Supporting GNU make is laudable because it is by far the most portable and ubiquitous build system in the world.
Portability is laudable because it allows people to use your code.
If using GNU make could be a barrier to the adoption of your code, that might be a reason not to use it, but the license of GNU make doesn't have any obvious bearing on the usability of your application which is built by its mechanisms.
The number of layers of indirection used by automatic configuration systems is absurd. The number of otherwise useless skills which must be mastered in order to debug a code generator, and the complexity of that task even in the presence of mastery of those skills, represent a barrier to portability which is much more substantial than the relatively trivial task of constructing code which is portable in the first place.
And you're saying that automake is NOT an unmitigated disaster?
In my view any project that needs to resort to automake in order to configure the build environment has already failed. It has failed to deliver a portable Makefile, and failed to deliver portable application source code, and tried to work around that failure after the fact by patching it with automake.
It is a conspiracy theory
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The poster proposes a false dilemma: "Is it just another conspiracy theory, or are we becoming victims to the stealth inflation?" Clearly both are true, if one accepts the non-standard uses of "stealth" and "inflation".
I really don't get it. Installation is vastly more straightforward in Linux. How do you update an existing app on 500 boxes? When you're done, how many of those boxes did you have to re-image?
I had a little cron script do it automagically. I don't even want to think about doing it for an all windows network.
I frankly don't see the point in commercial vendors anymore, but then everything I do is now covered by openware. Obviously if that were not the case, my world could be qualitatively different.
The article is mostly a description of standard practice in the real world, with one exception: He describes a process in which repository commits are made by a single cvs manager. That is insane. But then, the guy is a CPA, so his bean-counting fascism has to show somehow.
Making money is what keeps you from starving to death, since your hunter-gatherer skills have been displaced by reading and typing. Nanotech is cool because it offers the potential to eliminate hunger and disease.
"... Warnings issued by... Michael Crichton" is a quick grin. Should I fear cars and hotels because of Stephen King?
Eliminating D.C. would probably render the U.S. incapable of effective action.
Flattening the middle east is a fantasy. No one could get enough people to obey their orders to accomplish such an obviously demonic aim. Certainly not POTUS.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, that sort of thing. Of course it is easily arguable that the document is already in a state of practical suspension.
I was responding to the question 'how many million casualties have we inflicted on the "enemy"?'
> Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.
And for that reason there is means and opportunity. For motive, see above.
In practice, obviously, its what you can get away with. In order to make a principled argument, you would first need to establish the acceptable premises and modes of reasoning. Since that's not feasible in a political discourse, as opposed to a personal or academic one, the issue is hopeless and will devolve to a matter of power and preference.
> Why is the ownership of a gun somehow > special as a basic human right?
I can see two tenable bases:
Because you have a right to live, and to defend your life as necessary.
Because you have a right to liberty and property. Consequently you have the right to own what you can produce. Since any reasonably intelligent person can produce a firearm from naturally occuring materials in a reasonably small fraction of their lifetime, such persons have a natural right to own and possess a firearm.
> Is owning a dog a basic human right?
I can't produce a dog from raw materials.
However, under some circumstances, a dog might be an essential survival tool.
I would say that it is a conditional right.
> Is owning a house a basic human right?
I can produce one. Without one, I'm likely to die of exposure. Thus, the obvious yes.
> Is owning a car a basic human right?
While I might conceivably be able to produce one, I can't produce a fuel and road infrastructure to operate it, so in this way the right to own a car is a right to own a piece of sculpture. Only under very contrived circumstances would owning a car be crucial to life.
Definitely a social-contract right, or a conditional one.
> Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Define "tank".
> Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Definitely not as a result of the two proposed bases used above.
> Is owning a chemical, biological, > radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic > human right?
The right to self-preservation says the contrary. You have a compelling self-preservation interest in preventing me from owning most WMDs.
However, the natural capacity basis argues in favor.
According to this article, Dala Djupgas Produktions found oil
at 2.8km depth in the Siljan Ring in 1991, while using
water as a drilling fluid. Two previous
efforts had yielded small amounts of oil
which was conceivably accountable to drilling fluid.
The system has adapted to embrace those automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells us that a major homeland attack will result in the suspension of the Constitution. The two are qualitatively different forms of damage.
The US has killed approximately 1 million Iraqis in the past 13 years.
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to produce, not more expensive, not more difficult. That is why the past lack of use is not a predictor of future use.
So UBL manages to snap up one of those loose Russian tacticals with his big cash wad, and turns DC into a crater. Exactly what is the U.S. gonna do to hurt him?
Slashdot Mirror
Supporting GNU make is laudable because it is
by far the most portable and ubiquitous build
system in the world.
Portability is laudable because it allows
people to use your code.
If using GNU make could be a barrier to the
adoption of your code, that might be a reason
not to use it, but the license of GNU make
doesn't have any obvious bearing on the
usability of your application which is built
by its mechanisms.
Amen to that.
The number of layers of indirection used by
automatic configuration systems is absurd.
The number of otherwise useless skills which
must be mastered in order to debug a code
generator, and the complexity of that task
even in the presence of mastery of those
skills, represent a barrier to portability
which is much more substantial than the
relatively trivial task of constructing
code which is portable in the first place.
And you're saying that automake is NOT an
unmitigated disaster?
In my view any project that needs to resort
to automake in order to configure the build
environment has already failed. It has failed
to deliver a portable Makefile, and failed to
deliver portable application source code,
and tried to work around that failure after
the fact by patching it with automake.
Since FAT was around 25 years ago, it's
difficult to imagine why anyone would need
to license a patent to use it. Patents
don't run that long.
I always format Windows systems FAT so that
I can use the disk from other OSen.
So flash cards should be safe from the patents
for at least a couple of years.
but never Z:?
The poster proposes a false dilemma:
"Is it just another conspiracy theory, or are
we becoming victims to the stealth inflation?"
Clearly both are true, if one accepts the
non-standard uses of "stealth" and "inflation".
> documentation, testing, and a development process are good.
No they are not. Meeting enterprise goals
is good. At best, documentation, testing,
and development process are useful.
I really don't get it. Installation is
vastly more straightforward in Linux.
How do you update an existing app on
500 boxes? When you're done, how many
of those boxes did you have to re-image?
I had a little cron script do it automagically. I don't even want to think
about doing it for an all windows network.
I frankly don't see the point in commercial
vendors anymore, but then everything I do
is now covered by openware. Obviously if
that were not the case, my world could be
qualitatively different.
The article is mostly a description of
standard practice in the real world, with
one exception: He describes a process in
which repository commits are made by a
single cvs manager. That is insane. But
then, the guy is a CPA, so his bean-counting
fascism has to show somehow.
[ Reply 1, Lusty and irrelevant ]
... Michael Crichton"
An organic psychology at that. Or perhaps you
meant psychology major. As you prefer.
Personally, I'd rather a majorette.
[ Reply 2, Recognizes absurd premise, but
utterly fails to provide substantive
refutation ]
Oh yes, psychologists are renowned for their
morality and maturity. Heh.
[ Reply 3, Identifies ideological bias and
rank absurdities, thus cogently defends
subculture ]
Making money is what keeps you from starving
to death, since your hunter-gatherer skills
have been displaced by reading and typing.
Nanotech is cool because it offers the
potential to eliminate hunger and disease.
"... Warnings issued by
is a quick grin. Should I fear cars and hotels
because of Stephen King?
"illegal"
You keep using this word. I do not think it
means what you think it means.
Checksum the .sys before installing. Copy it
to a safe place. Always use the safe one
thereafter.
Eliminating D.C. would probably render the
U.S. incapable of effective action.
Flattening the middle east is a fantasy.
No one could get enough people to obey their
orders to accomplish such an obviously
demonic aim. Certainly not POTUS.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law,
that sort of thing. Of course it is easily
arguable that the document is already in a
state of practical suspension.
I was responding to the question
'how many million casualties have we inflicted
on the "enemy"?'
> Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.
And for that reason there is means and
opportunity. For motive, see above.
In practice, obviously, its what you can get
away with. In order to make a principled
argument, you would first need to establish
the acceptable premises and modes of reasoning.
Since that's not feasible in a political
discourse, as opposed to a personal or
academic one, the issue is hopeless and
will devolve to a matter of power and preference.
> Why is the ownership of a gun somehow
> special as a basic human right?
I can see two tenable bases:
Because you have a right to live, and to
defend your life as necessary.
Because you have a right to liberty and
property. Consequently you have the right
to own what you can produce. Since any
reasonably intelligent person can produce
a firearm from naturally occuring materials
in a reasonably small fraction of their
lifetime, such persons have a natural right
to own and possess a firearm.
> Is owning a dog a basic human right?
I can't produce a dog from raw materials.
However, under some circumstances, a dog
might be an essential survival tool.
I would say that it is a conditional right.
> Is owning a house a basic human right?
I can produce one. Without one, I'm likely
to die of exposure. Thus, the obvious yes.
> Is owning a car a basic human right?
While I might conceivably be able to produce
one, I can't produce a fuel and road infrastructure
to operate it, so in this way the right to
own a car is a right to own a piece of sculpture.
Only under very contrived circumstances
would owning a car be crucial to life.
Definitely a social-contract right, or a
conditional one.
> Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Define "tank".
> Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Definitely not as a result of the two proposed bases used above.
> Is owning a chemical, biological,
> radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic
> human right?
The right to self-preservation says
the contrary. You have a compelling
self-preservation interest in preventing
me from owning most WMDs.
However, the natural capacity basis argues
in favor.
According to this article, Dala Djupgas Produktions found oil at 2.8km depth in the Siljan Ring in 1991, while using water as a drilling fluid. Two previous efforts had yielded small amounts of oil which was conceivably accountable to drilling fluid.
Yeah, we'll see what those pricey Parisian
chicks do with us the night before we drag
Giscard d'Escargot to Gitmo.
> Any country that ever uses them will be
> performing its last act on Earth.
If you know where they are coming from.
That's why the preferred delivery vehicles
are cargo ships and satellites.
> the western world at peace for two thirds of
> a century
If this is your idea of peace, I might just
prefer to try war.
The system has adapted to embrace those
automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells
us that a major homeland attack will result
in the suspension of the Constitution.
The two are qualitatively different forms of
damage.
The US has killed approximately 1 million
Iraqis in the past 13 years.
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to
produce, not more expensive, not more
difficult. That is why the past lack of
use is not a predictor of future use.
So UBL manages to snap up one of those loose
Russian tacticals with his big cash wad, and
turns DC into a crater. Exactly what is the
U.S. gonna do to hurt him?
Because we bought their governments.
The people of the world would certainly
obliterate the U.S., if it were put to
a vote. But the U.S. owns their asses,
so its moot.
Slaves don't vote.