no firewire on the new iPod is really a deal killer for me... i have a couple of firewire drives, a firewire cam, and plug my firewire iPod into the end of that chain. To hook my laptop up to all this i just plug in ONE plug.. now i'd i have to start plugging in usb devices too.. or get a dang hub with yet another power adapter brick... Unless USB 2.0 can daisy chain or something.. this really sucks.. it does VIDEO -- the stanard for all DV Camcorders is firewire no firewire = i'll stick with the iPod i have.
Yes, interesting isn't it?
This leaves no possibility that a 3rd party could write a firmware update which would allow people to neatly and simply plug their camcorders into a new "vPod."
However, I always saw RUP presented as an array of smaller, compatible processes within the iterative process. IOW you adopt an iterative cycle in your collective workflow (very easy by itself) and pick what you need out of the (admittedly large and overspecific) RUP. Or you take the whole RUP and 'knock-out' what you don't need. RUP the standard anticipates this, even though RUP the product could provide more help in this regard.
With that said, I believe that FOSS projects have suffered greatly by not formally recognizing and docucmenting use cases. Excepting Mozilla and OpenOffice, the evidence abounds. It probably flows from historically "scratching our own itch" and often not maintaining requirements in the first place.
Schmidt, the former chief security officer at Microsoft Corp., played a key role in drafting the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," which was released Feb. 14 (see story).
In theory, C should only be a problem if it was coded without regard for OOP. And even then, structs will likely abound... you can pull those into the model with the built-in reverse engineering and use that as the nucleous for modeling the rest of the program either by hand or with the help of scripts. For instance, in Rose you could write a script to represent.c files and functions as stereotyped components and classes...and maybe even show what sort of data gets passed between functions.
UML assumes OOP, but the UML tools are not tied to that concept hard-and-fast: You can reappropriate the symbols as you see fit as long as you don't have to generate code from them (and even then its do-able).
...a maintenance task, not a coding task. S/he is probably looking for a UML model, as I implied elsewhere in the thread. IBM Rational, Gentleware, Borland and some FOSS projects have software just for this sort of thing: Modeling all of the classes, structs, member variables and functions along with displayable relationships (using arrows, lines, and nesting).
Whats more, some of these tools can be used to modify programs within the model, and then update the source code (forward-engineering). They can also create tables/databases from your persistent entity classes, represented with their own DBMS variety of UML icons...and can even update the actual database (sometimes directly, other times with DDL scripts) and track/display relationships between tables, and with the classes that use them.
UML tools will seldom be able to reverse-engineer information about procedural code (declarations, conditionals, etc.) also this can usually be modeled by hand when such detail is necessary.
I thought Current TV was about showcasing the work of diverse small/inidividual producers... not about owning "Intelletual Property" and controlling what was produced.
The days of the "Big Three + CNN" had far more diverse ownership of media outlets than we do today. That's when TV and radio stations were owned locally/regionally by smaller companies that numbered in the hundreds. Now there are only a handful of national conglomerates. Adding FNC as one more voice among the national networks hardly improves the situation.
ANSI will protect you from MS about 1/10th as much as W3C protected web developers/users from said-same monopolist.
WINE also "Is Not an Emulator." It mainly implements Windows APIs under Unix-like OSes. In that sense, it is even more straight-forward than Mono's JIT + APIs. Both WINE and Mono projects must, all by themselves, cope with "interesting out-of-spec behavior" from the MS products. Is MS party to any certification effort for alternate JIT and API implementations? No. And my info may be out of date but ECMA had no such process either, last time I checked.
According to the Mono project page, Mono is "Based on the ECMA/ISO standards". It has no certification, nor does Microsoft's own product! The monopolist does not have to certify, so they can pull the interoperability run out from under Mono in innuerable ways.
OET: Let's talk about actual use of Mono by enterprise developers. Many of them are concerned about the lack of standards in some of these new areas. When you say Mono's 'ECMA core' is complete what do you mean? Do you have actual ECMA certification?
de Icaza. There's no such thing as ECMA certification.
OET. So how do we know you're ECMA core complete?
de Icaza We've gone through the entire spec and we implemented everything in the spec, we believe. It might not be the case, but there is no certification.
OET I see. So if a vendor has an issue that Mono may not be ECMA compliant, would they say anything?
de Icaza Well they can report a bug...
So you are standing in the same forest as WINE but with a near-useless figleaf of a standard that 98% of.NET devs care nothing about.
Meanwhile alternate implementations of Java continue to pass Sun's active certification process.
Mono will always be on the fringes of acceptance like WINE... Never quite compatible and necessitating that you keep returning to Windows at least semi-frequently for that last bit of missing compatability.
No thanks.
Oh and MonoDevelop vs Visual Studio? Don't make me laugh. Well maybe one could run VS under WINE to get a decent IDE.
This is especially true since FOSS has gained momentum... lots of non-MS developers wanting to duplicate functionality. As for the MS developers, most of them are already alienated; I don't know any that like the company.
I think at best we will see MS hold their tongue about patent law. Probably, they will push for 'reform' that favors entrenched conglomerates.
It is beyond naive for him to assume that the law will be evenly-enforced with a monopolist like Microsoft, when we've seen how their antitrust case went. On balance, they win and the little guy loses. Given the level of corruption we now have in this country, MS's interests are probably better served with restrictive patent laws in place.
FreeDOS is hardly a true operating system. It lacks features... almost ALL features. So how can you point out flaws to Dell? Say, the GPU overheats when playing OpenGL games, or the Firewire port doesn't work. Are you going to confront Dell using Zeke's Diagnost-A-Rama floppy?
I don't think so. You buy this PC for Linux or whatever, and you are on your own.
Buyer Beware!
If you want to lay down cash to take part in Michael Dell's little experiment in making his customers helpless, saving him big bucks on support overhead, or just exploring whether he can grow a Linux / OS X market from a core of curious hackers... Should this appeal to you, then for crisesake just send the money to me instead and I will buy you a computer from a vendor that supplies a Linux distro for free and supports it. Then, even if you replace the supplied OS, you can still restore it and most likely use it to demonmstrate a hardware failure should the need arise.
DCC isn't a distro. It's a spec. A 'filter' made specifically for Debian, if you will.
I think DCC will get a bunch of distros to at least adhere to the latest LSB. If they turn DCC into a bit more than that, then great. If not, oh well.
Why would Xandros' handling of ADC impact anything that an app developer writes for DCC? Just because Xandros' execution is very good doesn't mean that it represents some sort of fundamental difference or proprietary API. Its just some K ControlCenter stuff and init.d scripts arranged with the audacious intent of programmatically configuring Samba winbind. (Clutch the pearls!!! Anything other than vi touching our tender/etc nether region is just sacrilige! Why, I can see male *nix admins everywhere slowly crossing their legs in awkward vulnerability.. LOL!!:D )
But let's say some enterprise application releases, which could make sense to deal with AD, but not a hard requirement. They face the dilemma of whether to hook into the Xandros-specific ADC support or to skip the feature and be DCC compliant.
If the app is designed to just access the client's assigned domain then I don't see a problem. Samba is still Samba. If the app assumes they need to muck with PAM configs in a permanent way, then it has lost its focus and isn't just an 'app' is it? In that case, the developer will have to realize that by assuming the role of a system configuration utility they might step on the users/admin's toes and ship the 'app' with the windbind stuff disabled by default-- Perhaps they think that its onerous to pop up a one-time dialog when the app can't get its data, saying "This may occur because your system isn't configured for a Windows Domain... Would you like NetApp(tm) to attempt this configuration?" If they change their mind, they can go back into the apps's preferences and click on a checkbox. The two different roles of the program ought to be seperable in this way.
Oh I know... I much prefer the old-style apps that instead core-dump and instantly disappear. The current crop that might mumble something cryptic about 'winbind' on certain distros is so boring and patronizing.
But then at least you could safely think that to be 'interesting' and refreshingly 'different'. And I'm sure there are many who even consider blinkered apps and shifting platforms to be good for their job security.
BTW - If I ever see ObjC++ support (as its currently engineered) offered by my distro, I'll damn well expect it to be an option and not melded in with the rest of the GNU C++ frontend by default. Of course if you're counting on your ObjC code compiling on just anyone's ABI-less system without extra work, then I can see how a merely optional frontend would look like an obstacle. But then, I don't need an ObjC compiler on a Mac to run even OS X Cocoa software to begin with... Why the hell should I need it on any other *nix system?? Because the latter can't have ABIs? So we see that lack of stable (though not changeless) ABIs is the obstacle. Thank you for that example.
I see this whole line of thought as the old "User-friendly == Dumbed Down and Locked Down" gripe... just from a new angle. This reflexive response does hold considerable sway in the Linux community, as the many Linux users who have migrated to OS X could probably tell you. But its stupid: No committment to ABIs and 6-month revision cycles amount to an unstable platform, where an individual must increasingly resort to arduous compiling/dependency-checking as their repetoire of Linux applications grows: If 10% of their favored programs aren't being added to the Ubuntu repositories, then that user's functional possibilities on that distro are decimated (or their time is being chewed-up). Over time, that adds up to a lot of frustration.
The usual Linux elitists, of course, are not phased by any of this. They have their symbolic/API compatability, and lots of./configure --option --option --option, the lingo of our geek-ghetto.
Also, I don't see why DCC would hurt the ability of a distro like Xandros to implement its exceptional SMB/ADC support, home-folder encryption, WiFi and VPN configurators, or any number of other GUI kparts they have developed for managing services. More than anything, Xandros and the others will receive additional guidance in where to tread carefully, if a new feature has the potential to impact the core's compatability.
If YOU so easily pulled that hypothetical conflict out of your behind, don't you think that distro maintainers are capable of identifying the problem as well?
Since when does adding features to the derrivative of a basic core functionality make it the same? Are you really trying to tell us that Caldera OpenLinux and SuSE were the same?
The danger of becoming too conservative exists with any effort for end-user consistency, whether FOSS is involved or not. That is why on occasion products go through major whole-point revisions; in-between them users can enjoy years of relative stability and incremental advances, and the avergae programmer (not to be confused with kernel/distro enthusiasts) doesn't have to hit such a fast-moving target.
The question is, if you give them a laptop, and they trade it for food, maybe you should have just given them food in the first place.
What makes you think a student, enrolled in a school, is going to sell the school's property?
Regardless, I would expect this project to focus on countries that have some institutional stability (like Brazil or China) and that are not at the utmost levels of desperation.
Slashdot Mirror
no firewire on the new iPod is really a deal killer for me... i have a couple of firewire drives, a firewire cam, and plug my firewire iPod into the end of that chain. To hook my laptop up to all this i just plug in ONE plug.. now i'd i have to start plugging in usb devices too.. or get a dang hub with yet another power adapter brick... Unless USB 2.0 can daisy chain or something.. this really sucks.. it does VIDEO -- the stanard for all DV Camcorders is firewire no firewire = i'll stick with the iPod i have.
Yes, interesting isn't it?
This leaves no possibility that a 3rd party could write a firmware update which would allow people to neatly and simply plug their camcorders into a new "vPod."
I know. The stupidity is scary.
...I actually agree with you.
However, I always saw RUP presented as an array of smaller, compatible processes within the iterative process. IOW you adopt an iterative cycle in your collective workflow (very easy by itself) and pick what you need out of the (admittedly large and overspecific) RUP. Or you take the whole RUP and 'knock-out' what you don't need. RUP the standard anticipates this, even though RUP the product could provide more help in this regard.
With that said, I believe that FOSS projects have suffered greatly by not formally recognizing and docucmenting use cases. Excepting Mozilla and OpenOffice, the evidence abounds. It probably flows from historically "scratching our own itch" and often not maintaining requirements in the first place.
Wow... Just WOW!!!
.
.
.
I suppose that would be harmful.
The thing is, that doesn't matter to the GGP who 'does not care about ecological effects'. Hence my question.
...doesn't make it Flamebait.
In theory, C should only be a problem if it was coded without regard for OOP. And even then, structs will likely abound... you can pull those into the model with the built-in reverse engineering and use that as the nucleous for modeling the rest of the program either by hand or with the help of scripts. For instance, in Rose you could write a script to represent .c files and functions as stereotyped components and classes...and maybe even show what sort of data gets passed between functions.
UML assumes OOP, but the UML tools are not tied to that concept hard-and-fast: You can reappropriate the symbols as you see fit as long as you don't have to generate code from them (and even then its do-able).
...a maintenance task, not a coding task. S/he is probably looking for a UML model, as I implied elsewhere in the thread. IBM Rational, Gentleware, Borland and some FOSS projects have software just for this sort of thing: Modeling all of the classes, structs, member variables and functions along with displayable relationships (using arrows, lines, and nesting).
Whats more, some of these tools can be used to modify programs within the model, and then update the source code (forward-engineering). They can also create tables/databases from your persistent entity classes, represented with their own DBMS variety of UML icons...and can even update the actual database (sometimes directly, other times with DDL scripts) and track/display relationships between tables, and with the classes that use them.
UML tools will seldom be able to reverse-engineer information about procedural code (declarations, conditionals, etc.) also this can usually be modeled by hand when such detail is necessary.
One like Rational Rose. It can create iconographic models of programs from source code.
Other UML tools exist, like Argo and Umbrello, but I'm not sure if they reverse engineer.
Pretty much do not care about ecological effects, those are mitigated by the far more disastrous effects of a damaged/destroyed ship.
Don't eat or breathe much... do you?
I thought Current TV was about showcasing the work of diverse small/inidividual producers... not about owning "Intelletual Property" and controlling what was produced.
The days of the "Big Three + CNN" had far more diverse ownership of media outlets than we do today. That's when TV and radio stations were owned locally/regionally by smaller companies that numbered in the hundreds. Now there are only a handful of national conglomerates. Adding FNC as one more voice among the national networks hardly improves the situation.
I thought every residence is an individual "domain" under the new scheme.
Billions of region codes!
WINE also "Is Not an Emulator." It mainly implements Windows APIs under Unix-like OSes. In that sense, it is even more straight-forward than Mono's JIT + APIs. Both WINE and Mono projects must, all by themselves, cope with "interesting out-of-spec behavior" from the MS products. Is MS party to any certification effort for alternate JIT and API implementations? No. And my info may be out of date but ECMA had no such process either, last time I checked.
According to the Mono project page, Mono is "Based on the ECMA/ISO standards". It has no certification, nor does Microsoft's own product! The monopolist does not have to certify, so they can pull the interoperability run out from under Mono in innuerable ways.
So you are standing in the same forest as WINE but with a near-useless figleaf of a standard that 98% of
Meanwhile alternate implementations of Java continue to pass Sun's active certification process.
Have a nice day.
Mono will always be on the fringes of acceptance like WINE... Never quite compatible and necessitating that you keep returning to Windows at least semi-frequently for that last bit of missing compatability.
No thanks.
Oh and MonoDevelop vs Visual Studio? Don't make me laugh. Well maybe one could run VS under WINE to get a decent IDE.
This is especially true since FOSS has gained momentum... lots of non-MS developers wanting to duplicate functionality. As for the MS developers, most of them are already alienated; I don't know any that like the company.
I think at best we will see MS hold their tongue about patent law. Probably, they will push for 'reform' that favors entrenched conglomerates.
It is beyond naive for him to assume that the law will be evenly-enforced with a monopolist like Microsoft, when we've seen how their antitrust case went. On balance, they win and the little guy loses. Given the level of corruption we now have in this country, MS's interests are probably better served with restrictive patent laws in place.
Dell may support Linux systems, but not this one.
FreeDOS is hardly a true operating system. It lacks features... almost ALL features. So how can you point out flaws to Dell? Say, the GPU overheats when playing OpenGL games, or the Firewire port doesn't work. Are you going to confront Dell using Zeke's Diagnost-A-Rama floppy?
I don't think so. You buy this PC for Linux or whatever, and you are on your own.
Buyer Beware!
If you want to lay down cash to take part in Michael Dell's little experiment in making his customers helpless, saving him big bucks on support overhead, or just exploring whether he can grow a Linux / OS X market from a core of curious hackers... Should this appeal to you, then for crisesake just send the money to me instead and I will buy you a computer from a vendor that supplies a Linux distro for free and supports it. Then, even if you replace the supplied OS, you can still restore it and most likely use it to demonmstrate a hardware failure should the need arise.
I think DCC will get a bunch of distros to at least adhere to the latest LSB. If they turn DCC into a bit more than that, then great. If not, oh well.
Why would Xandros' handling of ADC impact anything that an app developer writes for DCC? Just because Xandros' execution is very good doesn't mean that it represents some sort of fundamental difference or proprietary API. Its just some K ControlCenter stuff and init.d scripts arranged with the audacious intent of programmatically configuring Samba winbind. (Clutch the pearls!!! Anything other than vi touching our tender
If the app is designed to just access the client's assigned domain then I don't see a problem. Samba is still Samba. If the app assumes they need to muck with PAM configs in a permanent way, then it has lost its focus and isn't just an 'app' is it? In that case, the developer will have to realize that by assuming the role of a system configuration utility they might step on the users/admin's toes and ship the 'app' with the windbind stuff disabled by default-- Perhaps they think that its onerous to pop up a one-time dialog when the app can't get its data, saying "This may occur because your system isn't configured for a Windows Domain... Would you like NetApp(tm) to attempt this configuration?" If they change their mind, they can go back into the apps's preferences and click on a checkbox. The two different roles of the program ought to be seperable in this way.
Oh I know... I much prefer the old-style apps that instead core-dump and instantly disappear. The current crop that might mumble something cryptic about 'winbind' on certain distros is so boring and patronizing.
But then at least you could safely think that to be 'interesting' and refreshingly 'different'. And I'm sure there are many who even consider blinkered apps and shifting platforms to be good for their job security.
BTW - If I ever see ObjC++ support (as its currently engineered) offered by my distro, I'll damn well expect it to be an option and not melded in with the rest of the GNU C++ frontend by default. Of course if you're counting on your ObjC code compiling on just anyone's ABI-less system without extra work, then I can see how a merely optional frontend would look like an obstacle. But then, I don't need an ObjC compiler on a Mac to run even OS X Cocoa software to begin with... Why the hell should I need it on any other *nix system?? Because the latter can't have ABIs? So we see that lack of stable (though not changeless) ABIs is the obstacle. Thank you for that example.
Anyway here's to more XML in
My main distro, Xandros Linux, lets me AES encrypt my home folder automatically.
;-)
Same with my other system, Mac OS X.
Hey I wonder if TrueCrypt runs under WINE?
I see this whole line of thought as the old "User-friendly == Dumbed Down and Locked Down" gripe... just from a new angle. This reflexive response does hold considerable sway in the Linux community, as the many Linux users who have migrated to OS X could probably tell you. But its stupid: No committment to ABIs and 6-month revision cycles amount to an unstable platform, where an individual must increasingly resort to arduous compiling/dependency-checking as their repetoire of Linux applications grows: If 10% of their favored programs aren't being added to the Ubuntu repositories, then that user's functional possibilities on that distro are decimated (or their time is being chewed-up). Over time, that adds up to a lot of frustration.
./configure --option --option --option, the lingo of our geek-ghetto.
The usual Linux elitists, of course, are not phased by any of this. They have their symbolic/API compatability, and lots of
Also, I don't see why DCC would hurt the ability of a distro like Xandros to implement its exceptional SMB/ADC support, home-folder encryption, WiFi and VPN configurators, or any number of other GUI kparts they have developed for managing services. More than anything, Xandros and the others will receive additional guidance in where to tread carefully, if a new feature has the potential to impact the core's compatability.
If YOU so easily pulled that hypothetical conflict out of your behind, don't you think that distro maintainers are capable of identifying the problem as well?
Since when does adding features to the derrivative of a basic core functionality make it the same? Are you really trying to tell us that Caldera OpenLinux and SuSE were the same?
The danger of becoming too conservative exists with any effort for end-user consistency, whether FOSS is involved or not. That is why on occasion products go through major whole-point revisions; in-between them users can enjoy years of relative stability and incremental advances, and the avergae programmer (not to be confused with kernel/distro enthusiasts) doesn't have to hit such a fast-moving target.
The Linux Cookbook had a free release before the 2nd edition came out.
Instead of blocking peers based on proximity, wouldn't prioritizing them be best?
"If a couple wants to engage in polygamy, then they should have the right as long as it does not interfere with other people."
Couples? Hilarious!
And is it possible that you have polygamy confused with polyamory and open relationships?
I understand that some people want more of what they already have. Just don't expect much sympathy for their 'plight'.
The question is, if you give them a laptop, and they trade it for food, maybe you should have just given them food in the first place.
What makes you think a student, enrolled in a school, is going to sell the school's property?
Regardless, I would expect this project to focus on countries that have some institutional stability (like Brazil or China) and that are not at the utmost levels of desperation.