Well, that is an impossible task to do perfectly, but basically I think it is partially the degree to which languages are compiled before deployment. C++ is totally complied, Java is compiled to a low-level bytecode, I doubt Perl is compiled to even nearly the same degree. There are other indicators, such as strict type-checking that tend to be lacking in scripting languages such as Perl and Python. Also, the history of Perl betrays its true nature, it was designed for text-processing. This is still more than visible in its design today. Perl may have aquired the trappings of a real programming language, but its true nature is still that of an "awk" replacement.
If you've ignored Perl because it looks scary, go back and try it again.
I have ignored Perl because I was once forced to maintain someone else's Perl code, and still have the scars. Even well-written Perl code can be intimidating to maintain, and IMHO a good language should place limits on how badly code can be written, Perl seems to pride itself in not having any such limits.
Go look at that module list. Think about what it means to be able to think "hey, i'd like to..." and find that it's in the standard library!
My idea of the perfect standard library isn't one that has specialized functions for everything under the sun - that is just bloat. A good library should provide effective building blocks, but not try to do everything.
Java has only some of C's problems while being totally platform-antisocial (platform neutral would imply that it plays nicely with all platforms which is patently untrue).
Sun's JRE implementation, in my experience, is pretty solid on both Linux and Windows (the only platforms on which I have tested it). Kaffe, when they release the next version (1.0.6 is ancient) will provide a pretty solid Open Source JRE, IBMs JRE is pretty good provided you don't want to do anything rediculously complex (we have run into some really obscure bugs with it). no JRE is perfectly bug-free (what software is?), but they are pretty solid, and improving every day. To describe Java as "totally platform-antisocial" betrays an anti-Java bias on your part.
I will say that Java has one of the best object models of any language out there, but 1) that will change when Perl6 hits the streets
Wow - I really hope you don't actually consider Perl to be a suitable alternative to Java, it is a scripting language for crying out loud (and an incredibly ugly one IMHO), I can't believe that whatever magic fairy-dust they plan to sprinkle on Perl6 will change this much.
and 2) it's somewhat overshadowed by the failure of the Java libraries to live up to the promise.
As an experienced Java developer, I have never really felt disappointed by the Java libraries (with the sole exception of the lack of support for asynchronous networking until 1.4) - what exactly is your beef with them?
Quantum computers will probably, within the next 20 or 30 years, render public-private key cryptography useless. Once that happens, only those who can afford Quantum cryptography will have the ability to communicate securely.
It is at this point, ladies and gentlemen, that communication technology stops empowering the masses, and gives the wealthy yet another tool to consolodate and defend their power.
1: Are you a large corporation? ____ If no: Please send all your earnings to IRS If yes: Gosh, sorry sir, didn't mean to disturb you, please carry on as you were
US government conducts mass murder simulations on really cool Linux hardware!
From the we-have-no-moral-context department
Does anyone else find this kind of "gee whiz" attitude towards weapons designed to kill the largest number of civilians possible somewhat distasteful? I know I do, particularly now that the US government is actively looking at ways to use nuclear-weapons on the battlefield, rather than as an absolute last resort.
and is spreading so much FUD about any sort of free or open software is using it themselves
If you look at what they have said, they have no-problem with non-viral Open Source software such as the BSD license and the LGPL, they are only worried about licenses that try to spread themselves to cover other people's code (such as the GPL).
Exactly how is this a risk to M$? If this new FS doesn't fly, do you think they are in trouble as a company?
They are taking no more or less of a risk than Linus would if he decided to make such a low-level change for the next major release of Linux. The difference is that Microsoft did, and Linus hasn't.
Maybe people with innovative ideas are not willing to give them out for free
That is obviously not true. Did Einstein try to patent relativity? Did Turing try to patent the comupter? Did Pythagoras try to patent the right-angle triangle?
Someone who has a truly innovative idea is compelled to share it with others regardless of whether they are likely to profit from it.
Its silly to blame gnumeric for not revolutionizing the way spreadsheets are used when it can't yet make decent graphs.
I am not saying that Gnumeric isn't useful, but it is a reimplementation of software that has been available for years (eg. Excel). I am glad that people are doing this, but shouldn't there be more Open Source software that isn't just reimplementing proprietary software?
This is the weakness of de-centralized development
I don't think it is a fundamental weakness of the Open Source model, I just think that Open Source developers feel that their mission is to re-implement everything as Open Source, but not so-much to actually forge new ground. It is a cultural problem, but isn't inevitable.
It is possible, there are examples of Open Source projects which really do innovative new things, but they are quite rare. Part of the reason they are so rare is that a developer needs a thick skin to not be disheartened by the countless numbers of people around the O.S community who would rather nit-pick other people's efforts than contribute themselves.
As soon as copy-protected computers start to become available don't buy them, it is as simple as that. If the next version of Windows contains copy-protection (and you are a Windows user) - don't upgrade. Trust me, Intel, Microsoft, and others will quickly get the message. You should also encourage your friends to do the same.
As mentioned in the article, the computer industry dwarfs the content industries, and Hollywood's argument that their product will be the driving force behind adoption of new technology simply doesn't hold water. There is a great article called Content is Not King that responds to this mythology.
Most of us live in a capitalist society. Given that, the response to people trying to sell us this user-hostile technology should be not to buy it, and to make sure the manufacturers know we won't buy it so that they use their considerable clout to kill the SSSCA before it does any damage.
Whether you like Microsoft or not, you can't deny that they are willing to take risks and innovate, this being a perfect example. My question is whether the Linux community is capable of doing the same, or whether we will always need to wait for someone else to do something before we consider it.
It is funny, we accuse Microsoft of using other people's ideas - but are we really any better? How much of Open Source development is really just reimplementations of other people's ideas?
...is that not only has law been misapplied with respect to the Internet (and communication technologies generally), but that the law has no place in regulating people's ability to communicate.
In the US, the Law gets its authority from democratically elected government. The Government gets its authority from the people, as conveyed through the democratic process (voting). If the Government has control over the information the people have access to, then they have the ability to manipulate people's ability to make an informed voting decision. This corrupts the very democratic process from which the law gets its authority.
When people are being beaten and tortured, "it" bothers us. "It" would bother anyone with a conscience.
Oh come on - wake up. What did you do every time the US government propped up a corrupt government which was oppressing its people? Are you so sure you are better than the Chinese people?
What follows is the relevant extract from my email...
[...snip...]
I was somewhat surprised to see in a recent NewsForge article
(http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/02/21/ 2211255) that you
expressed distaste for "Red Flag Linux", the version of linux sponsored
by the Chinese government. They quote you as saying:
"any 'identification' between the values of the open-source community
and the repressive practices of Communism is nothing but a vicious and
cynical fraud. [We] would not care to be associated with the
totalitarian and murderous government of Communist China --
unrepentant perpetrators of numerous atrocities against its own
people."
While I can somewhat understand your view, it seems dangerous to drag
left/right-wing politics into Open Source, surely the more people who
adopt the Open Source philosophy the better, irrespective of how much you
might disagree with their politics.
For example, if the Chinese government were to express a desire to adopt
the ideals of the Libertarian Party, would you make an argument like:
"any 'identification' between the values of the Libertarian Party
and the repressive practices of Communism is nothing but a vicious and
cynical fraud. [We] would not care to be associated with the
totalitarian and murderous government of Communist China --
unrepentant perpetrators of numerous atrocities against its own
people."
Clearly, such an attitude would be deeply flawed. Regardless of how
much you dislike a group, surely their adoption of something with which
you think is a good thing should be encouraged?
If you disagree, I would be interested in your response...
Just thought that people should know that this comment and its parents were copied from here on Kuro5hin, and at the very least, this reply does not belong to the person who posted it here (since I wrote it myself).
While the comment obviously deserves the score, I really don't think that those who posted them deserve the karma for posting other people's work unattributed. Perhaps if one of Slashdot's editors reads this, they can take appropriate action.
The effectiveness of a search in Gnutella is directly proportional to the number of nodes who receive the query. This paper really only talks about the order in which those queries would be received by those nodes, which is - of course - largely irrelevant.
Until Gnutella starts directing searches intelligently - towards nodes which are more likely to have the data being sought, as Freenet does, it will always be an inefficient way to search for data.
Slashdot's not the government. It can silence whomever it pleases. If you do not like it, your recourse is to go to (or establish) a site of your own. That's a crucial difference.
True, it is different, but that doesn't mean that it is right, or that people shouldn't be made aware of it. For example, if I didn't allow Jews into my shop, but justified it on the basis that they could just set up their own shop, I don't think it would inspire much sympathy.
The thing which irks me about it is that, as I said in my initial post, it betrays a lack of respect and gratitude on the part of the editors towards their readership when they override reader-moderation, and the fact that they do it on comments which are critical of them makes it extra sleazy. They need to realize that those who post intelligent comments are what makes Slashdot valuable.
Of course, the last ditch position is that the slashdot editors could dig their heels in, and intelligent people would start to leave this site in droves. My hope is that it doesn't need reach that point, and that the editors will learn to exercise restraint to encourage people to feel that slashdot is a true forum for free debate, where if you disagree with someone, you argue with them, rather than preventing anyone else from reading their opinion.
I really don't think that Slashdot can hold the moral high-ground any more in issues of censorship given the increasingly well documented cases of Slashdot editors repeatedly "bitchslapping" comments which they claim are "off-topic" (often they are comments which are critical of the editors themselves - this one being a prime candidate for such a bitchslap).
Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring that website because people questioned his authority and he happened to control the domain (which he still does, censorware have been forced to set up shop at censorware.net because Sims is still squatting on censorware.org).
The Slashdot editors seem to believe that they are justified in censoring comments which users clearly want to see (as shown by positive user moderation), and if anyone doesn't like it, they should go somewhere else.
Of course, they are right, but their attitude suggests that they believe they are what are valuable about this website, not the users who share their knowledge and opinions in these forums.
Is this comment "off topic"? I challenge the editors to let the readers of this website decide.
Slashdot Mirror
It is at this point, ladies and gentlemen, that communication technology stops empowering the masses, and gives the wealthy yet another tool to consolodate and defend their power.
From the we-have-no-moral-context department
Does anyone else find this kind of "gee whiz" attitude towards weapons designed to kill the largest number of civilians possible somewhat distasteful? I know I do, particularly now that the US government is actively looking at ways to use nuclear-weapons on the battlefield, rather than as an absolute last resort.
Someone who has a truly innovative idea is compelled to share it with others regardless of whether they are likely to profit from it.
Isn't it great that we can all visit Slashdot and not be exposed to any nasty opinions with which we might disagree?!
It is possible, there are examples of Open Source projects which really do innovative new things, but they are quite rare. Part of the reason they are so rare is that a developer needs a thick skin to not be disheartened by the countless numbers of people around the O.S community who would rather nit-pick other people's efforts than contribute themselves.
As mentioned in the article, the computer industry dwarfs the content industries, and Hollywood's argument that their product will be the driving force behind adoption of new technology simply doesn't hold water. There is a great article called Content is Not King that responds to this mythology.
Most of us live in a capitalist society. Given that, the response to people trying to sell us this user-hostile technology should be not to buy it, and to make sure the manufacturers know we won't buy it so that they use their considerable clout to kill the SSSCA before it does any damage.
It is funny, we accuse Microsoft of using other people's ideas - but are we really any better? How much of Open Source development is really just reimplementations of other people's ideas?
In the US, the Law gets its authority from democratically elected government. The Government gets its authority from the people, as conveyed through the democratic process (voting). If the Government has control over the information the people have access to, then they have the ability to manipulate people's ability to make an informed voting decision. This corrupts the very democratic process from which the law gets its authority.
[...snip...]/ 2211255) that you
expressed distaste for "Red Flag Linux", the version of linux sponsored
by the Chinese government. They quote you as saying:
While I can somewhat understand your view, it seems dangerous to drag left/right-wing politics into Open Source, surely the more people who adopt the Open Source philosophy the better, irrespective of how much you might disagree with their politics. For example, if the Chinese government were to express a desire to adopt the ideals of the Libertarian Party, would you make an argument like: Clearly, such an attitude would be deeply flawed. Regardless of how much you dislike a group, surely their adoption of something with which you think is a good thing should be encouraged?I was somewhat surprised to see in a recent NewsForge article (http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/02/21
If you disagree, I would be interested in your response...
Scott should really be ashamed, imagine wanting people to see your rebuttal to public criticism of your work!
While the comment obviously deserves the score, I really don't think that those who posted them deserve the karma for posting other people's work unattributed. Perhaps if one of Slashdot's editors reads this, they can take appropriate action.
Until Gnutella starts directing searches intelligently - towards nodes which are more likely to have the data being sought, as Freenet does, it will always be an inefficient way to search for data.
The thing which irks me about it is that, as I said in my initial post, it betrays a lack of respect and gratitude on the part of the editors towards their readership when they override reader-moderation, and the fact that they do it on comments which are critical of them makes it extra sleazy. They need to realize that those who post intelligent comments are what makes Slashdot valuable.
Of course, the last ditch position is that the slashdot editors could dig their heels in, and intelligent people would start to leave this site in droves. My hope is that it doesn't need reach that point, and that the editors will learn to exercise restraint to encourage people to feel that slashdot is a true forum for free debate, where if you disagree with someone, you argue with them, rather than preventing anyone else from reading their opinion.
Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring that website because people questioned his authority and he happened to control the domain (which he still does, censorware have been forced to set up shop at censorware.net because Sims is still squatting on censorware.org).
The Slashdot editors seem to believe that they are justified in censoring comments which users clearly want to see (as shown by positive user moderation), and if anyone doesn't like it, they should go somewhere else.
Of course, they are right, but their attitude suggests that they believe they are what are valuable about this website, not the users who share their knowledge and opinions in these forums.
Is this comment "off topic"? I challenge the editors to let the readers of this website decide.