I predict that Linux will continue to be the small bit player that it has always been and still is today, buoyed by technical people who believe technologically superior products will prevail today's economy.
I predict that more and more people will realize that the licensing cost of software is an extremely small portion of the cost of maintaining business systems for corporations, and that the same people will become more puzzled by what OSS means and how it improves their P&L.
I also predict that Linux zealots will continue to predict that this year will be the year of world domination for Linux, just like they did in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999,...
I for one am extremely happy with the.NET framework. It is a comprehensive box of functionality that all.NET applications can make use of. Many useful applications I've written in.NET have been under 200K in size. Comparable programs I've written in Linux are all over 200K in size. This is after having to deal with the incredible mash of libraries that simply don't work well together. Why? Well, how about the amazing number of reimplementations of method pointers, having to deal with C++ libraries and C libraries and woes arising thereof, exceptions in some libraries and return codes in others, all different kinds of naming conventions and the bazillion mappings of this over that.
I've found that programming in.NET is actually a lot like programming in Python (a nice language and a clean, integrated box of functionality, and NOT like Perl/CPAN with for all the same Linux-related reasons again... ). Given.NET's intended domain (which is Windows software running on Windows), it is very well done.
Let's give up the religious dogma, emotional outbursts and reactivity, and evaluate it objectively. Objective evaluation of a complete situation is what they really tried to teach you in college.
I'm glad that the rest of the engineering world has advanced beyond the trial-and-error approach.
The mechanics of any technical trade are the absolute easiest to pick up. The "why" is a little harder and is the reason people have to learn professional designations before working on something substantial.
This guy should've looked into bin packing. It would've practically automated his tedious chores to a point where he would've have to even click and drag. At least reduce it.
This is exactly what I mean. "kamera ioslave"? Who do you expect to guess that that will do what I want? How many non-software guys even know what that means? I've used Linux for the past 7 years and programmed for the past 15 and I don't know what that means. Am I expected to read some stupid HOWTO somewhere to find out how to capture from a camera? It is the complete opposite of user friendliness.
If I wanted a hackers' operating system, I would use Linux console.
>>Why does KDE crash so often? I thought open source software is supposed to be high quality, emphasizing stability. Windows doesn't crash nearly as often.
>Huh? I think you have this backwards.
No I have it the right way around. My Windows uptime is seconded only by my Linux box which doesn't have any GUI installed. Don't pin obsolete ideas on new software.
It's good to cheer the free software guys. Everyone wants the underdog to win.
The reality, however, is that KDE and GNOME and all these other free desktops for Linux are years and years behind what is mainstream today. Everytime I try out KDE I feel like I am trying to use Windows 3.0 again. It's really quite pathetic.
I have a scanner and a webcam. Why can't I just load up a browser (or explorer or whatever you want to call it) and go to the scanner device and save an image? I can with Windows.
Why can't I ask the computer something like "how do I boldface the title" and have it tell me? I can with Windows.
I know the computer next door has a printer. Why can't I open the previously mentioned browser, find that printer and just start printing to it? I can with Windows.
Why can't the popup menus adapt to the way I use them, prioritizing by frequency of use? That's how it works with Windows.
Why does KDE crash so often? I thought open source software is supposed to be high quality, emphasizing stability. Windows doesn't crash nearly as often.
The reality is that KDE is years behind in terms of functionality, asthetics, stability and user-friendliness. Attempting to generalize the qualities of succssful OSS projects to KDE is a fallacy and it shows. Man does it show.
The piece is suggestive of something: instead of proudly being an American by being fully aware of all that is taking place, proudly be an American by doing something to help instead of sitting around watching TV.
Frequency hopping has been around for decades, most prominently in CDMA technology. More precisely, "IP Hopping" is an almost perfect analog to "slow frequency hopping" where multiple bits are transmitted on one frequency band before hopping to another band.
I suppose "IP Hopping" can be considered novel, but no, not really.
Apparently many people are not familiar with electronics.
SPICE is a program used in electrical engineering to simulate electrical circuits. As with any other simulation, it can be used to evaluate correctness, find logical and physical failures, test performance, find bottlenecks, verify timing properties, and other things.
I feel saddened by all this non-understanding, and it's even worse considering it's a technically-savvy crowd.
In essence, the author's point is that a machine should be task-oriented. Why mess with a "start button", or a file viewer, or any other such thing when all you want to do is write a letter? Say "start a new letter" and off you go.
This doesn't imply there's a separate machine for every task. It could well be something with a screen, keyboard and mouse. Tell it to "play the CD" and off you go. Tell it to "find current tax information" and off you go. Why must you conciously start a "CD Player" to play a CD, and conciously start a "web browser" to see information? What a load of crap.
To those who are still in school, check local listings for courses in HMI. The one that I took when in my graduate program was very enlightening in considering what are the fundemental issues in machines working with humans. They aren't things like "windows" and "files" and "keyboard" and "mouse". They are things like "cognitive load" and "adaptiveness" and "context awareness" and "prediction".
I bet if one takes all the typos in all the Slashdot articles, and compile them into an expert system, one can make a fairly decent "automatic typo recovery" system.
Watermarks are imprinted on the media in multiple domains, such as time, frequency and wavelet. It is not simply "put a pattern in the least significant bits". Advanced mathematics is usually required to understand the technical howto's.
The entire standard is supposed to be geared towards low-capability devices. It is a standard to fill a current need. I think it should be viewed as such. No one is expecting their watches or phones to have Quaking ability for the next few years, and this is where this standard comes in.
It also addresses some issues in its various substandards that I think are commendable. For example, XML is this huge hunk of text that has an extremely low content-to-size ratio. The WAP binary XML format is a good and simple way to reduce the size without resorting to processor intensive bitstream-compression techniques.
To answer the original poster's question: I believe that releasing source code does affect IP.
Today, most applications are "trivial" in that the way something's done is well known and well understood. Anyone can write Microsoft Outlook with a little time. Anyone can write Windows, given enough time and a lot of text books.
But can you develop an application that solves the VSLI routing problem in linear time? Or guarantee hard real-time behaviour for obtaining positive correlations in data-mining?
So the point is that within the source code are algorithms, _ideas_, which must be guarded. The code itself is just the physical byproduct that must exist in order for a computer to execute it. The source code embodies the idea. Releasing the source code divulges the idea to everyone. If you could make a billion off of it, I'm not sure you would be willing to release it.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict that Linux will continue to be the small bit player that it has always been and still is today, buoyed by technical people who believe technologically superior products will prevail today's economy.
...
I predict that more and more people will realize that the licensing cost of software is an extremely small portion of the cost of maintaining business systems for corporations, and that the same people will become more puzzled by what OSS means and how it improves their P&L.
I also predict that Linux zealots will continue to predict that this year will be the year of world domination for Linux, just like they did in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999,
Guys
I for one am extremely happy with the .NET framework. It is a comprehensive box of functionality that all .NET applications can make use of. Many useful applications I've written in .NET have been under 200K in size. Comparable programs I've written in Linux are all over 200K in size. This is after having to deal with the incredible mash of libraries that simply don't work well together. Why? Well, how about the amazing number of reimplementations of method pointers, having to deal with C++ libraries and C libraries and woes arising thereof, exceptions in some libraries and return codes in others, all different kinds of naming conventions and the bazillion mappings of this over that.
.NET is actually a lot like programming in Python (a nice language and a clean, integrated box of functionality, and NOT like Perl/CPAN with for all the same Linux-related reasons again ... ). Given .NET's intended domain (which is Windows software running on Windows), it is very well done.
I've found that programming in
Let's give up the religious dogma, emotional outbursts and reactivity, and evaluate it objectively. Objective evaluation of a complete situation is what they really tried to teach you in college.
They want $20 to see the documents?
...
Now is the time to get out those MOD 10 credit card number generators and an infinite loop in Perl
I'm glad that the rest of the engineering world has advanced beyond the trial-and-error approach.
The mechanics of any technical trade are the absolute easiest to pick up. The "why" is a little harder and is the reason people have to learn professional designations before working on something substantial.
Any of you use a cellular phone? A CDMA one? Your phone uses the same technology. It's called Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum.
This guy should've looked into bin packing. It would've practically automated his tedious chores to a point where he would've have to even click and drag. At least reduce it.
UBC's address is http://www.ubc.ca, not .edu.
FP
For me, Windows has consistently left Linux in the ashes with respect to GUI speed.
These are precisely the reasons why KDE is unsuitable for most computer users.
You are a minimalist. Most aren't.
You can figure out rudimentary and advanced features. Many can't.
You like do-it-yourself. Most don't (care).
Of course, you're right. Whatever works for any one person is the best tool. But the point here is that KDE is years behind. And that's still true.
This is exactly what I mean. "kamera ioslave"? Who do you expect to guess that that will do what I want? How many non-software guys even know what that means? I've used Linux for the past 7 years and programmed for the past 15 and I don't know what that means. Am I expected to read some stupid HOWTO somewhere to find out how to capture from a camera? It is the complete opposite of user friendliness.
If I wanted a hackers' operating system, I would use Linux console.
>>Why does KDE crash so often? I thought open source software is supposed to be high quality, emphasizing stability. Windows doesn't crash nearly as often.
>Huh? I think you have this backwards.
No I have it the right way around. My Windows uptime is seconded only by my Linux box which doesn't have any GUI installed. Don't pin obsolete ideas on new software.
It's good to cheer the free software guys. Everyone wants the underdog to win.
The reality, however, is that KDE and GNOME and all these other free desktops for Linux are years and years behind what is mainstream today. Everytime I try out KDE I feel like I am trying to use Windows 3.0 again. It's really quite pathetic.
I have a scanner and a webcam. Why can't I just load up a browser (or explorer or whatever you want to call it) and go to the scanner device and save an image? I can with Windows.
Why can't I ask the computer something like "how do I boldface the title" and have it tell me? I can with Windows.
I know the computer next door has a printer. Why can't I open the previously mentioned browser, find that printer and just start printing to it? I can with Windows.
Why can't the popup menus adapt to the way I use them, prioritizing by frequency of use? That's how it works with Windows.
Why does KDE crash so often? I thought open source software is supposed to be high quality, emphasizing stability. Windows doesn't crash nearly as often.
The reality is that KDE is years behind in terms of functionality, asthetics, stability and user-friendliness. Attempting to generalize the qualities of succssful OSS projects to KDE is a fallacy and it shows. Man does it show.
The piece is suggestive of something: instead of proudly being an American by being fully aware of all that is taking place, proudly be an American by doing something to help instead of sitting around watching TV.
Sounds like he's just unbalanced.
Yeah I can add any two numbers in my head with lightning speed. What does "multiply" mean?
Frequency hopping has been around for decades, most prominently in CDMA technology. More precisely, "IP Hopping" is an almost perfect analog to "slow frequency hopping" where multiple bits are transmitted on one frequency band before hopping to another band. I suppose "IP Hopping" can be considered novel, but no, not really.
Apparently many people are not familiar with electronics.
SPICE is a program used in electrical engineering to simulate electrical circuits. As with any other simulation, it can be used to evaluate correctness, find logical and physical failures, test performance, find bottlenecks, verify timing properties, and other things.
I feel saddened by all this non-understanding, and it's even worse considering it's a technically-savvy crowd. In essence, the author's point is that a machine should be task-oriented. Why mess with a "start button", or a file viewer, or any other such thing when all you want to do is write a letter? Say "start a new letter" and off you go. This doesn't imply there's a separate machine for every task. It could well be something with a screen, keyboard and mouse. Tell it to "play the CD" and off you go. Tell it to "find current tax information" and off you go. Why must you conciously start a "CD Player" to play a CD, and conciously start a "web browser" to see information? What a load of crap. To those who are still in school, check local listings for courses in HMI. The one that I took when in my graduate program was very enlightening in considering what are the fundemental issues in machines working with humans. They aren't things like "windows" and "files" and "keyboard" and "mouse". They are things like "cognitive load" and "adaptiveness" and "context awareness" and "prediction".
I bet if one takes all the typos in all the Slashdot articles, and compile them into an expert system, one can make a fairly decent "automatic typo recovery" system.
Square law through empty space. It is invese N through any other dielectric.
Watermarks are imprinted on the media in multiple domains, such as time, frequency and wavelet. It is not simply "put a pattern in the least significant bits". Advanced mathematics is usually required to understand the technical howto's.
The entire standard is supposed to be geared
towards low-capability devices. It is a standard
to fill a current need. I think it should be viewed as such. No one is expecting their watches or phones to have Quaking ability for the next few years, and this is where this standard comes in.
It also addresses some issues in its various substandards that I think are commendable. For example, XML is this huge hunk of text that has an extremely low content-to-size ratio. The WAP binary XML format is a good and simple way to reduce the size without resorting to processor intensive bitstream-compression techniques.
To answer the original poster's question: I believe that releasing source code does affect IP.
Today, most applications are "trivial" in that the way something's done is well known and well understood. Anyone can write Microsoft Outlook with a little time. Anyone can write Windows, given enough time and a lot of text books.
But can you develop an application that solves the VSLI routing problem in linear time? Or guarantee hard real-time behaviour for obtaining positive correlations in data-mining?
So the point is that within the source code are algorithms, _ideas_, which must be guarded. The code itself is just the physical byproduct that must exist in order for a computer to execute it. The source code embodies the idea. Releasing the source code divulges the idea to everyone. If you could make a billion off of it, I'm not sure you would be willing to release it.