Never heard of another piece of software named sage my self, so I'd argue with "very well known". Googling turned up this one: http://www.sagesoftware.com/ Is that the one you mean?
I think Aunt Tillie and her recipe for gingerbread cookies is a better analogy. Or Bob Villa's instructions for how to build a deck.
Computer code is a series of instructions for how to do something. It's not a work of art.
I don't think Aunt Tilly or Bob can refuse others the right to use the series of instructions for making a cookie or building a deck. That would be ridiculous. The cookie police knocking on your door saying "sorry but you have to add the flour *after* the sugar or you owe Aunt Tillie a licensing fee". Absurd.
That said both Aunt Tillie and Bob *do* have a copyright on the exact words they wrote. So you can't just paste their instructions verbatim into the new cookbook or home improvement guide you're writing without their permission.
The summary says 6-8 in a typical parking space but concept images in the article make it look more like 2-3 would fit in the typical spot. Unless Milan has some very atypical "typical parking spaces".
I'd assume it's just that most people don't know about Git.
It just needs a new PR guy and a little bit of time.
I'd say it's at least in part due to lack of Windows support. Love it or hate it, you don't become the world's foremost anything by ignoring Windows. As can be seen here: http://git.or.cz/#download the developers seem to view "cross-platform" as meaning "We got both kinds! RPMs and debs!".
There is a partially functional git port in Cygwin, but it doesn't really work as far as I can tell, and it certainly isn't mentioned anywhere on the Git home page. I wanted to like Git, but unfortunately it seems to not be ready for widespread use on the most popular desktop operating system in the world. I'd be happy to try it again someday when it is.
Compare with SVN or Mercurial or Monotone or most any other SCM system. Most of the others all feature prominent download links on the home page for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
Quite frankly, if you use third party libraries that fall outside your coding conventions (and you are absolutely right - most or all do), you should adapt them. Create your own interfaces and make disparate libraries appear no different than the rest of your system. This simple tactic will cost you minimal overhead up front (interface design) with a huge savings in maintainability down the road (refactor to your own interfaces). If you are programming directly to third party APIs you are just asking for trouble.
I'm not sure what sort of 3rd party libraries you're thinking of, but the thing that immediately springs to my mind is GUI libraries. I don't think it makes sense to create a wrapper around wxWidgets simply because I prefer classic_underscore_style to their CapitalizeEveryWordStyle.
Seems like a huge amount of work for marginal gain. If you have time to do that kind of thing where you work, then lucky you.
> You can't patent an idea. You can only patent the implementation of an idea.
>> Yes, you can. But your idea needs to be novel and working. Which means that you need to actually put your idea to fruition, at least once.
I don't think that quite true either. I have definitely seen patents for anti-gravity machines and things like that. I think you're right that you can't implement an idea, but rather only an "implementation" of that idea, but I don't think the implementation has to be physically realized or working or even physically possible in order to be acceptable. Besides, if a working implementation were a requirement then the USPTO would need to require you to submit some evidence of the thing in action.
There seem to be an awful lot of "made famous by"s there. And even though I was there in the 80's I don't recall any of those songs, so I question how famous they really are. I'm guessing what we have here is a creative way to license songs associated with big name 80's bands very cheaply by not dealing directly with said big-name 80's bands or their labels.
I agree the onboard video really drags this and like all tablets down the drain if you plan to do any 3d work or gaming
Toshiba has a Tablet PC in their Tecra lineup now with an option for an NVIDIA graphics board. They hide it pretty well though. You have to actual go to the "Customize" screen to see that the NVIDIA graphics are an option.
Tecra M7 is the model. This link probably won't work but I'll give it a try anyway: Tecra M7
Yes your code is your code, and you still own the copyright to it. However Qt Commercial is *their* code, and *their* licensing terms dictate under what conditions you can use it. Of course they cannot stop you from releasing *your* code under a commercial license, but you'll have to do it without any Qt libs.
At least that's the way I read the license.
I can only guess that the reason is so that start-up companies don't get the idea to develop under GPL internally first and then switch to commercial just before release or when they get their venture funding. Trolltech wants to make sure they get their pound of flesh before such start-ups go bust. I guess it also prevents 3rd party widget developers from selling their wares without buying a license.
But I think it's kind of silly and short-sighted. How on earth are they even going to know if you started with GPL? And say you did and you managed to get to the point where you're ready to buy 5 Qt licenses, and they somehow did find out. Are they really going to say "no, sorry your $25,000 isn't good here because you developed your code with the GPL version of Qt". A company saying no to a done-deal sale like that would just be dumb.
Really they should be encouraging everyone to try out the GPL version, especially startups. "Sure! Go ahead the first hit's free..." Yeh, most startups will go belly-up without Trolltech seeing a dime. But if you get em all hooked early there's no way they're going to switch away from Qt once they do have money. Rewrite everything from scratch or pay Trolltech a few thousand in licensing... Not a very tough choice if you're sitting on a pile of venture funding.
Hope you're all enjoying my monologue here. But I just had to report this one last thing.
On the other hand, VMWare knows something about Ubuntu. And comes with "vmware tools" for Linux to improve mouse integration and things like that.
These tools make all the difference! After installing the tools, the graphics are much less sluggish (about the same as VirtualPC), and mouse pointer transitions between the VM screen and the host screen are totally seamless. If you go to the edge of the virtual screen you pop out with your real mouse pointer and vice versa. Totally seamless. And the OpenGL performance is acceptable for testing purposes.
So now I'm sold on VMWare Server (the free version anyway).
Ok, I was unable to use my existing Ubuntu install with VMWare server, either. Maybe that's a feature only VMWare Workstation has?
Short comparison is that VMWare Server seems faster at I/O, but VirtualPC has much better graphics response.
The install from CD went a lot faster with VMWare than it did with VPC, and boot up seems quicker too. On the other hand, just moving the pointer around on the VMWare screen is so sluggish it gets annoying fast. Forget about testing OpenGL programs. With VPC, moving the pointer around in the VM is pretty much indistinguishable from moving it in the host. VPC's graphics aren't lightning fast, but not intolerably sluggish, either.
On the other hand, VMWare knows something about Ubuntu. And comes with "vmware tools" for Linux to improve mouse integration and things like that. VirtualPC only has such tools available for DOS/Windows guests.
I think I'm going to go with VirtualPC, just because of the graphics speed issue.
So from what you're saying it sounds like the Free VMWare Server actually has more features than the $189 VMWare Workstation. That can't be right. There must be something better about the Workstation version. Like better handing of video hardware or something.
I've got Ubuntu 6.06 up and running under VirtualPC now, so, yes, it is now capable of hosting a linux install. However, it wasn't able to use my existing Ubuntupartition. It makes a new "virtual hard drive" for each guest OS, which is just a ".vhd" file on your Windows NTFS filesystem somewhere.
I'll give the VMWare a try, too. It will be a lot nicer if I can use my existing Ubuntu.
Update for those following along at home: I upped the VMs memory from the default of 128MB to 512MB, and the install seems to be going a little faster this time.
Thanks for the info. I'm trying VirtualPC now, but the ubuntu install is moving veeeeeeeery slowly.
VMware's site is terribly vague about the difference between the Server product and the Workstation product. About the only thing they say is Workstation has "more features", "advanced features", and "productivity enhancements" that the Server version doesn't.
I would really like to be able to run Linux virtualized along with my Windows XP. Would either this or the free VirtualPC in the other story do the trick?
I mostly use Windows, but it would be very handy if I could have instant access to my Ubuntu install without the shutdown/reboot cycle to make sure my code still works on the Linux side. I don't even care if the Linux runs dog-slow, as long as it runs.
I looked at the virtual pc page but my eyes just glazed over with all the marketing speak. Why do they keep saying "server"? That word has way too many meanings.
Oh, and finally, I hope I don't have to reinstall Ubuntu to get this working...
Suddenly, everyone could have a GREAT copy of their favorite movie... for the output cost of about $50 for a cheap player.
While I agree with most of your comment, the bit about $50 DVD players is revisionist history. I seem to recall they were more like in the neighborhood of $1000 when the DVD format first launched. Sure you can get a $50 player now but not at the beginning. Cheap players had little to do with the initial success of DVD. I think it was just the improved quality and the nice form factor. Maybe they were a little cheaper than LaserDisc players too, but it wasn't $50. I don't even think VHS players were going for as low as $50 back then.
<tt> std::vector<MyClass*>::const_iterator iter = myVec.begin(); std::vector<MyClass*>::const_itera tor end = myVec.end(); for (; iter != end; ++iter) {
MyClass *p = *iter; ... } </tt>
It makes me want to chop off all my fingers and file for disability every time I have to type something like that, which is quite often. Granted it's all C++'s fault -- STL sucks, but it sucks about as little as possible given the constraints that C++ places on it.
I misread it as "Greenpeace's Custom Underwear Giant-Squid-Cam". The real story proved boring to me, too. I was all excited to hear about that toy specialist's fancy underpants.
Ok, so make it work either by online activation or by putting the CD-ROM in. If the company goes defunct, then you still can play if you have the CD-ROM.
Personally I'm never going to buy another game that requires me to put the CD-ROM in to play. It's just too annoying when you do most of your gaming on the go with a laptop. Not that my "boycott" is worth anything, because I don't have time to play games anymore anyway.:-(
To me the best possible case would be Steve somehow winding up in Michael Eisner's chair. Seriously, Disney could use a little dose of the magic dust Steve's been sprinking around Cuppertino. The thing Disney seems to be lacking most these days is someone in the top seat who actually cares about making quality products, who wants to "put a ding in the universe", and who has some vision that goes beyond next quarter's profit-loss sheet.
Slashdot Mirror
Never heard of another piece of software named sage my self, so I'd argue with "very well known".
Googling turned up this one: http://www.sagesoftware.com/
Is that the one you mean?
I think Aunt Tillie and her recipe for gingerbread cookies is a better analogy.
Or Bob Villa's instructions for how to build a deck.
Computer code is a series of instructions for how to do something. It's not a work of art.
I don't think Aunt Tilly or Bob can refuse others the right to use the series of instructions for making a cookie or building a deck. That would be ridiculous. The cookie police knocking on your door saying "sorry but you have to add the flour *after* the sugar or you owe Aunt Tillie a licensing fee". Absurd.
That said both Aunt Tillie and Bob *do* have a copyright on the exact words they wrote. So you can't just paste their instructions verbatim into the new cookbook or home improvement guide you're writing without their permission.
IANAL
The summary says 6-8 in a typical parking space but concept images in the article make it look more like 2-3 would fit in the typical spot. Unless Milan has some very atypical "typical parking spaces".
Proggy fonts all the way baby
Proggy Fonts
I'd assume it's just that most people don't know about Git.
It just needs a new PR guy and a little bit of time.
I'd say it's at least in part due to lack of Windows support. Love it or hate it, you don't become the world's foremost anything by ignoring Windows. As can be seen here: http://git.or.cz/#download the developers seem to view "cross-platform" as meaning "We got both kinds! RPMs and debs!".
There is a partially functional git port in Cygwin, but it doesn't really work as far as I can tell, and it certainly isn't mentioned anywhere on the Git home page. I wanted to like Git, but unfortunately it seems to not be ready for widespread use on the most popular desktop operating system in the world. I'd be happy to try it again someday when it is.
Compare with SVN or Mercurial or Monotone or most any other SCM system. Most of the others all feature prominent download links on the home page for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
But if most everyone thinks it does, it might as well.
Quite frankly, if you use third party libraries that fall outside your coding conventions (and you are absolutely right - most or all do), you should adapt them. Create your own interfaces and make disparate libraries appear no different than the rest of your system. This simple tactic will cost you minimal overhead up front (interface design) with a huge savings in maintainability down the road (refactor to your own interfaces). If you are programming directly to third party APIs you are just asking for trouble.
I'm not sure what sort of 3rd party libraries you're thinking of, but the thing that immediately springs to my mind is GUI libraries. I don't think it makes sense to create a wrapper around wxWidgets simply because I prefer classic_underscore_style to their CapitalizeEveryWordStyle.
Seems like a huge amount of work for marginal gain.
If you have time to do that kind of thing where you work, then lucky you.
> You can't patent an idea. You can only patent the implementation of an idea.
>> Yes, you can. But your idea needs to be novel and working. Which means that you need to actually put your idea to fruition, at least once.
I don't think that quite true either. I have definitely seen patents for anti-gravity machines and things like that. I think you're right that you can't implement an idea, but rather only an "implementation" of that idea, but I don't think the implementation has to be physically realized or working or even physically possible in order to be acceptable. Besides, if a working implementation were a requirement then the USPTO would need to require you to submit some evidence of the thing in action.
There seem to be an awful lot of "made famous by"s there. And even though I was there in the 80's I don't recall any of those songs, so I question how famous they really are. I'm guessing what we have here is a creative way to license songs associated with big name 80's bands very cheaply by not dealing directly with said big-name 80's bands or their labels.
I agree the onboard video really drags this and like all tablets down the drain if you plan to do any 3d work or gaming
Toshiba has a Tablet PC in their Tecra lineup now with an option for an NVIDIA graphics board. They hide it pretty well though. You have to actual go to the "Customize" screen to see that the NVIDIA graphics are an option.
Tecra M7 is the model. This link probably won't work but I'll give it a try anyway: Tecra M7
I'm typing from one right now! It's great.
Yes your code is your code, and you still own the copyright to it. However Qt Commercial is *their* code, and *their* licensing terms dictate under what conditions you can use it. Of course they cannot stop you from releasing *your* code under a commercial license, but you'll have to do it without any Qt libs.
At least that's the way I read the license.
I can only guess that the reason is so that start-up companies don't get the idea to develop under GPL internally first and then switch to commercial just before release or when they get their venture funding. Trolltech wants to make sure they get their pound of flesh before such start-ups go bust. I guess it also prevents 3rd party widget developers from selling their wares without buying a license.
But I think it's kind of silly and short-sighted. How on earth are they even going to know if you started with GPL? And say you did and you managed to get to the point where you're ready to buy 5 Qt licenses, and they somehow did find out. Are they really going to say "no, sorry your $25,000 isn't good here because you developed your code with the GPL version of Qt". A company saying no to a done-deal sale like that would just be dumb.
Really they should be encouraging everyone to try out the GPL version, especially startups. "Sure! Go ahead the first hit's free..." Yeh, most startups will go belly-up without Trolltech seeing a dime. But if you get em all hooked early there's no way they're going to switch away from Qt once they do have money. Rewrite everything from scratch or pay Trolltech a few thousand in licensing... Not a very tough choice if you're sitting on a pile of venture funding.
Hope you're all enjoying my monologue here. But I just had to report this one last thing.
On the other hand, VMWare knows something about Ubuntu. And comes with "vmware tools" for Linux to improve mouse integration and things like that.
These tools make all the difference! After installing the tools, the graphics are much less sluggish (about the same as VirtualPC), and mouse pointer transitions between the VM screen and the host screen are totally seamless. If you go to the edge of the virtual screen you pop out with your real mouse pointer and vice versa. Totally seamless. And the OpenGL performance is acceptable for testing purposes.
So now I'm sold on VMWare Server (the free version anyway).
VirtualPC is going straight to the dustbin.
Ok, I was unable to use my existing Ubuntu install with VMWare server, either. Maybe that's a feature only VMWare Workstation has?
Short comparison is that VMWare Server seems faster at I/O, but VirtualPC has much better graphics response.
The install from CD went a lot faster with VMWare than it did with VPC, and boot up seems quicker too.
On the other hand, just moving the pointer around on the VMWare screen is so sluggish it gets annoying fast. Forget about testing OpenGL programs. With VPC, moving the pointer around in the VM is pretty much indistinguishable from moving it in the host. VPC's graphics aren't lightning fast, but not intolerably sluggish, either.
On the other hand, VMWare knows something about Ubuntu. And comes with "vmware tools" for Linux to improve mouse integration and things like that. VirtualPC only has such tools available for DOS/Windows guests.
I think I'm going to go with VirtualPC, just because of the graphics speed issue.
So from what you're saying it sounds like the Free VMWare Server actually has more features than the $189 VMWare Workstation. That can't be right. There must be something better about the Workstation version. Like better handing of video hardware or something.
I've got Ubuntu 6.06 up and running under VirtualPC now, so, yes, it is now capable of hosting a linux install.
However, it wasn't able to use my existing Ubuntupartition. It makes a new "virtual hard drive" for each guest OS, which is just a ".vhd" file on your Windows NTFS filesystem somewhere.
I'll give the VMWare a try, too. It will be a lot nicer if I can use my existing Ubuntu.
Update for those following along at home: I upped the VMs memory from the default of 128MB to 512MB, and the install seems to be going a little faster this time.
Thanks for the info. I'm trying VirtualPC now, but the ubuntu install is moving veeeeeeeery slowly.
VMware's site is terribly vague about the difference between the Server product and the Workstation product. About the only thing they say is Workstation has "more features", "advanced features", and "productivity enhancements" that the Server version doesn't.
Anyone know what's the difference really?
I would really like to be able to run Linux virtualized along with my Windows XP.
Would either this or the free VirtualPC in the other story do the trick?
I mostly use Windows, but it would be very handy if I could have instant access to my Ubuntu install without the shutdown/reboot cycle to make sure my code still works on the Linux side. I don't even care if the Linux runs dog-slow, as long as it runs.
I looked at the virtual pc page but my eyes just glazed over with all the marketing speak. Why do they keep saying "server"? That word has way too many meanings.
Oh, and finally, I hope I don't have to reinstall Ubuntu to get this working...
Thanks!
Suddenly, everyone could have a GREAT copy of their favorite movie ... for the output cost of about $50 for a cheap player.
While I agree with most of your comment, the bit about $50 DVD players is revisionist history. I seem to recall they were more like in the neighborhood of $1000 when the DVD format first launched. Sure you can get a $50 player now but not at the beginning. Cheap players had little to do with the initial success of DVD. I think it was just the improved quality and the nice form factor. Maybe they were a little cheaper than LaserDisc players too, but it wasn't $50. I don't even think VHS players were going for as low as $50 back then.
Well whats so hard about building brand-name univerities?
Well what's so hard about building a credible competitor to the iPod?
It's hard, OK.
Riiiight.It makes me want to chop off all my fingers and file for disability every time I have to type something like that, which is quite often. Granted it's all C++'s fault -- STL sucks, but it sucks about as little as possible given the constraints that C++ places on it.
I misread it as "Greenpeace's Custom Underwear Giant-Squid-Cam".
The real story proved boring to me, too. I was all excited to hear about that toy specialist's fancy underpants.
Ok, so make it work either by online activation or by putting the CD-ROM in. If the company goes defunct, then you still can play if you have the CD-ROM.
:-(
Personally I'm never going to buy another game that requires me to put the CD-ROM in to play. It's just too annoying when you do most of your gaming on the go with a laptop. Not that my "boycott" is worth anything, because I don't have time to play games anymore anyway.
Wasn't that Ginza?
To me the best possible case would be Steve somehow winding up in Michael Eisner's chair. Seriously, Disney could use a little dose of the magic dust Steve's been sprinking around Cuppertino. The thing Disney seems to be lacking most these days is someone in the top seat who actually cares about making quality products, who wants to "put a ding in the universe", and who has some vision that goes beyond next quarter's profit-loss sheet.