Everything parent says is absolutely correct, just apart from one little thing. MacOS X automatically starts X11 when you run an X application. The launcher does this by looking at the libraries that the app links to.
I use several X11 app under OSX and it functions great. However, native Aqua apps are generally easier on the eye.
It sounds to me like your friend's company chose the wrong OS if they needed to make "hundreds of tweaks" to it.
I apologize if I failed to make myself clear. What I meant is that when a company produces their own embedded hardware (which is the case I describe), no OS in the world will ever support your chipsets because they are unique to you. At least in those cases you need a kernel over whose code you can have full control.
My point goes to a simple pragmatic truth, that no matter how clever something is, it can still be useless to you.
A friend of mine works for a company that makes embedded systems and they chose a Linux kernel to drive it since they have to make hundreds of tweaks in the kernel code to compensate for custom hardware (that they build in-house).
IMO, choosing your software is not just a matter of point-by-point feature comparison. Some times you need the ability to modify the behavior, especially because embedded hardware is typically somewhat eccentric.
2) Many of them like to trumpet their software as better than closed source. K, great, but it'd better be good then and part of that is fixes and updates. Firefox is a good browser, however if they decide they don't need to patch it, and it gets security holes that go unfixed, it won't be a good one any longer.
Very interesting point. Would you say then, that the fact that one pays good money for a piece of software from a company who has a vested interest in its product (ie. they will cease to get money if people dont use it) strengthens your faith in them? That is, you are willing to wait longer for security/feature updates from a closed source company than from an open source project?
I might have read you wrong and this may not have been what you meant. But maybe it is true. Personally I will throw out a $5 t-shirt long before a $30 white shirt, even if they were equally worn. Vested interest.
Maybe some people actually like paying money for what they get. Makes it feel more valuable.
...I am inclined to get more profficient with Bash and C...
But Bash does not do anything. To accomplish something you have to use all the command line tools, like grep, sed, and awk. Put those tools in the language and you have Ruby or Perl.
Shell scripts are only really quick to develop because they mirror what we would type via the CLI. Thus the name, "script".
The coolest thing would be if you search for a quote you rememebered from an old simpsons episode, but could not rememeber which one. video.google.com, "I'm Feeling Lucky" and after a second it starts streaming that episode.
My car has a completely different set of layout for dash controls from my girlfriends...
Would you not say, though, that the two cars have equivalent interfaces? What if you had to reach under the passenger seat to push the brakes? Would that not be a difference in design, possibly worse?
It seems to me that a LOT of people in these comments are remarking that David's choice of Haskell makes darcs a no-go. I would make this comment:
If someone told you to use <Tool X> for a project, you would say, "No way, <Tool Y> is more suitable for this job, and it's what I want to use." (substitute X and Y with whatever - C/Java/Perl/VB - you want).
I think David chose what he felt was the best tool for the job, taking the problem-to-solve and his own expertise into consideration. In the light of Paul Graham's insights I really think he should be applauded rather than criticised.
Bloggers simply do not have that level of trust, They still represent one guy with a website, and are only as reliable as the person typing the blog entry. That does not mean that bloggers do not sometimes add to the coverage of stories, just that they tend to be reactive...
Funny you mention it. I could hardly concentrate while reading the article because I was thinking, "this reads so like a blog entry".
I completely agree with the parent, but I think on-line journalism has a general tendency to be quicker to deliver stories to the reader, therefore it is generally "reactive". This goes for bloggers, 'zines, and CBS.com alike. NewYorkTimes and CNN have much better defined profiles so the effect is minimized, but it seems to me that many sites display the same tendency.
I just think the speed of the Internet affects the matter. Report on hot topics and the result will be a heated report.
I don't get it. To me,.eu and.asia make much more sense then.travel. Am I being biased because I am european? Or is it just that ICAAN does not consider it very important since they feel .us is all anybody important will ever need?
I would actually expect that there are plenty of lawyers and non-techie clients left around, that simply have never gotten used to the fact that the global internetworking obliterates all considerations towards national law.
"Ahh, the good old days when we could just build a fence to box them in," they think one morning, then get a call from their laywers saying that people are just "pirating" their owned works off the Internet.
Personally, I feel sorry for them and everyone else who is stuck in the twentieth century.
in order to be a news site you have to have your own news, not a link to someone else's news.... this site should be called "Discussions for nerds. Stuff that matters."
Unless you regard/. as a news "portal", which would be a fair definition IMO.
No. Perception mediates reality, but the real is not entirely out of grasp.
I believe the grandparent was doing one up on Kant and distinguishing between perceived reality and actual reality. What Kant fails to solve is the fact that there is always a risk of discrepancy between the two. When there is, people tend to go for the former and ignore the latter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with Kant. I just think that Kierkegaard and David Bohm have clarified some gaps in "Logic". Even Kant admits that truth is in the eye of the beholder but tries to justify this with the extistence of a "thing in itself".
This is the effect that lets government define a reality in which terrorists are right around the corner. Most people can be conditioned with fear and the beauty of human perception is that the fear need not even be real.
Well, let us see. If you are porting something from, say, Rexx to C you are either writing it from scratch - in which case the source code of the original program is inconsequential - or you are writing a Rexx->C compiler. In the latter case, would you not simply lower_case all identifiers?
Just seems to me, if one were assigned a project like that, case sensitivity would be the least of one's problems...
Since the religious people began opposing science as it over turned their superstitions and required them to actually examine the nature of their faith only to find out it was a weak substitute for habbit.
To be fair, originally it was the scientists who started it all by opposing the church.
"What do you mean, round? Have you been smoking your tea again, Galilea?"
One of the things I enjoy most about your books is the amount of detail with which you describe history, technology, events. I think this is most prevalent in Cryptonomican so far.
How do you go go about researching for your books and what kind of sources do you use?
Short answer is yes: There are plenty of camera brands which fail to work with either OS X or Win32, mostly the former.
Also the "universally compatible USB Mass Storge" is actually an illusion. As a Apple switchee, I had to go replace my no-name USB stick with one from SanDisk since the one I had did not work in OS X.
Still, I have had plenty of equivelant experiences with Linux and WinXP. I assume the hardware vendors are hacking their products together at the workstation instead of implementing the specification properly.
...now I'd be really bummed out if my Visa card number was on Google's most common search request:-)
But seriously, that info is handed of to all kinds of third parties, for instance any page that does turn up (if any) will get the card number in the HTTP_REFERER URL.
Look, I know it's all the rage on Slashdot to bash MS. And I'm certainly no fan of a lot of what they do. But do you think Google isn't out there trying to make a buck and that they're not going to biased in doing it themselves? If you really think that, you're fooling yourself.
Is it not the point though, that Google are attempting to follow the usually idealistic notion that you can actually turn a profit being an honest business as long as you are very good at what you do?
Also like somebody in the MPEG committee recently said, the job of such DRM systems is not to put off the super clever guy who can break the system anyway... most systems are breakable. The plan is to put off the average consumer who may drag himself/herself into investigating the use of copyrighted content illegally if software and tools are available to *easily* circumvent such content-distrbution-restriction systems.
This is covered in the speech aswell. I think the point here is that if someone needs to crack any particular type of DRM, it will be done. And any cracker who makes my life easier by doing so will be infinitely more popular and (IMO) more deserving of my money than the blood-sucking company that are making a nuisance of themselves.
In short, the "average customer" only needs Google and a healthy sense of adventurism.
DRM is here to stay, in one form or another, and for better or worse
DRM will only make it as long as people pay enough for it. As soon as people grew weary or MS/Apple/Sony find better business models, Digital R(estriction/ights) Management will drop away. It's all about the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything parent says is absolutely correct, just apart from one little thing. MacOS X automatically starts X11 when you run an X application. The launcher does this by looking at the libraries that the app links to.
I use several X11 app under OSX and it functions great. However, native Aqua apps are generally easier on the eye.
It sounds to me like your friend's company chose the wrong OS if they needed to make "hundreds of tweaks" to it.
I apologize if I failed to make myself clear. What I meant is that when a company produces their own embedded hardware (which is the case I describe), no OS in the world will ever support your chipsets because they are unique to you. At least in those cases you need a kernel over whose code you can have full control.
My point goes to a simple pragmatic truth, that no matter how clever something is, it can still be useless to you.
A friend of mine works for a company that makes embedded systems and they chose a Linux kernel to drive it since they have to make hundreds of tweaks in the kernel code to compensate for custom hardware (that they build in-house).
IMO, choosing your software is not just a matter of point-by-point feature comparison. Some times you need the ability to modify the behavior, especially because embedded hardware is typically somewhat eccentric.
2) Many of them like to trumpet their software as better than closed source. K, great, but it'd better be good then and part of that is fixes and updates. Firefox is a good browser, however if they decide they don't need to patch it, and it gets security holes that go unfixed, it won't be a good one any longer.
Very interesting point. Would you say then, that the fact that one pays good money for a piece of software from a company who has a vested interest in its product (ie. they will cease to get money if people dont use it) strengthens your faith in them? That is, you are willing to wait longer for security/feature updates from a closed source company than from an open source project?
I might have read you wrong and this may not have been what you meant. But maybe it is true. Personally I will throw out a $5 t-shirt long before a $30 white shirt, even if they were equally worn. Vested interest.
Maybe some people actually like paying money for what they get. Makes it feel more valuable.
...I am inclined to get more profficient with Bash and C...
But Bash does not do anything. To accomplish something you have to use all the command line tools, like grep, sed, and awk. Put those tools in the language and you have Ruby or Perl.
Shell scripts are only really quick to develop because they mirror what we would type via the CLI. Thus the name, "script".
The coolest thing would be if you search for a quote you rememebered from an old simpsons episode, but could not rememeber which one. video.google.com, "I'm Feeling Lucky" and after a second it starts streaming that episode.
:-)
The future is soooo cool
My car has a completely different set of layout for dash controls from my girlfriends...
Would you not say, though, that the two cars have equivalent interfaces? What if you had to reach under the passenger seat to push the brakes? Would that not be a difference in design, possibly worse?
That is what interface design is about, IMO.
It seems to me that a LOT of people in these comments are remarking that David's choice of Haskell makes darcs a no-go. I would make this comment:
If someone told you to use <Tool X> for a project, you would say, "No way, <Tool Y> is more suitable for this job, and it's what I want to use." (substitute X and Y with whatever - C/Java/Perl/VB - you want).
I think David chose what he felt was the best tool for the job, taking the problem-to-solve and his own expertise into consideration. In the light of Paul Graham's insights I really think he should be applauded rather than criticised.
Bloggers simply do not have that level of trust, They still represent one guy with a website, and are only as reliable as the person typing the blog entry. That does not mean that bloggers do not sometimes add to the coverage of stories, just that they tend to be reactive...
Funny you mention it. I could hardly concentrate while reading the article because I was thinking, "this reads so like a blog entry".
I completely agree with the parent, but I think on-line journalism has a general tendency to be quicker to deliver stories to the reader, therefore it is generally "reactive". This goes for bloggers, 'zines, and CBS.com alike. NewYorkTimes and CNN have much better defined profiles so the effect is minimized, but it seems to me that many sites display the same tendency.
I just think the speed of the Internet affects the matter. Report on hot topics and the result will be a heated report.
I don't get it. To me, .eu and .asia make much more sense then .travel. Am I being biased because I am european? Or is it just that ICAAN does not consider it very important since they feel .us is all anybody important will ever need?
What can the plaintiff hope to gain...
I would actually expect that there are plenty of lawyers and non-techie clients left around, that simply have never gotten used to the fact that the global internetworking obliterates all considerations towards national law.
"Ahh, the good old days when we could just build a fence to box them in," they think one morning, then get a call from their laywers saying that people are just "pirating" their owned works off the Internet.
Personally, I feel sorry for them and everyone else who is stuck in the twentieth century.
in order to be a news site you have to have your own news, not a link to someone else's news. ... this site should be called "Discussions for nerds. Stuff that matters."
/. as a news "portal", which would be a fair definition IMO.
Unless you regard
Perhaps you're just a trollist? ...wait, is that someone who is Pro-Troll or someone who discriminates against trolls? I am so confused.
No. Perception mediates reality, but the real is not entirely out of grasp.
I believe the grandparent was doing one up on Kant and distinguishing between perceived reality and actual reality. What Kant fails to solve is the fact that there is always a risk of discrepancy between the two. When there is, people tend to go for the former and ignore the latter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with Kant. I just think that Kierkegaard and David Bohm have clarified some gaps in "Logic". Even Kant admits that truth is in the eye of the beholder but tries to justify this with the extistence of a "thing in itself".
This is the effect that lets government define a reality in which terrorists are right around the corner. Most people can be conditioned with fear and the beauty of human perception is that the fear need not even be real.
Well, let us see. If you are porting something from, say, Rexx to C you are either writing it from scratch - in which case the source code of the original program is inconsequential - or you are writing a Rexx->C compiler. In the latter case, would you not simply lower_case all identifiers?
Just seems to me, if one were assigned a project like that, case sensitivity would be the least of one's problems...
Since the religious people began opposing science as it over turned their superstitions and required them to actually examine the nature of their faith only to find out it was a weak substitute for habbit.
To be fair, originally it was the scientists who started it all by opposing the church.
"What do you mean, round? Have you been smoking your tea again, Galilea?"
One of the things I enjoy most about your books is the amount of detail with which you describe history, technology, events. I think this is most prevalent in Cryptonomican so far.
How do you go go about researching for your books and what kind of sources do you use?
Short answer is yes: There are plenty of camera brands which fail to work with either OS X or Win32, mostly the former.
Also the "universally compatible USB Mass Storge" is actually an illusion. As a Apple switchee, I had to go replace my no-name USB stick with one from SanDisk since the one I had did not work in OS X.
Still, I have had plenty of equivelant experiences with Linux and WinXP. I assume the hardware vendors are hacking their products together at the workstation instead of implementing the specification properly.
Half of my applications integrate with KDE, and half integrate GNOME. (Actually, a few integrate with nothing).
I pray every night that FreeDesktop will eventually save us from Multi-DE hell. Hopefully my prayers have been heard.
...now I'd be really bummed out if my Visa card number was on Google's most common search request :-)
But seriously, that info is handed of to all kinds of third parties, for instance any page that does turn up (if any) will get the card number in the HTTP_REFERER URL.
How many people dug out their own visa cards and googled for the number ? :-) I managed to stop
myself.
Look, I know it's all the rage on Slashdot to bash MS. And I'm certainly no fan of a lot of what they do. But do you think Google isn't out there trying to make a buck and that they're not going to biased in doing it themselves? If you really think that, you're fooling yourself.
Is it not the point though, that Google are attempting to follow the usually idealistic notion that you can actually turn a profit being an honest business as long as you are very good at what you do?
just about anything but MP3 tracks can be printed on them
:-)
Just as well. I wouldn't use it if it supported MP3 and not Ogg Vorbis...
Also like somebody in the MPEG committee recently said, the job of such DRM systems is not to put off the super clever guy who can break the system anyway... most systems are breakable. The plan is to put off the average consumer who may drag himself/herself into investigating the use of copyrighted content illegally if software and tools are available to *easily* circumvent such content-distrbution-restriction systems.
This is covered in the speech aswell. I think the point here is that if someone needs to crack any particular type of DRM, it will be done. And any cracker who makes my life easier by doing so will be infinitely more popular and (IMO) more deserving of my money than the blood-sucking company that are making a nuisance of themselves.
In short, the "average customer" only needs Google and a healthy sense of adventurism.
DRM is here to stay, in one form or another, and for better or worse
DRM will only make it as long as people pay enough for it. As soon as people grew weary or MS/Apple/Sony find better business models, Digital R(estriction/ights) Management will drop away. It's all about the money.