for any reviewer of the newest book: those are classics that are definitely mandatory for any (wannabe) UN*X hacker. 2. To compare a book by the Elders(TM) to books published by Micros~1 Press is sacrilege! And to boot, "Writing Solid Code" is crap distilled. Its tips are either common sense or useless garbage (e.g. Hungarian notation) and it's pretty obvious they don't practice what they preach. Yes, I *have* read it.
He still doesn't get it. And I'm starting to believe he never will. In all his wining and dining the suits, he's taken on their motives.
Perhaps it's you and all the other flamers who don't get it. Disagreeing with him on APSL, venting that disgreement on a public forum, as he states RMS and Bruce did, this is all perfectly reasonable, to a certain point. Flinging personal accusations ("overblown ego", "lack of moral integrity", "being a media whore", "not being a true hacker", "fetchmail is shit") like you and your kin insist on doing, is not only useless and childish, it is demeaning to the community to which you sadly strive to take part in. This is IMHO what he was talking about when he referred to you Slashdot kiddies.
But you would never understand that, because you are fat, bald, dumb and ugly!!!
See now, did that look like "valid critizism" (sic) to you?
The comments posted by this dude, poor writing style included, are typical of minority of very vocal lusers who mostly cling to Slackware and a sickly attachment to proverbially "complex and difficult" command line interfaces that make them look more expert (should I say 31133t?) than they actually are. These people seldom write any software, although they compile a lot, tend to prefer Perl to C (because it is more *difficult*!) and think that anything that contributes to make Linux more popular and mainstream is evil, because it will rob them of their exclusionary little club with arcane rites of initiation. Guess what: not everyone is interested in compiling and configuring ssh when all they want to use their Linux to write software (in c, Perl, Lisp whatever). People far more knowleadgeable than them are interested in developing advanced user interfaces but are *not* interested in configuring X manually every time they install Linux on a new box. It's not because you think of the computer as just a tool. It's not because you are a dumb newbie. It's just 'cause you want to do something new and interesting and not some config file mangling that is old news. Been there, done that, as they say.
Has anyone taken a look at Micros~1 stock price today? It seems they took a severe backlash, from trading as high as $180 last Friday to $92 today. Is this the beginning of their ultimate downfall?
There is nothing more humerous than watching computer geeks discuss economics
There is somthing far more amusing, which is economists themselves discussing it. Face it, economics is not an exact science, and it has many more quacks than any other field of human activity.
Of course, all of your rationale implies that we do everything for a purpose, which I cannot agree with. Haven't you ever done something gratuitously?
Has any one taken a look at their front page? They have a link to an article on dual-booting Windows98 and Windows95, of all things! Now, correct me if I am wrong, but most people get a license of Win98 as an upgrade to Win95, and that license forbids you to keep on using the old copy of Win95. So either they are advising people to break the license agreement, or they're targetting people who are so enthusiastic about Gates' bank account , that their willing to pay a full Win98 license whilst retaining their win95 one. Some people truly deserve what they get...
Huh? Gary Killdal died of cancer, if my memory serves me well
I think you're memory's not serving you well:-) Gary died from internal bleeding caused by a mysterious bar fight, AFAIK. And DR was still alive and kicking.
Yes! They're only Interested in Success
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
FSF is anything but free. I'd rather give money than my intellectual property.
That wouldn't mean a thing because you don't seem to have much of the latter to contribute.
10% code, but more than 10% motivation ?
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
I grew up on PCs too and remember jacks about free compilers, linkers, editors etc (free as in source code freely available). I remember a lot of crappy *shareware*! Anyways, the FSF and GNU were started at about the same time that the PC was born, so your point is somewhat moot. And to answer your first point: anybody *could* have filled its place, but nobody did. Whereas in the case of kernels e.g. there are a couple of alternatives to Linux...
Well, two can play the quoting game: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
It is plain enough for me: the act of running the program is not restricted. The additional restriction to output produced by the program applies only to output that is a derivative if the program. Makes sense: you wouldn't want to make sensitive corporate information that is the output of some random GPLed program freely redistributable. OTOH if that output is work based upon said program that should be redistributable as per the GPL (the GPL is recursive!).
I see no curses here, do you? Also: this yada-yada about egcs is somewhat off mark. Egcs is to gcc, as XEmacs is to GNU Emacs. They share a lot of source code, and it's not unlikely that they'll merge again in the future.
It is absolutely laughable to compare Stallman's deeds with those of Raymond. Just read up your history, buddy.
My thoughts, exactly! How can people here that should know better pay any heed to that sort of "report"? The message thses people are trying to convey is that the Linux community is intrinsically anti-business and will shy away from any commercial effort involving Linux. If you scream loud enough, you will just prove them right. I am all for free software, and Redhat has done nothing so far to spoil their image of a free software supporter. That is good enough for me? Is it good enough for you?
Bad: More news stories saying that Red Hat invented Linux.
Would you care to cite a single news story that claims Redhat invented Linux? And quit that bad-mouthing Redhat thing at once. Redhat has done, is doing and will continue doing a lot of good for GNU/Linux/free software in general. Much more than nay other distribution has, so far.
Also, LynxOS and QNX use and distribute GCC and GDB. What all these people bashing RMS don't seem to realize is that it would be extremely difficult for Linux to get off the ground were it not for the previous availability of a free, portable C compiler, a linker, a debugger and a make utility. And, no, don't give me the BS about G++ vs EGCS. That's a fork because of C++ features, not C. Nobody using C++ in the kernel, right? Show me a distribution of Linux where the kernel was not compiled with gcc and I'll show you a non GNU Linux.
There might be a lot of GNU code in Linux systems, but it is mostly in trivial things like "ls" and "cat". I wouldn't cal 'gcc', 'ld' and 'as' trivial things. Have you ever booted a Linux kernel not compiled with gcc? How far do you think Linus' project would have progressed whitout a freely distributable, portable C compiler? Q.E.D
Not bad work for an epsilon, eh? But that really should have been Aldous Huxley, right? And if you ever look carefully at their writings, you will find that RMS, Linus, ESR manage to write compelling, well written prose to convey their philosophy, unlike the traditional stereotype of geeks/hackers/whatever. Now as to Gates having any programming skills...
As you have observed, these are not comments posted by Sengan (or whoever posted it) but the opinions of John Walker, the owner of Fourmilab. He of course doesn't have to impartial, PC or place whatever other form of blandness constraint upon the writings he publishes on his own Web site, don't you agree?
Regardless, this feature of Microsoftware is indeed brain damaged and gratuitously incompatible with the existing standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Third troll in a row! Not a bad job eh, Abigail? ;-)?
Would you feel as unbiased and cool if they "benchmarked" and, say, Perl
I don't mean to rain on SEGV's parade or dismiss his talents as a reviewer, but:
1. Having not read K&R and the UPE, is a major drawback for any reviewer of the newest book: those are classics that are definitely mandatory for any (wannabe) UN*X hacker.
2. To compare a book by the Elders(TM) to books published by Micros~1 Press is sacrilege! And to boot, "Writing Solid Code" is crap distilled. Its tips are either common sense or useless garbage (e.g. Hungarian notation) and it's pretty obvious they don't practice what they preach. Yes, I *have* read it.
This is not meant to be a flame, BTW.
I don't mean to rain on SEGV's parade or dismiss his talents as a reviewer, but:
He still doesn't get it. And I'm starting to believe he never will. In all his wining and dining the suits, he's taken on their motives.
Perhaps it's you and all the other flamers who don't get it. Disagreeing with him on APSL, venting that disgreement on a public forum, as he states RMS and Bruce did, this is all perfectly reasonable, to a certain point. Flinging personal accusations ("overblown ego", "lack of moral integrity", "being a media whore", "not being a true hacker", "fetchmail is shit") like you and your kin insist on doing, is not only useless and childish, it is demeaning to the community to which you sadly strive to take part in. This is IMHO what he was talking about when he referred to you Slashdot kiddies.
But you would never understand that, because you are fat, bald, dumb and ugly!!!
See now, did that look like "valid critizism" (sic) to you?
The comments posted by this dude, poor writing style included, are typical of minority of very vocal lusers who mostly cling to Slackware and a sickly attachment to proverbially "complex and difficult" command line interfaces that make them look more expert (should I say 31133t?) than they actually are.
These people seldom write any software, although they compile a lot, tend to prefer Perl to C (because it is more *difficult*!) and think that anything that contributes to make Linux more popular and mainstream is evil, because it will rob them of their exclusionary little club with arcane rites of initiation.
Guess what: not everyone is interested in compiling and configuring ssh when all they want to use their Linux to write software (in c, Perl, Lisp whatever). People far more knowleadgeable than them are interested in developing advanced user interfaces but are *not* interested in configuring X manually every time they install Linux on a new box.
It's not because you think of the computer as just a tool. It's not because you are a dumb newbie. It's just 'cause you want to do something new and interesting and not some config file mangling that is old news.
Been there, done that, as they say.
Has anyone taken a look at Micros~1 stock price today? It seems they took a severe backlash, from trading as high as $180 last Friday to $92 today.
Is this the beginning of their ultimate downfall?
Bzzzt... try again!
Eric has also written a couple of useful packages for Emacs (gud, vc) and he was also responsible for ncurses in a remote past.
There is nothing more humerous than watching computer geeks discuss economics
There is somthing far more amusing, which is economists themselves discussing it. Face it, economics is not an exact science, and it has many more quacks than any other field of human activity.
Of course, all of your rationale implies that we do everything for a purpose, which I cannot agree with. Haven't you ever done something gratuitously?
It's a common misconception among on-economists that prices equates to money. Free software does have a price...
Nevertheless, economists are keen on the notion of "free market". What is the price of a "free" market, and who pays it?
Has any one taken a look at their front page?
They have a link to an article on dual-booting Windows98 and Windows95, of all things!
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but most people get a license of Win98 as an upgrade to Win95, and that license forbids you to keep on using the old copy of Win95.
So either they are advising people to break the license agreement, or they're targetting people who are so enthusiastic about Gates' bank account , that their willing to pay a full Win98 license whilst retaining their win95 one.
Some people truly deserve what they get...
You joking, right?
He was talking about file systems.
Huh? Gary Killdal died of cancer, if my memory serves me well
:-)
I think you're memory's not serving you well
Gary died from internal bleeding caused by a mysterious bar fight, AFAIK. And DR was still alive and kicking.
FSF is anything but free. I'd rather give money than my intellectual property.
That wouldn't mean a thing because you don't seem to have much of the latter to contribute.
I grew up on PCs too and remember jacks about free compilers, linkers, editors etc (free as in source code freely available). I remember a lot of crappy *shareware*!
Anyways, the FSF and GNU were started at about the same time that the PC was born, so your point is somewhat moot.
And to answer your first point: anybody *could* have filled its place, but nobody did. Whereas in the case of kernels e.g. there are a couple of alternatives to Linux...
Well, two can play the quoting game:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
It is plain enough for me: the act of running the program is not restricted. The additional restriction to output produced by the program applies only to output that is a derivative if the program. Makes sense: you wouldn't want to make sensitive corporate information that is the output of some random GPLed program freely redistributable. OTOH if that output is work based upon said program that should be redistributable as per the GPL (the GPL is recursive!).
So come on, sing along:
"Get your kicks, on r-owww-t 66..."
Wait a minute, that damn Brit Nat King Cole!!!
Well:
/lib/libXm.so.3 /usr/openwin/lib/libXpm.so.4.7 /usr/dt/lib/libDtSvc.so.1 /usr/dt/lib/libtt.so.2 /lib/libXmu.so.4 /lib/libXt.so.4 /lib/libXext.so.0 /lib/libX11.so.4 /lib/libSM.so.6 /lib/libICE.so.6 /lib/libkvm.so.1 /lib/libm.so.1 /lib/libsocket.so.1 /lib/libnsl.so.1 /lib/libelf.so.1 /lib/libdl.so.1 /lib/libc.so.1 /lib/libmp.so.2
afc@orion:~/src/perl$ ldd `type -p xemacs`
libXm.so.3 =>
libXpm.so.4.7 =>
libDtSvc.so.1 =>
libtt.so.2 =>
libXmu.so.4 =>
libXt.so.4 =>
libXext.so.0 =>
libX11.so.4 =>
libSM.so.6 =>
libICE.so.6 =>
libkvm.so.1 =>
libkstat.so.1 => lib/libkstat.so.1
libm.so.1 =>
libsocket.so.1 =>
libnsl.so.1 =>
libelf.so.1 =>
libdl.so.1 =>
libc.so.1 =>
libmp.so.2 =>
I see no curses here, do you?
Also: this yada-yada about egcs is somewhat off mark. Egcs is to gcc, as XEmacs is to GNU Emacs. They share a lot of source code, and it's not unlikely that they'll merge again in the future.
It is absolutely laughable to compare Stallman's deeds with those of Raymond. Just read up your history, buddy.
My thoughts, exactly!
How can people here that should know better pay any heed to that sort of "report"?
The message thses people are trying to convey is that the Linux community is intrinsically anti-business and will shy away from any commercial effort involving Linux.
If you scream loud enough, you will just prove them right.
I am all for free software, and Redhat has done nothing so far to spoil their image of a free software supporter. That is good enough for me?
Is it good enough for you?
Bad: More news stories saying that Red Hat invented Linux.
Would you care to cite a single news story that claims Redhat invented Linux? And quit that bad-mouthing Redhat thing at once. Redhat has done, is doing and will continue doing a lot of good for GNU/Linux/free software in general. Much more than nay other distribution has, so far.
Been reading too much RAH again, are we?
But then again, it could be fun! Except for that frontier mentality stuff... Really, it only makes for the proliferation of banditism and lawlessness.
Also, LynxOS and QNX use and distribute GCC and GDB. What all these people bashing RMS don't seem to realize is that it would be extremely difficult for Linux to get off the ground were it not for the previous availability of a free, portable C compiler, a linker, a debugger and a make utility.
And, no, don't give me the BS about G++ vs EGCS. That's a fork because of C++ features, not C. Nobody using C++ in the kernel, right?
Show me a distribution of Linux where the kernel was not compiled with gcc and I'll show you a non GNU Linux.
There might be a lot of GNU code in Linux systems, but it is mostly in trivial things like "ls" and "cat". I wouldn't cal 'gcc', 'ld' and 'as' trivial things. Have you ever booted a Linux kernel not compiled with gcc? How far do you think Linus' project would have progressed whitout a freely distributable, portable C compiler? Q.E.D
Not bad work for an epsilon, eh? But that really should have been Aldous Huxley, right? And if you ever look carefully at their writings, you will find that RMS, Linus, ESR manage to write compelling, well written prose to convey their philosophy, unlike the traditional stereotype of geeks/hackers/whatever. Now as to Gates having any programming skills...
As you have observed, these are not comments posted by Sengan (or whoever posted it) but the opinions of John Walker, the owner of Fourmilab.
He of course doesn't have to impartial, PC or place whatever other form of blandness constraint upon the writings he publishes on his own Web site, don't you agree?
Regardless, this feature of Microsoftware is indeed brain damaged and gratuitously incompatible with the existing standards.
Long live RMS, the lion-hearted!