Ha! Well that is a short question with a very long answer. Its clear however, that patent offices are seriously understaffed - both in terms of quantity and quality (as it pertains to people knowledgable in the arts they are making determinations of originality and usefulness for).
Ideas that I give great credibility to are those of:
1. Peer review, or public comment periods for all new applications. Such would get more eyes on new applications where they could be checked for originality and usefullness of purpose. The applicant would then have the right to revise his patent to be more focused when over broad claims are revealed. Existing patent holders might also have some responsibility to make sure their patents aren't infringed by new applications.
2. The entire mechanism of patent description/submission redone. Having actually participated in a patent submission which I was a part inventor of, when I got back the initial submission, I had a very difficult time identifying it as anything that I had anything to do with. I could barely recognize the invention itself! My impression is that much of this is due to precedents established in the courts over the years by legal fights that have little or no relevance to issues of software patents. Revised laws need to be implemented which clear up the submission process and establish clear definitions that courts should now accept over previous precedents.
3. Develop an appeals process/court for IP rights based on a loser-pays principle. Right now, once a patent is granted, however bad, its nearly impossible to beat and entire companies exist which use such dubious patents to extort money from legitimate developers. These companies have often never used their idea to create a single useful object and clearly act against the principles for which IP was recognized in the first place. A loser-pays system would give the legitimate patent holder some protection against those who wish to disenfranchise him from his rights by guaranteeing his legal bills are reimbursed should the loser fail to overturn the patent. IP protection insurance would become a credible offering and bring still more eyes on any patent looking to be insured. Likewise, patent holders will be less inclined to use questionable patents to extort money from people if they know they'll be the ones paying up if they don't convince the court of a reasonable violation. A patent holder should also have the right to voluntarily revise his patent to a more restricted scope should a challange arise which he feels would win a case because of over broad reach but does not discredit the validity or fundamental usefullness of his original idea.
These are just a few of many ideas that are out these but they all recognize the legitimate purpose of intellectual property. Any of these would go a long way towards correcting the flaws in existing processes.
As the author of this posting notes, the best part *is* RMS' comparison of writing software to writing symphonies. This is because it demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty (the alternative is just plain stupidity which I don't give any credibility to) in which RMS argues his points. ("GNU"/Linux being another classic example.)
RMS creates a paper tiger and is nearly mauled by it... One does not patent ideas, one patents implementations. He knows this as should you all. The expression of ideas is covered by copyright and, indeed, the creation of a symphony is thus covered and the questions of originality that RMS warns us that a composer would have to be wary of do indeed exist - as copyright violations.
Patents would cover aspects of the implementation of the idea. For example, the use of a bow run across tight strings to produce sound might be a patent. Stretching animal skin across a hollowed cylinder could be patented. These might limit the choice of instruments a composer would utilize in his production if agreements could not be arrived at but, remarkably, both the composer and the patent holder seem to nearly always find some terms if the invention and idea are truely useful. It would be folly for a composer to consider how to create a 220 hertz tone from a stretched catgut while writing his composition so RMS' comparision is specious at best.
RMS' apparent confusion does betray his underlying premise, however. That is - his belief that no one should own the fruits of their own labour if they are not tangible. This is to deny the very existence of real property rights by reducing the argument to that of how one can physically control and protect what is his. Societies come into being as a result of the voluntary creation of rules governing how people will deal with each other and conduct trade. Intellectual property is fundamental to the peaceful progress of such societies and, without them, everything does break down to the very concept of "might makes right" that RMS claims to fear now. While the well known problems with the current process of granting patents do hurt the rights of legitimate owners, they are reparable. RMS's efforts, however, attack the very foundation of these rights which, once lost, will not be peacably regained. RMS' folly is his blindness to the fact that the result of his efforts will not be the utopia he seeks, but rather, a condition several orders of magnitude worse than what he decries today.
Actually its a good bit Sun's fault for the lack of non-Intel support for Linux. It would take a pretty minor investment in resources (especially compared to the over abundance of java hacks they have) to keep SPARC support strong in the linux kernel and with gcc but Sun has chosen to stick to Solaris to the exclusion of Linux.
Sun is really at odds with itself, not unlike IBM in the late 80's, early 90's. Sun's realization that "its the network stupid!" was spot on. BUT - they are a hardware company and that is a completely different business than a software company. The two are fundamentally at odds quite often and they can't really afford to compromise on either one. Therefore, they should fully support Linux and put Solaris out there as yet another Open Source alternative so long as they find it profitable to support Solaris. Then they should make sure that their Java platform runs the best on their hardware if they want to put their marbles in Java (a seemingly plausible idea, especially considering M$oft's.NET effort) and ensure that Linux/Solaris implementation's of Java are the fastest most robust options available for Internet development.
Its really the only space they have credibility in and they seem to go out of their way to alienate their most likely allies against the M$oft onslaught in their marketplace.
We use the BC++ tools for commercial Windows development. We also build using g++/cygwin because your code is generally better when it builds under multiple compilers. Now we'll have that option under Linux for the first time which is great.
FWIW - we cannot use VC++ because of their lack of member templates. Our code is simply too reliant on many of the ANSI C++ features that VC++ either doesn't implement or implements wrong.
Natively executable code is an implementation issue, not a language issue. I have a feeling, however, since *every* object in C# is a COM object, the overhead might make native execution of C# slower than psuedo-code execution of Python. Obviously, however, there's nothing about Python that prohibits a native compiler implementation, its just not easily justified for its work space. Ditto for an "internet language" such as C# which is why Java and Python don't bother.
The lock statement and other threading/synchronization capabilities of the language are too simplex and inflexible for serious development of multi-threaded cooperative internet applications.
Python has all these abilities and many choices of POSIX or non-POSIX models to chose from at will thanx to the many freely available source libraries out there for it. C#'s native implementation will inhibit, if not prohibit, the development of such advanced features as external libraries because code will be written to the internal model. This is why C++ doesn't specify such things and proclaims them to be specifically out of scope. C#'s scope seems to simply be anything that Microsoft wants you to write under Windows. A very poor language selection for any serious architecture.
This appears to be a poor bastardization of Python except new programmers will have to learn the syntax of C. I primarily develop under C++ but I'm also a fan of Java and Python when appropriate. C# doesn't bring anything new or interesting to the table. I was honestly surprised not to find some new meaningful language construct in its design. Guess there are none left or perhaps a more useful language really wasn't M$oft's actual goal in its creation...
I was introduced to the C++ language in 1989 on the BIX online service by you and Greg Comeau whereupon the both of you set out to demonstrate (and finally convinced me) that this OO stuff wasn't just a fad and that C++ was a language that could efficiently implement it. This was during the time when Computer Language magazine had there "Language of the Month" feature article so languages had a tendency to come and go quickly back then.
As I recall, the two major goals that you stressed were a) to build a language that could get a handle on these huge projects that C was having difficulties with and b) to provide a balance of features and efficiency so that a developer should have to pay for features he doesn't use.
From my own experience using C++ in an extreme variety of projects (including very cramped embedded systems and large, multi-platform enterprise systems), there's no doubt that the great progress has been made on the first goal and that the second might have been fully achieved.
The biggest disappointment to me, however, has been the lack of ability to fully replace plain-old-C in system level development which is an area that stands to gain the most from the language's abstraction features and your stated goals of the language. I understand that early on, it would have been impossible to define standard ABI's since implementation techniques for things such as virtual method and inheritence resolution were very experimental. Now that a full decade has gone by and a surprisingly strong standard has been produced, these differences in implementations are more contrived than based on architectural considerations.
Presently the Open Source movement is growing wildly in popularity in commercial and non-commercial segments of the industry. Unfortunately, C++ cannot be used to provide linkable API's without either downgrading to severaly limiting C-based linkage or forcing everyone to use the same compiler that wants to call your library because of non-standard representations of structures and calling conventions.
Do you think that standardized application binary interfaces should be a priority time now? If so, what should be the mechanism used to define these interfaces (defacto vs. formal standards, etc), who should do it, and what can be done to encourage this development?
Beyond this issue, what are your personal priorities and hopes for the C++ language now?
YES! I spent the time voting (knowing full well that none of my selections would win) so I'd like to know just how many other people agreed with me even though we're in the minority (that it, we think).
Some of the best books I ever read, and 13 is the best time to start reading them, were C.S. Lewis', "Chronicles of Narnia". The first of seven is called "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".
Of course, Tolkien's "The Hobbit" has to be included. Those are fantasy more than SciFi so...
I'd recommend a lot of Heinlin, especially ones like "Red Planet" and others with a young teenager as the protagonist.
Another relatively unknown (thus hard to find at times - I always dug through used book stores) but fantasitic short story writer is Robert Sheckley. He wrote a few stories that became Twilight Zone episodes so he obviously likes to put a twist in his stories. They're also usually very funny and a quick read. His books are normally collections of short stories although he has a couple of novels as well.
There are, of course, a great many worthy books as well but that set should keep one busy for a good part of a year.
This is completely incorrect. Treaty rights don't revert to anyone unless such a thing is specified in the treaty. No one signing the ABM treaty expected the USSR not to make it out of the 20th century (unless they went out with a big bang) and such text was not contained.
The reason why Russia is on the UN Security Council is because they negotiated that within the context of the UN where the U.S. Senate has no jurisdiction. For all matters regarding treaties, the U.S. Senate must ratify any changes or else they have no legal binding force on the USA.
Finally, while what you say about our ability to wipe someone else off the planet is certainly true, the real issue is how far we can be pushed before we'd be willing to do so. Consider what kind of reaction the PRC might expect if they can prove they have ICBM's capable of reaching any point in the USA. Presently, the USA's policy is to defend Taiwan against aggression. If the PRC's announce they're getting their province back and interference by us will result in a nuke popping LA, what do you bet we might let them slide in and not fire a single shot at those troop transports going across the straights? Certainly most American's wouldn't be willing to trade LA for Taiwan (as I would:-) ) and a president like Clinton, or any of the major contendors for 2000 would be unlikely to develop the backbone necessary to fend off such a threat.
A more demonstrably incorrect statement would be difficult to comprehend. Actually, the situation is that when the USSR was looking to get busted up the continuation of treaties, acceptance of debt, and recognition of Russia as the replacement power in the UN Security Council were all previously negotiated and, thus far, the respective sides have followed these treaties to the same level as they did in the past.
That said, this is an agreement in principle with no bearing in law. For such a thing to be fully enacted the U.S. Senate would have to had ratified such agreements which did not occur.
As far as the Russians being upset, the Russians will have to get over it. The USA has not broken the ABM treaty and probably will have no need to do so.
Additionally, if American foreign policy isn't governed by "self interest", what exactly should govern it? Oh wait - I forgot about Clinton and the PRC. I guess we should qualify that as America's self interest rather than that of the person doing the negotiation.
Nuclear test ban treaty only covers the testing of nuclear warheads by blowing them up. Its also a non-poliferation treaty, i.e., all participants "unilaterally" agree to cease poping nukes either above or under ground.
Additionally, the treaty isn't being renewed because its never been enforced. Clinton signed it early on knowing full well that the Republican Senate would not ratify it. I presume he was hoping that his party would get control of the Senate in the meantime.
In summary, the treaty's never been enforced cause we've never ratified it and it has nothing to do with "StarWars".
I am not aware of a treaty signed with the new Russian Republic that brings over all treaties that we (the U.S.A. for your ferin' types) have signed although I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have slipped such a thing in without going to the Senate for ratification. I know that lots of the START treaty that we've subsequently signed was continued from negotiations with the USSR but those are new treaties for all intents and purposes.
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing.
That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead. Additionally, there are specific exemptions in the ABM treaty that allow ABMs to protect specific areas for each side. The Soviets have a large array of ABMs around Moscow but I don't think we ever deployed ours. To allow our continued development, we could still operate under the explicit exemption in the treaty for a limited protection net.
One area where there is no treaty control is space-based weapons. We can thank Ronald Reagan and his willingness to walk out on Gorbachev to protect "Star Wars" development. This would be a better approach, albeit more expensive and difficult, because it stops the inbound ICBMs before they start re-entry and can "MIRV", thus reducing the number of targets that must be tracked an intercepted. As you may recall, to nullify the notion that this was a tactic the unbalance the arms balance, Reagan offered to give the technology to the Soviets in return for negotiating a complete ban on all nuclear weapons. This one-two punch was the straw that broke the camel's back for the USSR.
We should continue this policy because the cost of entry into the nuclear club is now low enough for any 3rd world nation and many individuals to afford. If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
Forgetting about the Macs for a while (I can't even fit the damn things in my rack mount!), this delay will likely also delay the availability of really fast inexpensive PowerPC boxes based on the spec that IBM released and several manufacturers are (or expect to be) working on.
From a software development and architecture view, I much prefer the Motorola product line to Intel's. Its so much cleaner and IBM/Motorola have really taken a lot of the best ideas and put them into a single core without having to carry the baggage of the 8088 along with them.
The availability of Linux for the new platforms will make platform-independence a critical decision point from a marketing perspective. To translate for you Anti-BillGates types, this means that Windows will likely start losing serious marketshare as they're really tied into the Intel architecture and other proprietary PC technologies that Linux can pretty much ignore. If you're a commercial software developer and you have to decide what OS to write for, Linux starts looking all the more attractive if you see customers buying up those PowerPC boxes.
You mean as opposed to RMS?!?!? Do I smell the stink of hypocrisy here?
Please define exactly what is the "Church" and what is the "State" in your posting and how they are different. Then please demonstrate a single example of what you're accusing ESR of actually occurring.
If you're not advancing you personal cause then whose cause are you supposed to advance? The point is that you come out and say what you stand for, demonstrate its truth and value, then see who jumps on board. Your personal cause becomes everyone's personal cause but its still *your* cause.
Re-examine your premise here. I think you're confusing your personal view of what you want from "Open Software" and defining anything that you don't like about ESR's view as some wacky religious fervour. It certainly may be, but, thus far, that wacky idea has been emperically proven to be correct.
What complete bunk! No one who I don't know has the right to send me an email, especially one containing such drival, and then expect me to protect their privacy in return. If more people exposed such nonsense then this stuff would lighten up a bit I think. What about when you get junk mail and forward it to the domain's postmaster? Have you broken someone's privacy "rights" then?
If you don't want something repeated then don't say it in the first place.
Mindcraft was fully in their rights to post this stuff. Actually was pretty lame compared to what I would have expected although it certainly was unjustified flame that they did not deserve and reflects well on no one. They even had to post email from the same guy twice so this is obviously as bad as it got for them.
I wonder if they'll be posting any of the honest critiques (from Windows and Linux users alike) any time soon? Doubt it.
Indeed. This "article" is anything but well thought out. It completely misrepresents the entire mechanism that SourceExchange is using. It makes accusations but doesn't bother to even hint at a justification for the accusation. Its unfortunate that garbage like this gets published on otherwise respectable forums like Slashdot and Freshmeat when it should be, at best, regulated to an alt.* group on UseNet.
This is a disturbing trend amongst the "free software" fanatics. What the heck is your time worth to you anyway?!?!? $300 for a full license on one of the most well implemented and innovative pieces of software I've ever had the happy pleasure to actually use is chicken feed! I installed VMWare for the first time last night and got NT4 running on it w/ Office 97 and Netscape within a few hours. Had never seen the product before in my life. Amazing! I actually am looking forward to sending my check on Monday and reformatting my one remaining Windows box to linux!
The very next day, however, someone annouces a "free" project to clone these guys' product (which just happened to be released FIRST on Linux - there's support from the community for you). I'd say any hope of VMWare being willing to release their source just dropped like like a cruise missle over an aspirin factory.
What could be the motive of this project? Hmmm.. could it be the fun in the technical innovation and sharing it with people who appreciate it? Well, that's unlikely since the project announcement doesn't claim to have a goal to do anything that VMWare doesn't already do right now. If this was a true hacker project they'd take the concept one or two steps further - provide cpu independence for example. Run Mac apps for the G3 on a PII under Linux or NT/Alpha on a G3 under Linux for example. Nope - these guys are just upset that the VMWare folks might get paid for their effort. This is the kind of FUD that would make Mr. Gates proud cause it certainly makes me less inclined to release source on any of my projects. Fortunately I expect this "free" project to become instant vaporware since most talented developers actually value their time at more than $300 for 1000 man hours of trying to do something someone else already does well. Perhaps they'll take my hint...?
For all the alleged intelligence out here - READ!
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
You mention intelligence then try to fix the blame of the argument to Micro$oft? Ok..
GNU/Linux has *not* been getting all the media coverage. Linux and its successful development model has.
Reality creates "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" that you mention rarely "ask" the "haves" to share - *this* is where the division starts. We're talking about coercion and RMS & Co. would do it forcibly if they had it in their power to do so. Indeed, doing so requires that they be working under a very wrong premise indeed. Successful "have nots" work their butts off to become "haves" themselves. Its not until then that they understand what has value and that the very act of giving it away makes it less valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Well that is a short question with a very long answer. Its clear however, that patent offices are seriously understaffed - both in terms of quantity and quality (as it pertains to people knowledgable in the arts they are making determinations of originality and usefulness for).
Ideas that I give great credibility to are those of:
1. Peer review, or public comment periods for all new applications. Such would get more eyes on new applications where they could be checked for originality and usefullness of purpose. The applicant would then have the right to revise his patent to be more focused when over broad claims are revealed. Existing patent holders might also have some responsibility to make sure their patents aren't infringed by new applications.
2. The entire mechanism of patent description/submission redone. Having actually participated in a patent submission which I was a part inventor of, when I got back the initial submission, I had a very difficult time identifying it as anything that I had anything to do with. I could barely recognize the invention itself! My impression is that much of this is due to precedents established in the courts over the years by legal fights that have little or no relevance to issues of software patents. Revised laws need to be implemented which clear up the submission process and establish clear definitions that courts should now accept over previous precedents.
3. Develop an appeals process/court for IP rights based on a loser-pays principle. Right now, once a patent is granted, however bad, its nearly impossible to beat and entire companies exist which use such dubious patents to extort money from legitimate developers. These companies have often never used their idea to create a single useful object and clearly act against the principles for which IP was recognized in the first place. A loser-pays system would give the legitimate patent holder some protection against those who wish to disenfranchise him from his rights by guaranteeing his legal bills are reimbursed should the loser fail to overturn the patent. IP protection insurance would become a credible offering and bring still more eyes on any patent looking to be insured. Likewise, patent holders will be less inclined to use questionable patents to extort money from people if they know they'll be the ones paying up if they don't convince the court of a reasonable violation. A patent holder should also have the right to voluntarily revise his patent to a more restricted scope should a challange arise which he feels would win a case because of over broad reach but does not discredit the validity or fundamental usefullness of his original idea.
These are just a few of many ideas that are out these but they all recognize the legitimate purpose of intellectual property. Any of these would go a long way towards correcting the flaws in existing processes.
As the author of this posting notes, the best part *is* RMS' comparison of writing software to writing symphonies. This is because it demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty (the alternative is just plain stupidity which I don't give any credibility to) in which RMS argues his points. ("GNU"/Linux being another classic example.)
RMS creates a paper tiger and is nearly mauled by it... One does not patent ideas, one patents implementations. He knows this as should you all. The expression of ideas is covered by copyright and, indeed, the creation of a symphony is thus covered and the questions of originality that RMS warns us that a composer would have to be wary of do indeed exist - as copyright violations.
Patents would cover aspects of the implementation of the idea. For example, the use of a bow run across tight strings to produce sound might be a patent. Stretching animal skin across a hollowed cylinder could be patented. These might limit the choice of instruments a composer would utilize in his production if agreements could not be arrived at but, remarkably, both the composer and the patent holder seem to nearly always find some terms if the invention and idea are truely useful. It would be folly for a composer to consider how to create a 220 hertz tone from a stretched catgut while writing his composition so RMS' comparision is specious at best.
RMS' apparent confusion does betray his underlying premise, however. That is - his belief that no one should own the fruits of their own labour if they are not tangible. This is to deny the very existence of real property rights by reducing the argument to that of how one can physically control and protect what is his. Societies come into being as a result of the voluntary creation of rules governing how people will deal with each other and conduct trade. Intellectual property is fundamental to the peaceful progress of such societies and, without them, everything does break down to the very concept of "might makes right" that RMS claims to fear now. While the well known problems with the current process of granting patents do hurt the rights of legitimate owners, they are reparable. RMS's efforts, however, attack the very foundation of these rights which, once lost, will not be peacably regained. RMS' folly is his blindness to the fact that the result of his efforts will not be the utopia he seeks, but rather, a condition several orders of magnitude worse than what he decries today.
Actually its a good bit Sun's fault for the lack of non-Intel support for Linux. It would take a pretty minor investment in resources (especially compared to the over abundance of java hacks they have) to keep SPARC support strong in the linux kernel and with gcc but Sun has chosen to stick to Solaris to the exclusion of Linux.
.NET effort) and ensure that Linux/Solaris implementation's of Java are the fastest most robust options available for Internet development.
Sun is really at odds with itself, not unlike IBM in the late 80's, early 90's. Sun's realization that "its the network stupid!" was spot on. BUT - they are a hardware company and that is a completely different business than a software company. The two are fundamentally at odds quite often and they can't really afford to compromise on either one. Therefore, they should fully support Linux and put Solaris out there as yet another Open Source alternative so long as they find it profitable to support Solaris. Then they should make sure that their Java platform runs the best on their hardware if they want to put their marbles in Java (a seemingly plausible idea, especially considering M$oft's
Its really the only space they have credibility in and they seem to go out of their way to alienate their most likely allies against the M$oft onslaught in their marketplace.
Should be a good fight...
We use the BC++ tools for commercial Windows development. We also build using g++/cygwin because your code is generally better when it builds under multiple compilers. Now we'll have that option under Linux for the first time which is great.
FWIW - we cannot use VC++ because of their lack of member templates. Our code is simply too reliant on many of the ANSI C++ features that VC++ either doesn't implement or implements wrong.
Natively executable code is an implementation issue, not a language issue. I have a feeling, however, since *every* object in C# is a COM object, the overhead might make native execution of C# slower than psuedo-code execution of Python. Obviously, however, there's nothing about Python that prohibits a native compiler implementation, its just not easily justified for its work space. Ditto for an "internet language" such as C# which is why Java and Python don't bother.
The lock statement and other threading/synchronization capabilities of the language are too simplex and inflexible for serious development of multi-threaded cooperative internet applications.
Python has all these abilities and many choices of POSIX or non-POSIX models to chose from at will thanx to the many freely available source libraries out there for it. C#'s native implementation will inhibit, if not prohibit, the development of such advanced features as external libraries because code will be written to the internal model. This is why C++ doesn't specify such things and proclaims them to be specifically out of scope. C#'s scope seems to simply be anything that Microsoft wants you to write under Windows. A very poor language selection for any serious architecture.
This appears to be a poor bastardization of Python except new programmers will have to learn the syntax of C. I primarily develop under C++ but I'm also a fan of Java and Python when appropriate. C# doesn't bring anything new or interesting to the table. I was honestly surprised not to find some new meaningful language construct in its design. Guess there are none left or perhaps a more useful language really wasn't M$oft's actual goal in its creation...
I was introduced to the C++ language in 1989 on the BIX online service by you and Greg Comeau whereupon the both of you set out to demonstrate (and finally convinced me) that this OO stuff wasn't just a fad and that C++ was a language that could efficiently implement it. This was during the time when Computer Language magazine had there "Language of the Month" feature article so languages had a tendency to come and go quickly back then.
As I recall, the two major goals that you stressed were a) to build a language that could get a handle on these huge projects that C was having difficulties with and b) to provide a balance of features and efficiency so that a developer should have to pay for features he doesn't use.
From my own experience using C++ in an extreme variety of projects (including very cramped embedded systems and large, multi-platform enterprise systems), there's no doubt that the great progress has been made on the first goal and that the second might have been fully achieved.
The biggest disappointment to me, however, has been the lack of ability to fully replace plain-old-C in system level development which is an area that stands to gain the most from the language's abstraction features and your stated goals of the language. I understand that early on, it would have been impossible to define standard ABI's since implementation techniques for things such as virtual method and inheritence resolution were very experimental. Now that a full decade has gone by and a surprisingly strong standard has been produced, these differences in implementations are more contrived than based on architectural considerations.
Presently the Open Source movement is growing wildly in popularity in commercial and non-commercial segments of the industry. Unfortunately, C++ cannot be used to provide linkable API's without either downgrading to severaly limiting C-based linkage or forcing everyone to use the same compiler that wants to call your library because of non-standard representations of structures and calling conventions.
Do you think that standardized application binary interfaces should be a priority time now? If so, what should be the mechanism used to define these interfaces (defacto vs. formal standards, etc), who should do it, and what can be done to encourage this development?
Beyond this issue, what are your personal priorities and hopes for the C++ language now?
YES! I spent the time voting (knowing full well that none of my selections would win) so I'd like to know just how many other people agreed with me even though we're in the minority (that it, we think).
thanx,
Ben Scherrey
Some of the best books I ever read, and 13 is the best time to start reading them, were C.S. Lewis', "Chronicles of Narnia". The first of seven is called "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".
Of course, Tolkien's "The Hobbit" has to be included. Those are fantasy more than SciFi so...
I'd recommend a lot of Heinlin, especially ones like "Red Planet" and others with a young teenager as the protagonist.
Another relatively unknown (thus hard to find at times - I always dug through used book stores) but fantasitic short story writer is Robert Sheckley. He wrote a few stories that became Twilight Zone episodes so he obviously likes to put a twist in his stories. They're also usually very funny and a quick read. His books are normally collections of short stories although he has a couple of novels as well.
There are, of course, a great many worthy books as well but that set should keep one busy for a good part of a year.
Pre-release = not everything is expected to work.
:-)
Release = not everything is guaranteed to work.
There ain't no guarantees - expressed or implied!!
Check out my photography @ page.switchco.com/~image!
SETI *is* kinda like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Only... we don't know what the needle looks like, where the haystack is, or what we'd do with the darn thing once we've found it!
Crack RC5-64! Why? Cause its there and begging for it and we'll know when we've found it!
later,
Ben.Scherrey@ga.lp.org
Ranked 8297th and climbing!
This is completely incorrect. Treaty rights don't revert to anyone unless such a thing is specified in the treaty. No one signing the ABM treaty expected the USSR not to make it out of the 20th century (unless they went out with a big bang) and such text was not contained.
:-) ) and a president like Clinton, or any of the major contendors for 2000 would be unlikely to develop the backbone necessary to fend off such a threat.
The reason why Russia is on the UN Security Council is because they negotiated that within the context of the UN where the U.S. Senate has no jurisdiction. For all matters regarding treaties, the U.S. Senate must ratify any changes or else they have no legal binding force on the USA.
Finally, while what you say about our ability to wipe someone else off the planet is certainly true, the real issue is how far we can be pushed before we'd be willing to do so. Consider what kind of reaction the PRC might expect if they can prove they have ICBM's capable of reaching any point in the USA. Presently, the USA's policy is to defend Taiwan against aggression. If the PRC's announce they're getting their province back and interference by us will result in a nuke popping LA, what do you bet we might let them slide in and not fire a single shot at those troop transports going across the straights? Certainly most American's wouldn't be willing to trade LA for Taiwan (as I would
"International law is very clear here."
A more demonstrably incorrect statement would be difficult to comprehend. Actually, the situation is that when the USSR was looking to get busted up the continuation of treaties, acceptance of debt, and recognition of Russia as the replacement power in the UN Security Council were all previously negotiated and, thus far, the respective sides have followed these treaties to the same level as they did in the past.
That said, this is an agreement in principle with no bearing in law. For such a thing to be fully enacted the U.S. Senate would have to had ratified such agreements which did not occur.
As far as the Russians being upset, the Russians will have to get over it. The USA has not broken the ABM treaty and probably will have no need to do so.
Additionally, if American foreign policy isn't governed by "self interest", what exactly should govern it? Oh wait - I forgot about Clinton and the PRC. I guess we should qualify that as America's self interest rather than that of the person doing the negotiation.
Nuclear test ban treaty only covers the testing of nuclear warheads by blowing them up. Its also a non-poliferation treaty, i.e., all participants "unilaterally" agree to cease poping nukes either above or under ground.
Additionally, the treaty isn't being renewed because its never been enforced. Clinton signed it early on knowing full well that the Republican Senate would not ratify it. I presume he was hoping that his party would get control of the Senate in the meantime.
In summary, the treaty's never been enforced cause we've never ratified it and it has nothing to do with "StarWars".
I am not aware of a treaty signed with the new Russian Republic that brings over all treaties that we (the U.S.A. for your ferin' types) have signed although I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have slipped such a thing in without going to the Senate for ratification. I know that lots of the START treaty that we've subsequently signed was continued from negotiations with the USSR but those are new treaties for all intents and purposes.
I could be wrong about the lack of said "continuance" treaty but barring its existence, and from my recollection the ABM treaty was specifically between the two powers and not a general non-proliferation treaty like nuclear testing.
That said, the ABM treaty is effectively dead. Additionally, there are specific exemptions in the ABM treaty that allow ABMs to protect specific areas for each side. The Soviets have a large array of ABMs around Moscow but I don't think we ever deployed ours. To allow our continued development, we could still operate under the explicit exemption in the treaty for a limited protection net.
One area where there is no treaty control is space-based weapons. We can thank Ronald Reagan and his willingness to walk out on Gorbachev to protect "Star Wars" development. This would be a better approach, albeit more expensive and difficult, because it stops the inbound ICBMs before they start re-entry and can "MIRV", thus reducing the number of targets that must be tracked an intercepted. As you may recall, to nullify the notion that this was a tactic the unbalance the arms balance, Reagan offered to give the technology to the Soviets in return for negotiating a complete ban on all nuclear weapons. This one-two punch was the straw that broke the camel's back for the USSR.
We should continue this policy because the cost of entry into the nuclear club is now low enough for any 3rd world nation and many individuals to afford. If we don't deploy a system that makes successful delivery of such warheads unlikely, thus drastically increasing the risk that a launch would be intercepted inviting an overwhelming and potentially nuclear retaliation without the intended benifits, its not likely that we'll get out of the next decade without a missle being launched against a major power.
Forgetting about the Macs for a while (I can't even fit the damn things in my rack mount!), this delay will likely also delay the availability of really fast inexpensive PowerPC boxes based on the spec that IBM released and several manufacturers are (or expect to be) working on.
From a software development and architecture view, I much prefer the Motorola product line to Intel's. Its so much cleaner and IBM/Motorola have really taken a lot of the best ideas and put them into a single core without having to carry the baggage of the 8088 along with them.
The availability of Linux for the new platforms will make platform-independence a critical decision point from a marketing perspective. To translate for you Anti-BillGates types, this means that Windows will likely start losing serious marketshare as they're really tied into the Intel architecture and other proprietary PC technologies that Linux can pretty much ignore. If you're a commercial software developer and you have to decide what OS to write for, Linux starts looking all the more attractive if you see customers buying up those PowerPC boxes.
You mean as opposed to RMS?!?!? Do I smell the stink of hypocrisy here?
Please define exactly what is the "Church" and what is the "State" in your posting and how they are different. Then please demonstrate a single example of what you're accusing ESR of actually occurring.
If you're not advancing you personal cause then whose cause are you supposed to advance? The point is that you come out and say what you stand for, demonstrate its truth and value, then see who jumps on board. Your personal cause becomes everyone's personal cause but its still *your* cause.
Re-examine your premise here. I think you're confusing your personal view of what you want from "Open Software" and defining anything that you don't like about ESR's view as some wacky religious fervour. It certainly may be, but, thus far, that wacky idea has been emperically proven to be correct.
What complete bunk! No one who I don't know has the right to send me an email, especially one containing such drival, and then expect me to protect their privacy in return. If more people exposed such nonsense then this stuff would lighten up a bit I think. What about when you get junk mail and forward it to the domain's postmaster? Have you broken someone's privacy "rights" then?
If you don't want something repeated then don't say it in the first place.
Mindcraft was fully in their rights to post this stuff. Actually was pretty lame compared to what I would have expected although it certainly was unjustified flame that they did not deserve and reflects well on no one. They even had to post email from the same guy twice so this is obviously as bad as it got for them.
I wonder if they'll be posting any of the honest critiques (from Windows and Linux users alike) any time soon? Doubt it.
If he don't want mp3's that's fine with me. Just leaves more for the rest of us!
... hey wait a second!
PS: Why does he believe that *any* tax break is undeserved?
Indeed. This "article" is anything but well thought out. It completely misrepresents the entire mechanism that SourceExchange is using. It makes accusations but doesn't bother to even hint at a justification for the accusation. Its unfortunate that garbage like this gets published on otherwise respectable forums like Slashdot and Freshmeat when it should be, at best, regulated to an alt.* group on UseNet.
This is a disturbing trend amongst the "free software" fanatics. What the heck is your time worth to you anyway?!?!? $300 for a full license on one of the most well implemented and innovative pieces of software I've ever had the happy pleasure to actually use is chicken feed! I installed VMWare for the first time last night and got NT4 running on it w/ Office 97 and Netscape within a few hours. Had never seen the product before in my life. Amazing! I actually am looking forward to sending my check on Monday and reformatting my one remaining Windows box to linux!
The very next day, however, someone annouces a "free" project to clone these guys' product (which just happened to be released FIRST on Linux - there's support from the community for you). I'd say any hope of VMWare being willing to release their source just dropped like like a cruise missle over an aspirin factory.
What could be the motive of this project? Hmmm.. could it be the fun in the technical innovation and sharing it with people who appreciate it? Well, that's unlikely since the project announcement doesn't claim to have a goal to do anything that VMWare doesn't already do right now. If this was a true hacker project they'd take the concept one or two steps further - provide cpu independence for example. Run Mac apps for the G3 on a PII under Linux or NT/Alpha on a G3 under Linux for example. Nope - these guys are just upset that the VMWare folks might get paid for their effort. This is the kind of FUD that would make Mr. Gates proud cause it certainly makes me less inclined to release source on any of my projects. Fortunately I expect this "free" project to become instant vaporware since most talented developers actually value their time at more than $300 for 1000 man hours of trying to do something someone else already does well. Perhaps they'll take my hint...?
You mention intelligence then try to fix the blame of the argument to Micro$oft? Ok..
GNU/Linux has *not* been getting all the media coverage. Linux and its successful development model has.
Reality creates "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" that you mention rarely "ask" the "haves" to share - *this* is where the division starts. We're talking about coercion and RMS & Co. would do it forcibly if they had it in their power to do so. Indeed, doing so requires that they be working under a very wrong premise indeed. Successful "have nots" work their butts off to become "haves" themselves. Its not until then that they understand what has value and that the very act of giving it away makes it less valuable.