More high tech job in the third world is good for everyone. It will help establish an educated middle class which will bring local stability and wealth, and ultimately be a market for first world companies, increasing prosperity here as well.
I'd really hope a community build around a project started by a Mexican will appreciate that.
... they can and do keep many pests down to manageable levels, saving many lives from diseases and many more from starvation.
For both the current proposal and pesticides, the purpose is not extinction of a species. It is to improve the living conditions of people in the area, not by a "once and for all" operation, but by continuesly working to keep the pest population down.
If there is anything naive it is the search for "permanent" solutions. Little in life is permanent, life itself is not permanent. Most of what we do offer only temporary improvements in our living conditions. In the long run, there is only entropy.
Do you stop eating, because it only offers a temporary relief from hunger?
A project is wortwhile if the benefits outweight the costs.
I don't see how that decission makes sense. A business who want to run Linux should have at least one person who can administrate a Linux box, and such a person would most likely want to install a "company standard" Linux distribution on all computers.
On the other hand, a home user may wish to run Linux because he has experience as a Unix user from work or school, but with no desire of doing more administrative work than necessary. For him, a preinstalled Linux would be usefull.
> MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code.
I would be very surpised if that was true. All the proprietary Apple API's and GUI applications tend to be much fatter than the lean and mean BSD code.
In contrast, Red Hat's GUI layer is Gnome, a GNU project.
In fact, I suspect MacOSX has more GNU code than BSD code, if you include the development tools, allthough both are dwarfed by the Apple proprietary code.
From what I have heard, ClearCase is a centralized fileserver demanding some serious hardware. Very nice iff you get the hardware and manpower to run the server, a piece of junk otherwise.
In contrast, arch seem to be very light and decentralized. Probably a bit more demanding on the end developers, but more flexible, and much less depending on (and demanding of) a cetral repository.
The first compiler I used was UCSD Pascal, and it produced P-code, to be run on any platform under a VM. That was back in the early 80'ties. Some years later, I got an account on a Unix mainframe, started using Emacs, and write small Emacs Lisp programs. Usually they were interpreted, but I found that byte compiling them produced platform independent byt ecode that ran much faster than the interpreter. That was the mid 80'ties.
I haven't yet programmed in Java and produced code for the JVM, but what would make that so innovative compared to the technologies that were old when I discovered them a decade before Java was marketed.
My applications works fine compiled with C++Builder (5.0, with BCC 5.5), it just run half the speed I get with GCC 2.95, Visual C++ 6.0 and even BCC 5.0.
We originally choose Borland C++ 5.0 for creating MS Windows binaries because Delphi was popular at our department.
Since that is getting ancient (I want to use more modern C++ features), I have been looking into an upgrade. The compiler must be cheap and easy to install, as Ph.D. students (who have never heard of Unix) will want to compile the application, and I don't want to come in a situation where I have to provide technical support for the compiler.
C++Builder is the obvious choice for a succecor, but the IDE is the worst I have ever encountered, is is slow bordering to unusable, and produce (for my application) ridiculous bad code.
Cygwin was the second choice, since I already use GCC on unix. It is also the recommended way to get CVS, and I can reuse the Makefile. However, the Unix environment is too weird for some of the users, and getting -no-cygwin to work for C++ is non-trivial. So I need a more conventional solution as well.
Visual C++ is what most people use. It has en excellent IDE, produce OK code, and mediocre C++ support. I have found work arounds for the limitations in the C++ support, so that is going to be the replacement for Borland C++.
A numerical simulation, however I suspect the problem is with the iostream implementation. It makes no sense that BC++ 5.5 should be that bad for numeric code, especially as BC++ 5.0 produced almost as good code as GCC. Visual C++ 6.0 also give results in the same range as BC++ 5.0, slightly worse than GCC.
I get twice as fast an executable when compiling my application with GCC 2.95.2 under Cygwin, compared to Borland C++ 5.5 under C++Builder, both with full optimization.
Both the GPL and the Darren Copyleft depend on what the law will consider "a derivative of this code". So there is no legal difference in how viral they are.
Either both or neither let you mix, match, mate or link.
It might be less restrictive than what the FSF claim of the GPL, but in that case it is becasue FSF is wrong about the GPL.
For the game to make sense, there should be some kind of "community reward" for sharing, say, doubling the pot before splitting it. Otherwise, what is the point of the game?
> What right to not be bothered? I don't seem to remember that one.
I don't know about the US, but in Denmark property is a right (even if not an absolute one). By spamming _my_ email lists, they make people unsubscribe and/or forcing me to close it, both of which make it less worth.
Your troll would be so much more convincing if you didn't hide your email adress.
Think: In which world is speach most free:
1) A world where you can send single personal messages to anyone, but can't send multiple copies of the same message to people who haven't authorized you spending their ressources that way.
2) A world where you only can send messages to people who have explicitly authorized you to do so.
If we win the fight against spammers, we get world 1. If we lose, we get world 2.
Some people believe free speach, and thus world 1, is worth fighting for. Some feel the battle is already lost. Personally, my email filtering is now based on a whitelist, i.e. I have already joined world 2. Just like you have, by hiding your email adress.
> Eclipse is designed for a much broader audience
> than Emacs.
So, like Emacs, it is also designed to be used for non-programmers? Emacs is not just designed to be an IDE, it is designed for all tasks that can somehow be conceived to be related to text editing. Aiding programmers is just one aspect.
> In addition, it's a cross-platform app, written
> almost entirely in Java (with the exception of
> JNI hooks for access to "native" widgets for
> Windows/Motif/GTK+).
You mean it is written in a propritary, unportable language, using propritary, unportable hooks, which Sun marketing have somehow managed to convince a generation of inexperienced programmers is a synonym of "portability"?
There is only one usful definition of portable, and that is ported. I bet Emacs runs on platforms that does not and will never run Java applications, certainly not ones relying on Windows/Motif/Gtk+ calls. Emacs can ustilize thes libraries, but doesn't rely on them.
I'm sure Eclipse is useul, it provides an alternative to people who dislike the Emacs UI, and probably even have unique features. But broadness in either application range or platform range are not among these.
The number of registered users and the number of comments aren't interesting. The interesting number is the number of actual showings. Traditional Usenet newsreaders only stores information about read messages in the.newsrc file./. could go further, and just store a timestamp each time a each user read an article with comments.
If we say each user read each article, that/. store a week worth of timestamps, we have 20 articles a day, and that a timestamp takes 4 bytes, the space would be 7 * 20 * 4 bytes per user. probably a lot less than/. already stores.
And I believe you are confusing the user id with the comment id in your 3 million estimate.
LOTP and OMS are a bit more questionable. People who only talks about a single issue tend are mostly kooks, and otherwise I usually agree or disagree with them depending on the issue. Also, it doesn't count for the people who posts facts rather than opinions.
Maybe starting from the moderation labels one would use as a generic description of the persons comments:
which makes each/. article appear as a newsgroup, with the comments being the messages in the group.
Unfortunately, one has to run the CVS version of Gnus for this to work, since it does it by parsing the html, and need to be updated each time/. changes format.
But I don't want to score down my foes
on
Slashdot Code Update
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
One can respect a foe, and look forward to reading his or her messages.
The people I want to score down are the Fools and the Trolls, whom I don't want to honor with the label "Foe".
Actually, European economy grow stronger (and larger) than the US economy during the Reagan/Bush area. During the Clinton administration, US economy grow strong again, and actually surpassed Europe in the late 90'ties.
So "never" is inaccurate. The relative strength is approximately the same, seen over the last 30 years. Which indicates that idelogical dogmas has less effect than many people think, and the effect is probably negative most of the time, compared to a more pragmatic approach.
Slashdot Mirror
More high tech job in the third world is good for everyone. It will help establish an educated middle class which will bring local stability and wealth, and ultimately be a market for first world companies, increasing prosperity here as well.
I'd really hope a community build around a project started by a Mexican will appreciate that.
... they can and do keep many pests down to manageable levels, saving many lives from diseases and many more from starvation.
For both the current proposal and pesticides, the purpose is not extinction of a species. It is to improve the living conditions of people in the area, not by a "once and for all" operation, but by continuesly working to keep the pest population down.
If there is anything naive it is the search for "permanent" solutions. Little in life is permanent, life itself is not permanent. Most of what we do offer only temporary improvements in our living conditions. In the long run, there is only entropy.
Do you stop eating, because it only offers a temporary relief from hunger?
A project is wortwhile if the benefits outweight the costs.
Actually, around here most lottery winners keep their jobs. A job gives an identity.
I don't see how that decission makes sense. A business who want to run Linux should have at least one person who can administrate a Linux box, and such a person would most likely want to install a "company standard" Linux distribution on all computers.
On the other hand, a home user may wish to run Linux because he has experience as a Unix user from work or school, but with no desire of doing more administrative work than necessary. For him, a preinstalled Linux would be usefull.
Much more sex and violence...
> MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code.
I would be very surpised if that was true. All the proprietary Apple API's and GUI applications tend to be much fatter than the lean and mean BSD code.
In contrast, Red Hat's GUI layer is Gnome, a GNU project.
In fact, I suspect MacOSX has more GNU code than BSD code, if you include the development tools, allthough both are dwarfed by the Apple proprietary code.
From what I have heard, ClearCase is a centralized fileserver demanding some serious hardware. Very nice iff you get the hardware and manpower to run the server, a piece of junk otherwise.
In contrast, arch seem to be very light and decentralized. Probably a bit more demanding on the end developers, but more flexible, and much less depending on (and demanding of) a cetral repository.
The first compiler I used was UCSD Pascal, and it produced P-code, to be run on any platform under a VM. That was back in the early 80'ties. Some years later, I got an account on a Unix mainframe, started using Emacs, and write small Emacs Lisp programs. Usually they were interpreted, but I found that byte compiling them produced platform independent byt ecode that ran much faster than the interpreter. That was the mid 80'ties.
I haven't yet programmed in Java and produced code for the JVM, but what would make that so innovative compared to the technologies that were old when I discovered them a decade before Java was marketed.
The compiler contained in C++Builder 5.0 identifies itself Borland C++ 5.5. I have never used the free Borland C++ compiler.
I'm surprised to hear that the free C++ 5.5 is six years old, as the Borland commercial product back then was called C++ 5.0.
The GCC of the same timeframe (six years ago) was 2.7.x. Version 0.9 (the initial beta) was from 1987, 15 years ago.
My applications works fine compiled with C++Builder (5.0, with BCC 5.5), it just run half the speed I get with GCC 2.95, Visual C++ 6.0 and even BCC 5.0.
Since that is getting ancient (I want to use more modern C++ features), I have been looking into an upgrade. The compiler must be cheap and easy to install, as Ph.D. students (who have never heard of Unix) will want to compile the application, and I don't want to come in a situation where I have to provide technical support for the compiler.
C++Builder is the obvious choice for a succecor, but the IDE is the worst I have ever encountered, is is slow bordering to unusable, and produce (for my application) ridiculous bad code.
Cygwin was the second choice, since I already use GCC on unix. It is also the recommended way to get CVS, and I can reuse the Makefile. However, the Unix environment is too weird for some of the users, and getting -no-cygwin to work for C++ is non-trivial. So I need a more conventional solution as well.
Visual C++ is what most people use. It has en excellent IDE, produce OK code, and mediocre C++ support. I have found work arounds for the limitations in the C++ support, so that is going to be the replacement for Borland C++.
A numerical simulation, however I suspect the problem is with the iostream implementation. It makes no sense that BC++ 5.5 should be that bad for numeric code, especially as BC++ 5.0 produced almost as good code as GCC. Visual C++ 6.0 also give results in the same range as BC++ 5.0, slightly worse than GCC.
I get twice as fast an executable when compiling my application with GCC 2.95.2 under Cygwin, compared to Borland C++ 5.5 under C++Builder, both with full optimization.
Both the GPL and the Darren Copyleft depend on what the law will consider "a derivative of this code". So there is no legal difference in how viral they are.
Either both or neither let you mix, match, mate or link.
It might be less restrictive than what the FSF claim of the GPL, but in that case it is becasue FSF is wrong about the GPL.
For the game to make sense, there should be some kind of "community reward" for sharing, say, doubling the pot before splitting it. Otherwise, what is the point of the game?
> What right to not be bothered? I don't seem to remember that one.
I don't know about the US, but in Denmark property is a right (even if not an absolute one). By spamming _my_ email lists, they make people unsubscribe and/or forcing me to close it, both of which make it less worth.
Your troll would be so much more convincing if you didn't hide your email adress.
Think: In which world is speach most free:
1) A world where you can send single personal messages to anyone, but can't send multiple copies of the same message to people who haven't authorized you spending their ressources that way.
2) A world where you only can send messages to people who have explicitly authorized you to do so.
If we win the fight against spammers, we get world 1. If we lose, we get world 2.
Some people believe free speach, and thus world 1, is worth fighting for. Some feel the battle is already lost. Personally, my email filtering is now based on a whitelist, i.e. I have already joined world 2. Just like you have, by hiding your email adress.
Trademarks are different. There, you _have_ to sue, or lose it. You can ignore copyright violations and still retain the copyright.
> Eclipse is designed for a much broader audience
> than Emacs.
So, like Emacs, it is also designed to be used for non-programmers? Emacs is not just designed to be an IDE, it is designed for all tasks that can somehow be conceived to be related to text editing. Aiding programmers is just one aspect.
> In addition, it's a cross-platform app, written
> almost entirely in Java (with the exception of
> JNI hooks for access to "native" widgets for
> Windows/Motif/GTK+).
You mean it is written in a propritary, unportable language, using propritary, unportable hooks, which Sun marketing have somehow managed to convince a generation of inexperienced programmers is a synonym of "portability"?
There is only one usful definition of portable, and that is ported. I bet Emacs runs on platforms that does not and will never run Java applications, certainly not ones relying on Windows/Motif/Gtk+ calls. Emacs can ustilize thes libraries, but doesn't rely on them.
I'm sure Eclipse is useul, it provides an alternative to people who dislike the Emacs UI, and probably even have unique features. But broadness in either application range or platform range are not among these.
The number of registered users and the number of comments aren't interesting. The interesting number is the number of actual showings. Traditional Usenet newsreaders only stores information about read messages in the .newsrc file. /. could go further, and just store a timestamp each time a each user read an article with comments.
/. store a week worth of timestamps, we have 20 articles a day, and that a timestamp takes 4 bytes, the space would be 7 * 20 * 4 bytes per user. probably a lot less than /. already stores.
If we say each user read each article, that
And I believe you are confusing the user id with the comment id in your 3 million estimate.
LOTP and OMS are a bit more questionable. People who only talks about a single issue tend are mostly kooks, and otherwise I usually agree or disagree with them depending on the issue. Also, it doesn't count for the people who posts facts rather than opinions.
Maybe starting from the moderation labels one would use as a generic description of the persons comments:
Troll (Troll)
Flamer (Flamebait[1])
Bore (Redundant)
Sage (Insightfull)
Docent (Informative)
Speaker (Interesting)
Ccomedian (Funny)
[1] I assume Taco means to write "Flame". Flamebait is the same as Troll.
It could be part of the "added value" you get, if you pay for a /. subscription.
which makes each /. article appear as a newsgroup, with the comments being the messages in the group.
/. changes format.
Unfortunately, one has to run the CVS version of Gnus for this to work, since it does it by parsing the html, and need to be updated each time
One can respect a foe, and look forward to reading his or her messages.
The people I want to score down are the Fools and the Trolls, whom I don't want to honor with the label "Foe".
Actually, European economy grow stronger (and larger) than the US economy during the Reagan/Bush area. During the Clinton administration, US economy grow strong again, and actually surpassed Europe in the late 90'ties.
So "never" is inaccurate. The relative strength is approximately the same, seen over the last 30 years. Which indicates that idelogical dogmas has less effect than many people think, and the effect is probably negative most of the time, compared to a more pragmatic approach.