The works released under Creative Commons licenses and under open source licenses are generally already indexed by the normal google index, as they are almost always publish on the web.
The new feature is to index stuff not normally available on the net, such as printed books.
As the pope has officially sanctioned the theory of evolution (short form: God created Man by means of Evolution), I'd expect Darwins book to be rather uncontroversial in catholic countries.
In Hindu/Buddhist/Moslem countries I'd espect the particular book as rather controversial. Either because the people are modern/secular/western oriented, and accept it, or are conservative and just see it as an insignificant example of western decadance.
The only group I see objecting vehemontly to the particular book is fanatical protestant fundamentalists, and the only place I see those in any signficant numbers are rural USA.
The original implementation of GNU Arch was done in bourne shell. Pyhton is a big step up from that.
In any case, I think it is a fine combination when the core functionality of a program is written in a statically typed language, and UI binding it together is written in a dynamically typed language.
Re:Major Features Dropped From GCC 4.0
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Having a standard intermediate language would make it easier to make proprietary front-ends and back-ends to GCC, which goes against the political goals of the GNU project.
However, having a standard intermediate language would also make it easier to make free software development tools, which would be contributing to the political goals of the GNU project.
Until now RMS have believed drawbacks outweighted the benefits. However, as technology progress and free software get more widespread, I believe the benefits will (or may already have) outweight the drawbacks.
As devphil said, GCC support bug-compatible ABI's. The GCC people are not the people who should judge the user cost, the distributors are. They are the people in contact with the users, and should select which ABI version to use.
If you think a GCC + a bunch of libraries distribution is a good idea, make one! Don't expect GCC developers to do it for you. They are quite busy making GCC the best compiler it can be. That is what they do best, they are not "bundlers".
You probably also have noticed by now that 99% of the people who *claim* in public fora that the compiler is broken actually have broken code themselves. Often including people like Linus.
You might be the other 1%, but blaiming the/. readers for suggesting that maybe you belong to the 99% case is silly.
I see Code Sourcery and Apple adresses at the development lists as often as Red Hat adresses.
C++ compilation speed
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, if your C++ code has
#include <iostream>
and your C code has
#include <stdio.h>
chances is that it is also compiling an order of magnitude more code. Using precompiled headers should help in that case.
And if you are using templates, you are actually using a compile time language, which obviously will slow compilation down.
But they do claim C++ compilation is
much faster with 4.0:
When compiling without optimizations (-O0), the C++ frontend is much faster than in any previous versions of GCC. Independent testers have measured speed-ups up to 25% in real-world production code, compared to the 3.4 family (which was already the fastest version to date). Upgrading from older versions might show even bigger improvements.
Personally, I don't care much. Development seem to be restricted by link time, for a well organized project. And I always compile with full optimization.
Problem is that OpenMI was created by people who knew a lot about paralelism, but nothing about language design. It is hard to add to the compiler without further obfuscating the code for everyone.
That is kind of like saying that Carlsberg or Heineken make good beers, compared to Coors or (the American) Budweiser. It is true, but really damnation with faint praise.
In Copehangen (and I believe many other European cities), free print papers have recently become very popular. When you take the train or bus to or from work (more common than using a private car), you grap one of the two free newspapers. They have content for about 20 minutes, which is what such a ride typically takes. They mostly reprint stuff from the news agencies, with very little original content.
Personally, I'm very fond of them. I don't have the time to read a conventional newspaper every day. I read a weekly paper to get some perspective, but don't need that on a daily basis.
> Yeah, that reasoning might have worked if their > front page had been a disclaimer like: This is > just my hobby. Don't rely on it.
The prize should be a big hint. If you want the right to to have people listen to your complaints, *pay* for it. There are several companies that sell Gnome.
> We SHOULD all change our habits to fit the GNOME paradigm, rather than the other way around.
And other people complain that the free desktops are not inventive enough...
But I do feel with you. Having to wait a whole *month* for a patch that make it more convenient to disable a specific feature. How incredible lazy the developers must be, when we know how trivially easy it is to make to make fast decisions and releases for software projects with hundreds of active developers all over the world, millions lines of code, a steering commitee and the strong economic interest and involment of several large companies.
The *commercial* players (Red Hat, Sun, Novell), whom I suspect do the bulk of the Gnome work, are according to the article *not* ignoring their users. Euginia is explicitly complaining that the *hobbyist* are ignoring user requests, and focusing on their own needs.
The Gnome Foundation don't have the ressources to finance any significant development themselves. All they can do is to choose which of development others (commercial players and hobbyists) have done should be included. Being user oriented means they choose those developments they believe that benefit the users most.
And no, the ability to focus on the need of specific user group (in this case, yourself), and ignore the requests of other users, does not make you a worse engineer in a professional setting. Quite the contrary, that ability is always needed in any software projects, if you try to be everything to all people, you will fail.
> Real, for-profit development succeeds mostly by doing something the customer wants.
And if you read the article, you will see that the real, for-profit companies are doing market research of their own.
When the moron is complaining about is that the *hobbyist* are just doing what they themselves need, rather than working free for every whiny user out there.
... there is a developer who wants to implement it."
A truism if I ever heard one. Ill want to implement a feature if one (or more) of the following are true:
1. Someone is paying me to implement the feature. 2. I need the feature myself. 3. The feature is "fun" to implement.
I'm not Richard M. fucking Stallman, I have not dedicated my life for the cause of free software. I do respect those who have, but such idealists are far to rare to carry the free software movement by themselves. The bulk of the work has to be done by the rest of us, who write free software for fun and profit.
And honestly, whining users who think free software is about other people cathering to their every need for free, are only taking away the fun part. If you want the right to be heard, you have to pay. This is as true for free software as it is for proprietary software.
I, like most programmers, am paid for the time I spend developing the code, not for the code itself. The code is free, my time isn't. And if you don't pay for time, the code will not be developed.
This work fine when there is a limited number of users, which is the case for far the most software.
It actually also works for some software with more users. GCC developemnt is largely funded by people who hire one of the GCC development companies (there are several) to improve some aspact of GCC that is important to that customer.
I'd have chosen the LGPL or MPL for the two first (maybe dual license between the two like Firefox), both are more well known that (a customized version of) the Jabber OSL.
If the license isn't valid, you are not allowed to redistribute the code. That is basic copyright law.
The *only* thing that allows you to redistribute the code is the license. So it is in your own interest to defend the license.
Of course, if you don't redistribute the code, you don't have to accept the license. The GPL is very specific about this, but it is true for all licenses. Or used to be, apparently there is a trend in some juristictions to consider the transfer of the program from harddisk to ram in order to run the code to be covered by copyright (very much against the spirit of copyright law), which mean accepting these licenses will be needed if you just want to run the program.
Slashdot Mirror
The works released under Creative Commons licenses and under open source licenses are generally already indexed by the normal google index, as they are almost always publish on the web.
The new feature is to index stuff not normally available on the net, such as printed books.
As the pope has officially sanctioned the theory of evolution (short form: God created Man by means of Evolution), I'd expect Darwins book to be rather uncontroversial in catholic countries.
In Hindu/Buddhist/Moslem countries I'd espect the particular book as rather controversial. Either because the people are modern/secular/western oriented, and accept it, or are conservative and just see it as an insignificant example of western decadance.
The only group I see objecting vehemontly to the particular book is fanatical protestant fundamentalists, and the only place I see those in any signficant numbers are rural USA.
The original implementation of GNU Arch was done in bourne shell. Pyhton is a big step up from that.
In any case, I think it is a fine combination when the core functionality of a program is written in a statically typed language, and UI binding it together is written in a dynamically typed language.
Having a standard intermediate language would make it easier to make proprietary front-ends and back-ends to GCC, which goes against the political goals of the GNU project.
However, having a standard intermediate language would also make it easier to make free software development tools, which would be contributing to the political goals of the GNU project.
Until now RMS have believed drawbacks outweighted the benefits. However, as technology progress and free software get more widespread, I believe the benefits will (or may already have) outweight the drawbacks.
As devphil said, GCC support bug-compatible ABI's. The GCC people are not the people who should judge the user cost, the distributors are. They are the people in contact with the users, and should select which ABI version to use.
If you think a GCC + a bunch of libraries distribution is a good idea, make one! Don't expect GCC developers to do it for you. They are quite busy making GCC the best compiler it can be. That is what they do best, they are not "bundlers".
The same technique that can remove most of the overhead in languages like Java (value range propagation) can also remove most of the overhead in C.
Valgrind and purify should find uninitialized memory.
However, the new aliasing rules can give rather subtle bugs like that. That has hit the Linux kernel
You probably also have noticed by now that 99% of the people who *claim* in public fora that the compiler is broken actually have broken code themselves. Often including people like Linus.
/. readers for suggesting that maybe you belong to the 99% case is silly.
You might be the other 1%, but blaiming the
I see Code Sourcery and Apple adresses at the development lists as often as Red Hat adresses.
And if you are using templates, you are actually using a compile time language, which obviously will slow compilation down.
But they do claim C++ compilation is much faster with 4.0:
Personally, I don't care much. Development seem to be restricted by link time, for a well organized project. And I always compile with full optimization.Problem is that OpenMI was created by people who knew a lot about paralelism, but nothing about language design. It is hard to add to the compiler without further obfuscating the code for everyone.
http://www.milka.dk/
That is kind of like saying that Carlsberg or Heineken make good beers, compared to Coors or (the American) Budweiser. It is true, but really damnation with faint praise.
In Copehangen (and I believe many other European cities), free print papers have recently become very popular. When you take the train or bus to or from work (more common than using a private car), you grap one of the two free newspapers. They have content for about 20 minutes, which is what such a ride typically takes. They mostly reprint stuff from the news agencies, with very little original content.
Personally, I'm very fond of them. I don't have the time to read a conventional newspaper every day. I read a weekly paper to get some perspective, but don't need that on a daily basis.
> Yeah, that reasoning might have worked if their
> front page had been a disclaimer like: This is
> just my hobby. Don't rely on it.
The prize should be a big hint. If you want the right to to have people listen to your complaints, *pay* for it. There are several companies that sell Gnome.
My code is free, my time isn't.
> We SHOULD all change our habits to fit the GNOME paradigm, rather than the other way around.
And other people complain that the free desktops are not inventive enough...
But I do feel with you. Having to wait a whole *month* for a patch that make it more convenient to disable a specific feature. How incredible lazy the developers must be, when we know how trivially easy it is to make to make fast decisions and releases for software projects with hundreds of active developers all over the world, millions lines of code, a steering commitee and the strong economic interest and involment of several large companies.
The *commercial* players (Red Hat, Sun, Novell), whom I suspect do the bulk of the Gnome work, are according to the article *not* ignoring their users. Euginia is explicitly complaining that the *hobbyist* are ignoring user requests, and focusing on their own needs.
The Gnome Foundation don't have the ressources to finance any significant development themselves. All they can do is to choose which of development others (commercial players and hobbyists) have done should be included. Being user oriented means they choose those developments they believe that benefit the users most.
And no, the ability to focus on the need of specific user group (in this case, yourself), and ignore the requests of other users, does not make you a worse engineer in a professional setting. Quite the contrary, that ability is always needed in any software projects, if you try to be everything to all people, you will fail.
> Real, for-profit development succeeds mostly by doing something the customer wants.
And if you read the article, you will see that the real, for-profit companies are doing market research of their own.
When the moron is complaining about is that the *hobbyist* are just doing what they themselves need, rather than working free for every whiny user out there.
She wants professional service for free.
The code is free, the developer time isn't.
... there is a developer who wants to implement it."
A truism if I ever heard one. Ill want to implement a feature if one (or more) of the following are true:
1. Someone is paying me to implement the feature.
2. I need the feature myself.
3. The feature is "fun" to implement.
I'm not Richard M. fucking Stallman, I have not dedicated my life for the cause of free software. I do respect those who have, but such idealists are far to rare to carry the free software movement by themselves. The bulk of the work has to be done by the rest of us, who write free software for fun and profit.
And honestly, whining users who think free software is about other people cathering to their every need for free, are only taking away the fun part. If you want the right to be heard, you have to pay. This is as true for free software as it is for proprietary software.
The code is free, the developers time isn't.
Stop being part of the problem.
And start thinking in terms of whose interest are similar and contrary to yours, and in which areas.
I, like most programmers, am paid for the time I spend developing the code, not for the code itself. The code is free, my time isn't. And if you don't pay for time, the code will not be developed.
This work fine when there is a limited number of users, which is the case for far the most software.
It actually also works for some software with more users. GCC developemnt is largely funded by people who hire one of the GCC development companies (there are several) to improve some aspact of GCC that is important to that customer.
Anything that can be implemented on a general purpose computer should be unpatentable.
I'd have chosen the LGPL or MPL for the two first (maybe dual license between the two like Firefox), both are more well known that (a customized version of) the Jabber OSL.
I hate custom licenses.
If the license isn't valid, you are not allowed to redistribute the code. That is basic copyright law.
The *only* thing that allows you to redistribute the code is the license. So it is in your own interest to defend the license.
Of course, if you don't redistribute the code, you don't have to accept the license. The GPL is very specific about this, but it is true for all licenses. Or used to be, apparently there is a trend in some juristictions to consider the transfer of the program from harddisk to ram in order to run the code to be covered by copyright (very much against the spirit of copyright law), which mean accepting these licenses will be needed if you just want to run the program.