Ditto that. It looks like LNUX will escape NASDAQ delistment. As of this post they are $1.20/sh, after having traded below a dollar since July 2. IIRC, 90 days below a dollar and the 'DAQ will delist you unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Inventors contemporary to Franklin may have had similar feelings about patents for a variety of reasons. First, the patent process that they knew of in England may have been unfair and/or corrupt (sound familiar?). From what I've heard, English IP laws of that era bore little resemblance to the IP law envisioned by the founders. They were more about aristocratic control. Many argue that our IP laws have been corrupted in a similar fashion; just substitute "aristocrats" with "corporations".
Secondly, it was easier to dismiss the value of IP in Franklin's time because mass production and interchangeable parts were not generally available. Post-revolution, Eli Whitney and others developed the mass production techniques. As the industrial revolution progressed, the quantity and quality of labor required to make physical copies of a device shrank dramaticly in proportion to the labor required to invent a device.
Thus, it seemed a folly to Franklin to patent his stove when the idea took 1 man-week to sketch, and perhaps 2 man-weeks *per unit* to produce.
On the other hand, Edison's lightbulb and the ribbon machines used to manufacture them took years to develop. Once this was done, each lightbulb took only a fraction of a second to produce. Therefore, it now makes perfect sense that the knowledge of how to make the bulbs is far more valuable than even a truckload of the bulbs themselves.
...padded handcranks for all automobiles to prevent injury?
This would have been great news for everybody who wants to use a C-64 to control a model-T while they their kids watch Brady Bunch re-runs in the backseat. It would have been bad news for just about everybody else.
Too bad nobody in government has a clue. Any idiot can see that having the ability to install software-based decoders in the set is the way to go. Commiting to a standard 5 years in the future is grade-A 99.44% pure idiocy. Waytogo guys.
This is just another example of economics being applied in an amoral fashion. For quite some time I've been lamenting the demise of the 12-oz can in convenience stores, which has been replaced with 20-oz plastic bottles. All too often I find myself falling prey to the "you've gotta finish it" mentality. No doubt this comes from being told as a kid to "clean your plate because people are starving overseas".
Of course, I could just pour out the extra soda or plan ahead by purchasing smaller units at the grocery store. However, if I were inclined to do that I wouldn't be at the convenience store to begin with. Planning ahead simply isn't... well... convenient.
So... what can we do with all that flat soda? I hate the idea of just dumping it, so here's my proposal: Flat soda collection centers.
It's not as crazy as you think. Since all non-diet sodas are essentially sugar-water with an acid pH, all we have to do is dump them in a vat, rebalance the pH, add yeast, and let them ferment. Then we can distill the product into ethanol and use it to power stuff.
Of course this will never work. Most people drink the whole 20-oz, or just dump the flat soda. If I were the tinfoil-hat type, I'd say there was a conspiracy to make America fat, but it's really just amoral economics.
The companies get a better margin on bigger bottles. They can afford to please the gluttons at the expense of the rest of us because the gluttons are their best customers. There are only 2 major soda companies. Any vendor that tries to carry the smaller sizes faces the same margins. They may also face pressure from the soda companies. Pepsico does a lot of its business because it owns restaurants. They should be forced to divest all their restaurant holdings, as this is very much against the public interst. Alternatively, their corporate charter could be revoked thus relieving them of both the benefits and obligations of being a corporation. Of course charter revokation is a futile proposal since the public service nature of corporations is all but dead and burried.
Both soda companies are guilty of using heavy-handed contracts on independant operators. All corporations (not just soda companies) should be barred from making deals that prevent customers from dealing in competing products. Such a law, were it in force, would solve much of the Microsoft problem too.
At any rate, the application of "economies of scale" to serving people drinks is just one of many examples of economics being applied without thought. These aren't refineries we're fueling here, THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS. They require something other than maximum volume at minimum cost.
Don't worry too much though. Misguided economics works in the other direction too. Free Trade wags are actually seriously proposing the elimination of subsidies and tarrifs on agricultural products worldwide. As everybody who took basic economics knows, agricultural subsidies help ensure greater than "market" output. Market output could lead to food shortages in drought years. Tarrifs encourage local production. Take away the tarrifs, and US agriculture might flee to a lower cost producer. Yes folks... all of this means that Americans, yes AMERICANS. May someday be taking grain from UN workers throwing it out the back of trucks. And the Blue Helmet guys probably won't offer you the option of "super sizing" that sack of wheat.
"good PHB" is an oxymoron.:) Note, I used "say" in an overly broad sense. I should have explicitly stated that I was referring to printed ads and/or online job postings. I'm not sure if I've ever heard anybody say "C C++" in an interview.
To me, these languages have obvious parallels in syntax, but in style, they are all worlds apart. What is it that you think is more similar in C and C++ than the links between C and Java or C++ and Java?
C and C++ compilers are often packaged together (or maybe even integrated into the same executable with different action taken depending on file extension).
Java compilers, OTOH, often stand alone or are sold as an add-on.
The biggest difference is this: C and C++ compilers target various processors; both produce system-specific binaries. Java compilers target a VM designed to run cross-platform. The output of a Java compiler is a.class file. Further refinement of the way that.class file is handled takes place in the JVM implementation, sometimes with JIT compiling. This is in stark contrast to both C and C++ where the binary output by the compiler is fully optimized for the target platform.
C and C++ *both* excel at low-level "bit shuffling" when compiled with the right tools, and when proper techniques are used. Many C code-snippets for this purpose can be pasted directly into C++ code with little or no modification.
I could see how you could argue for a stronger link between Java and C++ since they are both OO, but C++ is C's child (note, I know C is not a subset of C++, but C++ is C's progeny) whereas Java is more like a close friend of both. Native methods for Java could be implemented in either C or C++, but they could also be implemented in other languages. However, the goal of Java is not to have very many people using native methods. Their ideal is to build a very large equivalent of C's "standard library" whereas C and C++ define a relatively small core standard and let us pick and choose libraries.
C++ programs often link to C libraries. I call this a "mongrel". Let me reiterate--"C/C++" is an expression that can be easily abused, and if somebody called a specific mongrel a "C/C++" program I would want to know what parts were written in what language.
C++ grew out of C. In another part of this thread, it was stated that the developer of C++ disliked having the two lumped together. Well... he called it C++ because he knew that by tying it to something familiar he would gain acceptance. Now that C has lost ground in some circles he wants to take that association away. This strikes me as a case of someone who made their marketing bed and now has to lie in it.
Looking over your response, it appears that you are focusing just on a strict academic analysis of what each language strives to do. I'm thinking more of the environments in which the languages are used, what's going on under the hood with each of them, and the history of them.
I could probably come up with more but... Oh well, enough of this... I have to go annoy some "shell/Perl" scripters.
Oh, I forgot to add (since I pasted in your whole last paragraph). That C and C++ most certainly *are* more similar to eachother than they are to Java. If you can't see how, I think you're a poser.
Sorry, but I don't think the term "C/C++" is useful in any of those situations. If you have skills in C and/or C++, say so. Writing "C/C++" suggests that you've learned some hybrid out of a Schildt book and don't actually know the difference. As for making arguments comparing "C/C++" with Java, I'm afraid that's just silly. C, C++ and Java have syntactic similarities, but C and C++ are no more similar than C and Java or C++ and Java.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. The PHBs say "C/C++" so when I speak with them I use it too. If I came at them with pedantry about the difference between the two, the response would be predictable: they would either say "I know that" or they would label me as "technicly competent but unable to work well with others".
It's an attempt by those who understand the languages to stop the propagation of the myth that they are somehow inherently related such that a comment about one necessarily applies to the other
Ummm... wasn't the first C++ "compiler" just a preprocessor that converted the code to C? Regardless, C and C++ are closely related, and C can often be pasted into C++ with little or no modification. Also, those who are familiar with one are often familiar with the other, even if they have a strong preference for one over the other. Although I would never say "my code is written in C/C++" I have no problem putting "C/C++" on a resume, talking to employers who are looking for someone with skills in "C/C++", or making arguments about "C/C++" vs. Java. We know what is meant, even if others insist that it's meaningless.
What is this pedantry regarding "C/C++"? I've heard of / used for "and/or" meaning that you may be using one, the other, or both, but I haven't heard of anyone having a problem with that outside of pedants on comp.lang.c and this/. posting.
That's why they are holding on to their pile of cash. There is talk of them forming "Microsoft Capital" which would provide financial services like GE Capital does.
So, the Linux crowd might get their wish and find that one day MSFT is a bit player in OS software, or perhaps even discontinues their OS someday. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Bill Gates actually dreams of discontinuing Windows so that he can just own shares in a nice reliable big banking and financial services conglomerate during his golden years.
This will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who are truly vengeful and hate "M$". Like most people who have the winning way, BG and company will go on about enjoying their lives scarcely even conscious of those who hate. Meanwhile, the hateful will continue eating ramen and lamenting what they see as the injustice of the world. Those who simply wanted a better OS will probably eat ramen too. The difference is that they will do it with contentment, because they too have the winning way.
...film at 11. If NVidia Cg can be used without diseasing your code, it makes VectorC's product irrelevant along with Intel's SIMD hack. It takes all of that and moves it onto dedicated hardware. The key word here is *IF* you can use Cg without mucking up your code. Just looking at VectorC's source for their benchmarks, I saw some things that were nonconforming for ANSI/ISO C. Pot. Kettle. Black. Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what switches they used on the other compilers (grin).
I suspect that disciplined programmers can use either tool without making their code proprietary. Use MACROS for compiler dependant stuff! Wrap proprietary functions!!! Of course, when you are shoving games out the door, how many stop to think about coding discipline? So, then it becomes a question of who you would rather risk getting locked into...
...having the guts to post stories about alternatives to CVS, when their parent company (VA Software) has a CVS-based product (SourceForge) as one of their few apparent streams of revenue.
Could this perhaps be stealth R&D for SourceForge 4.0, which might perhaps act as a front-end for all types of source maintenance tools? Given VA's past record, they're not apt to be that savvy. Perhaps Taco et. al. are just trying to convince upper management that they need to do something Real Soon Now. Perhaps they desire to have said higher powers become so disgusted with/. that they will decide to sell it to someone like Salon or NYT so that the editorial staff can finally become real journalists like they always wanted.
There's no need to mess with economic theory to explain Open Source. There's nothing new there. Each programmer, as a rational operator, contributes for a number of possible reasons. For example, they may value creative control and consulting opportunities more than they value a salary. In other words, someone who waits tables at night and codes for free during the day isn't necessarily a radical leftwing crackpot--as long as they are doing it for the future hope of consulting $$$ and/or the right to maintain control of their work (witness the not insignificant number of people who have un-Opened their work).
Corporate sponsors have rational reasons too. IBM doesn't support Linux to join the lovefest. They think it's better for some applications, they want to offer consulting for it, they don't like being tied to a proprietary vendor, etc. Any contributions they make are made because they realize it's the price of doing business under the Linux model--they would lose business due to bad PR if they didn't.
As for software being "special", there isn't any need to appeal to such an idea. Coffee is a good example. Generic not-so-tasty coffee is often given away in waiting rooms, hotel lobbies, places like that. Same deal with those little mints on pillows. Same deal with free samples at the grocery store (I've known people who make a meal of free samples on Saturdays at Fresh Fields). In all of these cases, software included, there is a rational economic model that has given rise to support for some free riders. People still have to pay for these products. The payers have deemed that they are better off paying the free riders, much as society has decided that some taxation is better than none.
The OSS model could be regarded as a "natural tax". Once again, there is nothing irrational about it. Advocates just have to realize that neither model is "superior". The free market sometimes moves us towards paying for goods directly. Other times it moves us towards indirect payment (somebody pays for OSS, because TANSTAAFL).
Of course, I doubt that advocates will stop advocating. There is a demand for politics just like anything else, and they supply it. It's just that I hate to see it when the supply-demand for politics pushes the supply-demand for other things out of equilibrium.
Close, but no cigar. I've mentioned this before other places, but it needs mentioning again.
The real issue, the one that remained unresolved throughout the 20th century, is this:
Sometimes, there is really nothing to do.
Let that sink in for a minute.
In the 20s, we all got mobile with cars and got wireless with radio (RCA was like Yahoo!).
Once most of the people who wanted model-Ts and vacuum-tube sets had 'em, the market saturated, the bubble burst, and people couldn't figure out what to do.
It took WW-II to get 'em interested in something again. The sequel involving Communists and a space race was pretty exciting too.
Then in the early 90s, no more Commies (none that really mattered, anyway) but that was OK because computers had been rolling along quite nicely (a spinoff of the space race, actually) and the Internet, whoooh boy! That was something.
The first warning sign was when computers actually fell in price. For years, they were about $2000, and they kept getting faster. When they started noticeably dropping in price circa 1997/1998, I remarked that we might be getting saturated. We are now certainly saturated. Almost everybody who wants a PC has one. Almost everybody who wants dial-up Internet in the US has it.
Broadband might have helped us, but this is now an area where the bad economy feeds on itself: consumers won't shell out for broadband when the next paycheck is in doubt. They may even cancel their dialup.
People need something to do. They want something to do.
I believe FDR actually had the right idea with some of his programs--the ones that built lasting infrastructure such as the TVA and Skyline Drive (note, the forced relocation of mountain people was poor execution, but the *idea* of creating a recreational area was a good one). The problem is that GWB is imitating some of FDR's mistakes when it comes to creating *permanent* beurocracies. The biggest of these mistakes was social security, which is just a big Ponzi scheme that has to collapse sooner or later.
When people don't know what to do, government spending can be a viable option, but it needs to be temporary, constructive, and produce something useful. How about grants for commuter rail in cities where it would be appropriate (e.g., full funding for the Las Vegas monorail would be really cool). How about an Apollo type program to create 100 mpg and/or alternative fuel cars that people will actually want to buy?
Instead, we will probably just create a few more government agencies.
War is an option too, but with the US reluctance to actually get involved with postwar reconstruction efforts, it seems like a bad idea. Already, the Afghan government is showing weakness because of our reluctance to really help stabilize it. If Karzai can't maintain power, GWB will be a domestic *and* a foreign failure. I doubt we'll do much better in Iraq. It's a real pity too, because I bet we could *easily* round up 50,000 military-age people who would be willing to go to Afghanistan and keep it clean until the locals learned how to be civilized. It's the old men that don't have the stomach for it these days--a complete reversal from the 1960s.
What if your name is Chevalier? Check out the 4th link from the Google search for Chreviewier. It looks like somebody's geneological search is going to be that much harder.
That isn't much worse than those stupid animated CG prehistoric creatures that the Discovery channel ran along the bottom of the screen to advertise their show about... umm... stupid CG prehistoric creatures.
The already annoying network logo at the bottom of the screen has increasingly been replaced with more and more ads for coming attractions.
Pop-ups for 3rd party products are just a natural evolutionary step.
So, ya'gotta ask, why are we paying for cable? Certainly not the clean picture and reliable reception; at least not with Cox (Fairfax County, VA) anyway. I guess if you want to escape the crap, you have to pay for premium cable (HBO, Cinemax, etc.). I don't know because we don't have 'em. Come to think of it... the only reason I watch TV at all is because I don't pay for cable. I moved back with the folks, and well... the cable is there like free booze for an alcoholic. When I was on my own, I listened to NPR, read books, and fiddled with the computer a lot more. We didn't even have a TV.
1. Write an application that runs unsigned applications. Sign that app, never sign anything else again.
2. OK, let's say you have to sign every process. That means you have to sign every version of a DLL. MSFT won't just be alienating OSS developers if that happens.
3. Under this regime, security is only as good as the CA. Sure, some CA's will charge a lot of money because they are "reputable", but how hard/expensive is it to run a certificate server anyway? From what I've heard, not very. It's just that nobody does that now because there isn't a need. Something like this would just cause orgs like the EFF, GNU, perhaps others to run free CAs, or even CAs the are dummies designed to fool the OS into believing the software is signed. Then the orgs and MSFT can sue eachother for a few years, and by the time the case is settled it'll be a 1 inch blurb in the business section and a few lawyers will have new Lexus automobiles. Nothing new here.
I don't know about you guys, but I never even bother reading those little pop-ups that come from signed code, even when it has an error, and I have never been compromised by such code. Why? Because trusting code you get from ibm.com is safe, and trusting code you get from deadalienhacker.org isn't. In other words, security is verified by the reputation, integrity, and character of the authors. My... what a novel concept.:)
If "graceful" includes the Revolutionary war, impressment of US sailors, and the war of 1812 in which they marched on our capital and burned the White House, I'd hate to see what "grudgingly" looks like.
...will wake up one day and realize they are just technicians not world saviors. Of course, actors and musicians would have to do that first. I'm not holding my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto that. It looks like LNUX will escape NASDAQ delistment. As of this post they are $1.20/sh, after having traded below a dollar since July 2. IIRC, 90 days below a dollar and the 'DAQ will delist you unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Inventors contemporary to Franklin may have had similar feelings about patents for a variety of reasons. First, the patent process that they knew of in England may have been unfair and/or corrupt (sound familiar?). From what I've heard, English IP laws of that era bore little resemblance to the IP law envisioned by the founders. They were more about aristocratic control. Many argue that our IP laws have been corrupted in a similar fashion; just substitute "aristocrats" with "corporations".
Secondly, it was easier to dismiss the value of IP in Franklin's time because mass production and interchangeable parts were not generally available. Post-revolution, Eli Whitney and others developed the mass production techniques. As the industrial revolution progressed, the quantity and quality of labor required to make physical copies of a device shrank dramaticly in proportion to the labor required to invent a device.
Thus, it seemed a folly to Franklin to patent his stove when the idea took 1 man-week to sketch, and perhaps 2 man-weeks *per unit* to produce.
On the other hand, Edison's lightbulb and the ribbon machines used to manufacture them took years to develop. Once this was done, each lightbulb took only a fraction of a second to produce. Therefore, it now makes perfect sense that the knowledge of how to make the bulbs is far more valuable than even a truckload of the bulbs themselves.
What if the government had mandated...
...Beta compatability in all VCRs?
...6502 compatability in all CPUs?
...padded handcranks for all automobiles to prevent injury?
This would have been great news for everybody who wants to use a C-64 to control a model-T while they their kids watch Brady Bunch re-runs in the backseat. It would have been bad news for just about everybody else.
Too bad nobody in government has a clue. Any idiot can see that having the ability to install software-based decoders in the set is the way to go. Commiting to a standard 5 years in the future is grade-A 99.44% pure idiocy. Waytogo guys.
This is just another example of economics being applied in an amoral fashion. For quite some time I've been lamenting the demise of the 12-oz can in convenience stores, which has been replaced with 20-oz plastic bottles. All too often I find myself falling prey to the "you've gotta finish it" mentality. No doubt this comes from being told as a kid to "clean your plate because people are starving overseas".
Of course, I could just pour out the extra soda or plan ahead by purchasing smaller units at the grocery store. However, if I were inclined to do that I wouldn't be at the convenience store to begin with. Planning ahead simply isn't... well... convenient.
So... what can we do with all that flat soda? I hate the idea of just dumping it, so here's my proposal: Flat soda collection centers.
It's not as crazy as you think. Since all non-diet sodas are essentially sugar-water with an acid pH, all we have to do is dump them in a vat, rebalance the pH, add yeast, and let them ferment. Then we can distill the product into ethanol and use it to power stuff.
Of course this will never work. Most people drink the whole 20-oz, or just dump the flat soda. If I were the tinfoil-hat type, I'd say there was a conspiracy to make America fat, but it's really just amoral economics.
The companies get a better margin on bigger bottles. They can afford to please the gluttons at the expense of the rest of us because the gluttons are their best customers. There are only 2 major soda companies. Any vendor that tries to carry the smaller sizes faces the same margins. They may also face pressure from the soda companies. Pepsico does a lot of its business because it owns restaurants. They should be forced to divest all their restaurant holdings, as this is very much against the public interst. Alternatively, their corporate charter could be revoked thus relieving them of both the benefits and obligations of being a corporation. Of course charter revokation is a futile proposal since the public service nature of corporations is all but dead and burried.
Both soda companies are guilty of using heavy-handed contracts on independant operators. All corporations (not just soda companies) should be barred from making deals that prevent customers from dealing in competing products. Such a law, were it in force, would solve much of the Microsoft problem too.
At any rate, the application of "economies of scale" to serving people drinks is just one of many examples of economics being applied without thought. These aren't refineries we're fueling here, THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS. They require something other than maximum volume at minimum cost.
Don't worry too much though. Misguided economics works in the other direction too. Free Trade wags are actually seriously proposing the elimination of subsidies and tarrifs on agricultural products worldwide. As everybody who took basic economics knows, agricultural subsidies help ensure greater than "market" output. Market output could lead to food shortages in drought years. Tarrifs encourage local production. Take away the tarrifs, and US agriculture might flee to a lower cost producer. Yes folks... all of this means that Americans, yes AMERICANS. May someday be taking grain from UN workers throwing it out the back of trucks. And the Blue Helmet guys probably won't offer you the option of "super sizing" that sack of wheat.
The good PHBs don't
"good PHB" is an oxymoron. :) Note, I used "say" in an overly broad sense. I should have explicitly stated that I was referring to printed ads and/or online job postings. I'm not sure if I've ever heard anybody say "C C++" in an interview.
To me, these languages have obvious parallels in syntax, but in style, they are all worlds apart. What is it that you think is more similar in C and C++ than the links between C and Java or C++ and Java?
C and C++ compilers are often packaged together (or maybe even integrated into the same executable with different action taken depending on file extension).
Java compilers, OTOH, often stand alone or are sold as an add-on.
The biggest difference is this: C and C++ compilers target various processors; both produce system-specific binaries. Java compilers target a VM designed to run cross-platform. The output of a Java compiler is a .class file. Further refinement of the way that .class file is handled takes place in the JVM implementation, sometimes with JIT compiling. This is in stark contrast to both C and C++ where the binary output by the compiler is fully optimized for the target platform.
C and C++ *both* excel at low-level "bit shuffling" when compiled with the right tools, and when proper techniques are used. Many C code-snippets for this purpose can be pasted directly into C++ code with little or no modification.
I could see how you could argue for a stronger link between Java and C++ since they are both OO, but C++ is C's child (note, I know C is not a subset of C++, but C++ is C's progeny) whereas Java is more like a close friend of both. Native methods for Java could be implemented in either C or C++, but they could also be implemented in other languages. However, the goal of Java is not to have very many people using native methods. Their ideal is to build a very large equivalent of C's "standard library" whereas C and C++ define a relatively small core standard and let us pick and choose libraries.
C++ programs often link to C libraries. I call this a "mongrel". Let me reiterate--"C/C++" is an expression that can be easily abused, and if somebody called a specific mongrel a "C/C++" program I would want to know what parts were written in what language.
C++ grew out of C. In another part of this thread, it was stated that the developer of C++ disliked having the two lumped together. Well... he called it C++ because he knew that by tying it to something familiar he would gain acceptance. Now that C has lost ground in some circles he wants to take that association away. This strikes me as a case of someone who made their marketing bed and now has to lie in it.
Looking over your response, it appears that you are focusing just on a strict academic analysis of what each language strives to do. I'm thinking more of the environments in which the languages are used, what's going on under the hood with each of them, and the history of them.
I could probably come up with more but... Oh well, enough of this... I have to go annoy some "shell/Perl" scripters.
Oh, I forgot to add (since I pasted in your whole last paragraph). That C and C++ most certainly *are* more similar to eachother than they are to Java. If you can't see how, I think you're a poser.
Sorry, but I don't think the term "C/C++" is useful in any of those situations. If you have skills in C and/or C++, say so. Writing "C/C++" suggests that you've learned some hybrid out of a Schildt book and don't actually know the difference. As for making arguments comparing "C/C++" with Java, I'm afraid that's just silly. C, C++ and Java have syntactic similarities, but C and C++ are no more similar than C and Java or C++ and Java.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. The PHBs say "C/C++" so when I speak with them I use it too. If I came at them with pedantry about the difference between the two, the response would be predictable: they would either say "I know that" or they would label me as "technicly competent but unable to work well with others".
It's an attempt by those who understand the languages to stop the propagation of the myth that they are somehow inherently related such that a comment about one necessarily applies to the other
Ummm... wasn't the first C++ "compiler" just a preprocessor that converted the code to C? Regardless, C and C++ are closely related, and C can often be pasted into C++ with little or no modification. Also, those who are familiar with one are often familiar with the other, even if they have a strong preference for one over the other. Although I would never say "my code is written in C/C++" I have no problem putting "C/C++" on a resume, talking to employers who are looking for someone with skills in "C/C++", or making arguments about "C/C++" vs. Java. We know what is meant, even if others insist that it's meaningless.
What is this pedantry regarding "C/C++"? I've heard of / used for "and/or" meaning that you may be using one, the other, or both, but I haven't heard of anyone having a problem with that outside of pedants on comp.lang.c and this /. posting.
That's why they are holding on to their pile of cash. There is talk of them forming "Microsoft Capital" which would provide financial services like GE Capital does.
So, the Linux crowd might get their wish and find that one day MSFT is a bit player in OS software, or perhaps even discontinues their OS someday. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Bill Gates actually dreams of discontinuing Windows so that he can just own shares in a nice reliable big banking and financial services conglomerate during his golden years.
This will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who are truly vengeful and hate "M$". Like most people who have the winning way, BG and company will go on about enjoying their lives scarcely even conscious of those who hate. Meanwhile, the hateful will continue eating ramen and lamenting what they see as the injustice of the world. Those who simply wanted a better OS will probably eat ramen too. The difference is that they will do it with contentment, because they too have the winning way.
I suspect that disciplined programmers can use either tool without making their code proprietary. Use MACROS for compiler dependant stuff! Wrap proprietary functions!!! Of course, when you are shoving games out the door, how many stop to think about coding discipline? So, then it becomes a question of who you would rather risk getting locked into...
now that I maxed out the RAM (640MB), it's very nice
640MB is enough for anybody. :)
Could this perhaps be stealth R&D for SourceForge 4.0, which might perhaps act as a front-end for all types of source maintenance tools? Given VA's past record, they're not apt to be that savvy. Perhaps Taco et. al. are just trying to convince upper management that they need to do something Real Soon Now. Perhaps they desire to have said higher powers become so disgusted with /. that they will decide to sell it to someone like Salon or NYT so that the editorial staff can finally become real journalists like they always wanted.
There's no need to mess with economic theory to explain Open Source. There's nothing new there. Each programmer, as a rational operator, contributes for a number of possible reasons. For example, they may value creative control and consulting opportunities more than they value a salary. In other words, someone who waits tables at night and codes for free during the day isn't necessarily a radical leftwing crackpot--as long as they are doing it for the future hope of consulting $$$ and/or the right to maintain control of their work (witness the not insignificant number of people who have un-Opened their work).
Corporate sponsors have rational reasons too. IBM doesn't support Linux to join the lovefest. They think it's better for some applications, they want to offer consulting for it, they don't like being tied to a proprietary vendor, etc. Any contributions they make are made because they realize it's the price of doing business under the Linux model--they would lose business due to bad PR if they didn't.
As for software being "special", there isn't any need to appeal to such an idea. Coffee is a good example. Generic not-so-tasty coffee is often given away in waiting rooms, hotel lobbies, places like that. Same deal with those little mints on pillows. Same deal with free samples at the grocery store (I've known people who make a meal of free samples on Saturdays at Fresh Fields). In all of these cases, software included, there is a rational economic model that has given rise to support for some free riders. People still have to pay for these products. The payers have deemed that they are better off paying the free riders, much as society has decided that some taxation is better than none.
The OSS model could be regarded as a "natural tax". Once again, there is nothing irrational about it. Advocates just have to realize that neither model is "superior". The free market sometimes moves us towards paying for goods directly. Other times it moves us towards indirect payment (somebody pays for OSS, because TANSTAAFL).
Of course, I doubt that advocates will stop advocating. There is a demand for politics just like anything else, and they supply it. It's just that I hate to see it when the supply-demand for politics pushes the supply-demand for other things out of equilibrium.
Immersive Video Conferencing? (cough)pr0n(cough)
Close, but no cigar. I've mentioned this before other places, but it needs mentioning again.
The real issue, the one that remained unresolved throughout the 20th century, is this:
Sometimes, there is really nothing to do.
Let that sink in for a minute.
In the 20s, we all got mobile with cars and got wireless with radio (RCA was like Yahoo!).
Once most of the people who wanted model-Ts and vacuum-tube sets had 'em, the market saturated, the bubble burst, and people couldn't figure out what to do.
It took WW-II to get 'em interested in something again. The sequel involving Communists and a space race was pretty exciting too.
Then in the early 90s, no more Commies (none that really mattered, anyway) but that was OK because computers had been rolling along quite nicely (a spinoff of the space race, actually) and the Internet, whoooh boy! That was something.
The first warning sign was when computers actually fell in price. For years, they were about $2000, and they kept getting faster. When they started noticeably dropping in price circa 1997/1998, I remarked that we might be getting saturated. We are now certainly saturated. Almost everybody who wants a PC has one. Almost everybody who wants dial-up Internet in the US has it.
Broadband might have helped us, but this is now an area where the bad economy feeds on itself: consumers won't shell out for broadband when the next paycheck is in doubt. They may even cancel their dialup.
People need something to do. They want something to do.
I believe FDR actually had the right idea with some of his programs--the ones that built lasting infrastructure such as the TVA and Skyline Drive (note, the forced relocation of mountain people was poor execution, but the *idea* of creating a recreational area was a good one). The problem is that GWB is imitating some of FDR's mistakes when it comes to creating *permanent* beurocracies. The biggest of these mistakes was social security, which is just a big Ponzi scheme that has to collapse sooner or later.
When people don't know what to do, government spending can be a viable option, but it needs to be temporary, constructive, and produce something useful. How about grants for commuter rail in cities where it would be appropriate (e.g., full funding for the Las Vegas monorail would be really cool). How about an Apollo type program to create 100 mpg and/or alternative fuel cars that people will actually want to buy?
Instead, we will probably just create a few more government agencies.
War is an option too, but with the US reluctance to actually get involved with postwar reconstruction efforts, it seems like a bad idea. Already, the Afghan government is showing weakness because of our reluctance to really help stabilize it. If Karzai can't maintain power, GWB will be a domestic *and* a foreign failure. I doubt we'll do much better in Iraq. It's a real pity too, because I bet we could *easily* round up 50,000 military-age people who would be willing to go to Afghanistan and keep it clean until the locals learned how to be civilized. It's the old men that don't have the stomach for it these days--a complete reversal from the 1960s.
What if your name is Chevalier? Check out the 4th link from the Google search for Chreviewier. It looks like somebody's geneological search is going to be that much harder.
That isn't much worse than those stupid animated CG prehistoric creatures that the Discovery channel ran along the bottom of the screen to advertise their show about... umm... stupid CG prehistoric creatures.
The already annoying network logo at the bottom of the screen has increasingly been replaced with more and more ads for coming attractions.
Pop-ups for 3rd party products are just a natural evolutionary step.
So, ya'gotta ask, why are we paying for cable? Certainly not the clean picture and reliable reception; at least not with Cox (Fairfax County, VA) anyway. I guess if you want to escape the crap, you have to pay for premium cable (HBO, Cinemax, etc.). I don't know because we don't have 'em. Come to think of it... the only reason I watch TV at all is because I don't pay for cable. I moved back with the folks, and well... the cable is there like free booze for an alcoholic. When I was on my own, I listened to NPR, read books, and fiddled with the computer a lot more. We didn't even have a TV.
1. Write an application that runs unsigned applications. Sign that app, never sign anything else again.
2. OK, let's say you have to sign every process. That means you have to sign every version of a DLL. MSFT won't just be alienating OSS developers if that happens.
3. Under this regime, security is only as good as the CA. Sure, some CA's will charge a lot of money because they are "reputable", but how hard/expensive is it to run a certificate server anyway? From what I've heard, not very. It's just that nobody does that now because there isn't a need. Something like this would just cause orgs like the EFF, GNU, perhaps others to run free CAs, or even CAs the are dummies designed to fool the OS into believing the software is signed. Then the orgs and MSFT can sue eachother for a few years, and by the time the case is settled it'll be a 1 inch blurb in the business section and a few lawyers will have new Lexus automobiles. Nothing new here.
I don't know about you guys, but I never even bother reading those little pop-ups that come from signed code, even when it has an error, and I have never been compromised by such code. Why? Because trusting code you get from ibm.com is safe, and trusting code you get from deadalienhacker.org isn't. In other words, security is verified by the reputation, integrity, and character of the authors. My... what a novel concept. :)
Excuse me, I gotta get coding. I'm gonna be RICH!
You can probably save yourself a lot of time by licensing the engine from Deerhunter.
OK, maybe there is a connection, but you don't cure smallpox by forcing people to get plastic surgery to hide the vesicles.
You're not looking at both sides of the issue. (groan)
uses prison labor to make their computers?
Dude, you're gettin' a cell.
If "graceful" includes the Revolutionary war, impressment of US sailors, and the war of 1812 in which they marched on our capital and burned the White House, I'd hate to see what "grudgingly" looks like.
...will wake up one day and realize they are just technicians not world saviors. Of course, actors and musicians would have to do that first. I'm not holding my breath.