Yep. It is much easier to contribute new features, bug fixes, or improvements to a working product. The big rewrites and redesigns have to be done by the arcitect or core team, and for Mozilla, the core team is by default Netscape.
I believe it is a lot more arrogant if Apple expects the free software community to port the Qt servers to Unix, without also giving them a chance to _view_ it there as well.
For cross-licencing. I believe IBM uses their patents that way. Whenever some other company accuse IBM for violating one of their patents, IBM point out 50 IBM patents the other company is violating, and suggest a cross-license.
Most people complain about your style (too longish), not your content. Other people claim that you are too repetitive, i.e. there is too little new stuff in your features. Both are perfectly valid reasons to filter you out.
My only excuse is that Jon Katz used the term "self-censorship" for self-imposed filtering of information, and my point required that I stayed in the terminology of his article.
John Katz is self-censoring as well...
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
Simply because he has to. There is a million new items on the net every day. An ordinary human can read (or scan) maybe a thousand of those. So he is filtering (or self-censoring) about 999.000 items away. Each day.
Everybody has to select the 1000 (or whatever number they can manage) items in some way. Smart people use every accesible technology to help select the items, the they -- in average -- are as interesting as possible.
One simple way is to select your sources. I select to read/. but "censor" cnn by not accessing their site. Not because cnn never have any news that interest me, but because if I spend time there, I'd have to give up other sources of information, which -- in average -- are more interesting.
On Usenet and on mailing lists, I use quite advanced scoring to make smart people and subjects that interest me stand out, so I don't accidentially skip them, and to mark articles by idiots and threads started by well-known trolls and kooks as read, making them easy to skip. This allows me to follow lists and newsgroups, I'd otherwise had to "censor" out because of lack of time.
On/., the moderation system makes it worthwhile to read (or at least skim) comments. Before the the latest incarnation of the moderation system, the average quality of the comments were so low, that looking for the occational gem was not worth the time. You'd get better results elsewhere.
I disagree with the pedagogical ideals that make some American parents attempt to shield their children from the world, rather than spending time with them to learn them how to deal with the world. But that is really a separate issue.
In general, selecting/filtering/censoring your information sources is not even a question. It is a necessity. The only relevant question is how to do it most efficiently.
No, I always find it rude when someone quotes a message they got privately. However, there are times where other concerns are more important than politeness, for example if you feel treatened. If Bruce *really* thought Eric might use violence, then his behaviour is excusable.
That RMS believe people should always be able to share all information they have is not surprising. I never have second thought about quoting private email from him. But that doesn't mean ESR share the same values.
What ESR wrote in the quote is correct. Whether or not it is appropriate depends on the context. If your mail wasn't as friendly as you claim, then the quote is fine.
In any case, quoting private email on public forums without permission is poor style.
1) This is plain wrong. Please learn about copyright law, and especially how it differs from trade secrets, before spreading that kind of misunderstandings.
2) Wine is under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), which means it can be mixed with any other Open Source(TM) code. Also QPL and ASPL. The result will no longer be under a BSD'ish license, but under the more restrictive Open Source(TM) license.
1) Copyright doesn't prevent you from looking at publicated source not owned by you, when creating your own programs. You can just not copy the source outright. Maybe you were thinking of information that is "trade secret".
2) If the code is Open Source, Wine can copy, modify and distribute it. That freedom is part of the Open Source(TM) specification. Maybe you were thinking of the scenario where Microsoft made the code available under some non-Open Source(TM) compliant license.
Maybe OSI learned something from the APSL release? Being able to learn is not the same as having "a double standard".
Two Java EGCS projects
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there are two Java related projects for egcs. The first is to add a Java frontend to the compiler. The second is to add a JVM backend to the compiler.
If done right, this means:
1) Java-the language will no longer be restricted to JVM, but can produce code for _any_ of the egcs backend.
2) You will be able to use _any_ of the egcs frontends for producing code to the JVM backend.
What Cygnus is doing is simply to create a Java system, without the restrictions of a single backend (virtual) machine or a single frontend language.
The Comparison (KDE vs GNOME)
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
You don't need big macro collections for doing OOP in C, and C is not an inappropiate language for implementing an OO design. The essential features that allows clean implementation of OO designs in C are pointers to incomplete structs (for data hiding) and function pointers (for virtual member functions).
The big advantage of C++ over C is tempaltes, which has nothing to do with OOP.
The "wrapper" business is a red herring, Qt is just a much a C++ wrapper for a C library at Gtk-- is. The library Qt wraps just happens at a lower level, namely to Xlib rather than Gtk.
The Comparison (KDE vs GNOME)
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
1) I didn't wrote that Gtk 1.0 had better support for C++ than Qt 1.x. I wrote that Gtk-- 1.0 (which is build on top of Gtk 1.2) had better support for C++ than Qt 1.x. Gtk-- is actually better viewed as a separate toolkit that just happens to be implemented on top og Gtk, rather than as a "wrapper" for Gtk.
Also, I didn't write Gtk-- 1.0 was better than Qt 1.x. The other sider of being older, is that Qt 1.x is a lot more mature and stable than Gtk--.
2) OO is much more about design than about programming, and implementing an OO design in C is not tricky. Certainly, I would not advice against using a OO design, just because the implementation language was C. I would prefer using C++, but access to STL (and templates in general) is a more signaficant factor for that, than any of the OO features.
The Comparison (KDE vs GNOME)
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
I disagree about the OOP/language part.
First, OOP can be done in most languages, although it is more convenient in languages that support it directly. Gtk is a good OO toolkit.
Secondly, it seems to me that Gtk-- 1.0 actually offers _better_ C++ support than Qt 1.x, probably because it was designed later than Qt, and thus could assume more C++ support in the compilers.
Really, neither an OO C binding to a C++ toolkit, nor a C++ binding to OO C toolkit, are particularily difficult. |You lose convenience when going from C++ to C, and gains it when going from C to C++, if done right.
Yet another long, boring, pompous fluff piece from John Katz.
John: Learn how to spell, write and think before posting here again! You are wasting our valuable time.
And Rob: What kind of lousy editor is you, when you allow trash like that to be posted. At least you should run a spell checker on it! Slashdot will continue to be useless garbage until you learn to apply a minimum of professionalism in you job as editor.
-- I'm really an Anonymous Coward, but I forgot how not to log in.
It is up to you. Those you -- for some reason -- desire private feedback from, you should ask in private. Those you want (or can live with) public feedback from, can wait until the public announcement. Expecting people to make private comments to a public announcement is simply absurd.
Another possibility would be to do like Netscape, and explictly ask for feedback on a "beta" version of the license. Kind of like a bazaar approach to drafting the license, rather than the cathedral approach you and Apple used;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. It is much easier to contribute new features, bug fixes, or improvements to a working product. The big rewrites and redesigns have to be done by the arcitect or core team, and for Mozilla, the core team is by default Netscape.
We should not forget the #1 and #2 killer drugs (measured in absolute numbers).
Well, the U.S. Government _created_ the Internet. Even before Al Gore ;-)
I believe it is a lot more arrogant if Apple expects the free software community to port the Qt servers to Unix, without also giving them a chance to _view_ it there as well.
For cross-licencing. I believe IBM uses their patents that way. Whenever some other company accuse IBM for violating one of their patents, IBM point out 50 IBM patents the other company is violating, and suggest a cross-license.
Most people complain about your style (too longish), not your content. Other people claim that you are too repetitive, i.e. there is too little new stuff in your features. Both are perfectly valid reasons to filter you out.
You are absolutely right.
My only excuse is that Jon Katz used the term "self-censorship" for self-imposed filtering of information, and my point required that I stayed in the terminology of his article.
Simply because he has to. There is a million new items on the net every day. An ordinary human can read (or scan) maybe a thousand of those. So he is filtering (or self-censoring) about 999.000 items away. Each day.
/. but "censor" cnn by not accessing their site. Not because cnn never have any news that interest me, but because if I spend time there, I'd have to give up other sources of information, which -- in average -- are more interesting.
/., the moderation system makes it worthwhile to read (or at least skim) comments. Before the the latest incarnation of the moderation system, the average quality of the comments were so low, that looking for the occational gem was not worth the time. You'd get better results elsewhere.
Everybody has to select the 1000 (or whatever number they can manage) items in some way. Smart people use every accesible technology to help select the items, the they -- in average -- are as interesting as possible.
One simple way is to select your sources. I select to read
On Usenet and on mailing lists, I use quite advanced scoring to make smart people and subjects that interest me stand out, so I don't accidentially skip them, and to mark articles by idiots and threads started by well-known trolls and kooks as read, making them easy to skip. This allows me to follow lists and newsgroups, I'd otherwise had to "censor" out because of lack of time.
On
I disagree with the pedagogical ideals that make some American parents attempt to shield their children from the world, rather than spending time with them to learn them how to deal with the world. But that is really a separate issue.
In general, selecting/filtering/censoring your information sources is not even a question. It is a necessity. The only relevant question is how to do it most efficiently.
I wonder what this refers to.
I know of three "traditional" window systems:
X11, mgr, Berlin
then rhere are `vgalib' and `ggi', but they aren't windowing systems.
Emacs and screen on a console are window system, but not graphical ones.
Of course, he could mean X11 window managers. There are a lot more than five of those.
And then there are the desktops, with CDE, KDE, and Gnome as the most prominent. Including GNUStep makes it 4, and then there are some minor efforts.
I suspect Russia is concidered too risky a marketplace by most long term private investors.
No, I always find it rude when someone quotes a message they got privately. However, there are times where other concerns are more important than politeness, for example if you feel treatened. If Bruce *really* thought Eric might use violence, then his behaviour is excusable.
That RMS believe people should always be able to share all information they have is not surprising. I never have second thought about quoting private email from him. But that doesn't mean ESR share the same values.
What ESR wrote in the quote is correct. Whether or not it is appropriate depends on the context. If your mail wasn't as friendly as you claim, then the quote is fine.
In any case, quoting private email on public forums without permission is poor style.
1) This is plain wrong. Please learn about copyright law, and especially how it differs from trade secrets, before spreading that kind of misunderstandings.
2) Wine is under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), which means it can be mixed with any other Open Source(TM) code. Also QPL and ASPL. The result will no longer be under a BSD'ish license, but under the more restrictive Open Source(TM) license.
Your claim is wrong on two accounts.
1) Copyright doesn't prevent you from looking at publicated source not owned by you, when creating your own programs. You can just not copy the source outright. Maybe you were thinking of information that is "trade secret".
2) If the code is Open Source, Wine can copy, modify and distribute it. That freedom is part of the Open Source(TM) specification. Maybe you were thinking of the scenario where Microsoft made the code available under some non-Open Source(TM) compliant license.
Even releasing incomplete parts of MS Windows as Open Source could be useful to the Wine project.
Maybe OSI learned something from the APSL release? Being able to learn is not the same as having "a double standard".
Actually, there are two Java related projects for egcs. The first is to add a Java frontend to the compiler. The second is to add a JVM backend to the compiler.
If done right, this means:
1) Java-the language will no longer be restricted to JVM, but can produce code for _any_ of the egcs backend.
2) You will be able to use _any_ of the egcs frontends for producing code to the JVM backend.
What Cygnus is doing is simply to create a Java system, without the restrictions of a single backend (virtual) machine or a single frontend language.
You don't need big macro collections for doing OOP in C, and C is not an inappropiate language for implementing an OO design. The essential features that allows clean implementation of OO designs in C are pointers to incomplete structs (for data hiding) and function pointers (for virtual member functions).
The big advantage of C++ over C is tempaltes, which has nothing to do with OOP.
The "wrapper" business is a red herring, Qt is just a much a C++ wrapper for a C library at Gtk-- is. The library Qt wraps just happens at a lower level, namely to Xlib rather than Gtk.
1) I didn't wrote that Gtk 1.0 had better support for C++ than Qt 1.x. I wrote that Gtk-- 1.0 (which is build on top of Gtk 1.2) had better support for C++ than Qt 1.x. Gtk-- is actually better viewed as a separate toolkit that just happens to be implemented on top og Gtk, rather than as a "wrapper" for Gtk.
Also, I didn't write Gtk-- 1.0 was better than Qt 1.x. The other sider of being older, is that Qt 1.x is a lot more mature and stable than Gtk--.
2) OO is much more about design than about programming, and implementing an OO design in C is not tricky. Certainly, I would not advice against using a OO design, just because the implementation language was C. I would prefer using C++, but access to STL (and templates in general) is a more signaficant factor for that, than any of the OO features.
I disagree about the OOP/language part.
First, OOP can be done in most languages, although it is more convenient in languages that support it directly. Gtk is a good OO toolkit.
Secondly, it seems to me that Gtk-- 1.0 actually offers _better_ C++ support than Qt 1.x, probably because it was designed later than Qt, and thus could assume more C++ support in the compilers.
Really, neither an OO C binding to a C++ toolkit, nor a C++ binding to OO C toolkit, are particularily difficult. |You lose convenience when going from C++ to C, and gains it when going from C to C++, if done right.
The GPL removes your freedom to remove other peoples freedom.
Emacs is far older than either Brief or Epsilon. They stole concepts from Emacs, not the other way around.
LaTeX stole a lot from scribe, as is acknowledged by Lamport in the book.
Yet another long, boring, pompous fluff piece from John Katz.
John: Learn how to spell, write and think before posting here again! You are wasting our valuable time.
And Rob: What kind of lousy editor is you, when you allow trash like that to be posted. At least you should run a spell checker on it! Slashdot will continue to be useless garbage until you learn to apply a minimum of professionalism in you job as editor.
--
I'm really an Anonymous Coward, but I forgot how not to log in.
It is up to you. Those you -- for some reason -- desire private feedback from, you should ask in private. Those you want (or can live with) public feedback from, can wait until the public announcement. Expecting people to make private comments to a public announcement is simply absurd.
;-)
Another possibility would be to do like Netscape, and explictly ask for feedback on a "beta" version of the license. Kind of like a bazaar approach to drafting the license, rather than the cathedral approach you and Apple used
They are into prophesy.
They have a knack of being wrong. Try astrology or just flip a coin, the predictions will be no worse than IDC.