Microsoft has some interesting technologies in the pipeline for.NET 3.0. One of the most exciting is LINQ which will change the way we interact with SQL databases, and data in general from within our code. Other language enhancements will mean that Java has a lot of catching up to do (and no, I'm not a M$ fanboy, Java is my tool of choice and I use a Mac).
The question is: Will Mono support these new features, and if so, when?
Is it saying 'Linux' (?) should start giving things super-generic names?
It is raising a perfectly valid usability point - if you are new to Linux, how are you going to know that you use "Xine" or "Mplayer" to view video, or "Gimp" to edit images?
There should be a mechanism through which applications can be chosen based on the functionality they offer, rather than on the basis of whatever name their creator chose for it.
C#, for all of the claims of performance, is a a JIT based interpretive language. Ditto Java.
1998 just called, they want their argument against Java 1.2 back (and yes, 2002 can have its joke back too).
Read some recent performance comparisons between Java and C++, and studies on run-time versus in-advance optimization. Note how in many cases, run-time optimization can actually be more efficient than in-advance optimization in many (common) circumstances. Don't even get me started on the advantages of GC versus manual memory allocation/deallocation from a cache-efficiency perspective.
The difference between static and dynamic typing is that with static typing, if a method says it will return a String, you know that it will (unless it is null). In other words, interfaces are enforced by the compiler to a greater degree than with dynamic typing.
I think ML's approach, where the compiler does enforce typing, but the types are inferred rather than being specified explicitly affords the best of both worlds. Modern Java IDEs, such as Eclipse, which exploit static typing to suggest options to the programmer, also do much to alleviate the tedium that static typing can create - indeed, it exploits static typing in a useful way.
Now Gomez, who is very bright, seemed to not see this as an issue that mattered to Skype, but he was just on the job. But, you see, I've been in the streaming media world longer than I've been in the VoIP world...
What a patronising twat. If Skype video is anything like Skype audio, then video conferences will be limited to a very small number of people - not exactly useful for mass one-to-many broadcast of TV.
This type of thing may indeed be an issue, but I don't see what role Skype will play in it, given that it is not designed for one-many broadcasting.
Why stop at the RSS symbol, why not just adopt the entire browser?
I mean, what is the point in Microsoft having its own web browser when there is a free and open alternative (other than to steer users away from free and open cross-platform standards)?
Yeah, the EFF hurts their credibility by unnecessarily associating themselves with an insecure patch - and that is a good move? This must be according to some definition of "good" i'm not familiar with.
Why did the EFF get involved in the announcement or endorsement of this patch? The EFF is a legal organization, not a technical organisation. Now, instead of the egg landing squarely on Sony's face, where it deserves to be, the EFF is embarrassed too.
The EFF should have pointed out the vulnerabilities to Sony and left it at that, there was no need for the EFF to lend its name to Sony's fix for the problem.
The UK Patent Appeals court has recently been demonstrating quite a bit of sanity around the issue of software patents, rejecting a number of different patents and appeals on the grounds that the patents in question were excluded by the European Patent Convention (EPC) on the grounds that they simply covered a computer program. here is one example. This may be a result of the European Parliament's clear message that they did not want to weaken the exclusions in the EPC by rejecting the software patents directive.
As such, if these are simply software patents, I think RIM has a much better chance of winning in the UK than they did in the US - so lets hope they put up a fight.
What about all the non-linux open source projects, or the small companies that create innovative closed-source software?
Additionally, patent trolls are immune to this kind of patent pool since they tend not to create any software themselves and are therefore not vulnerable to software patents.
The real fix here is to wrestle the patent system back from the "intellectual property maximalists" and get rid of patents on software which do not motivate innovation (just try to name one useful innovation in software we wouldn't have were it not for software patents - they are occasionally a by-product of innovation, but never a motivator for it).
The important difference between Revver and the other sites is that Revver allows the creators of videos to earn money. They do this by giving video creators a 50:50 cut of the advertising revenue generated from the ads attached to that user's video. This approach is unique among the various "Flickr of Video" sites, and is pretty unique across other forms of media too.
This is very important, particularly if you consider the growing frustration of video creators as these websites make money from their creativity without rewarding them (see http://ebaumsworldsucks.com for a good example of this frustration).
This is a logical decision, the mistake was made years ago when courts stopped asking the question of why patents should be permissible in some fields but not in others. The current doctrine seems to be that if money can be made with it, then it should be patentable.
Taking this doctrine to its logical extreme may, unfortunately, be the only way to force people to recognise how flawed it is. In that regard, this may be a useful decision.
is using Instant Messaging when I'm working. All the other distractions are bad enough without a bunch of little windows popping up all the time. I don't know how people who use it stand it.
It may be disruptive, but it is far less disruptive than a phone call.
BitTorrent is every bit as centralised as Napster, it relies on centralised trackers which, has has now been demonstrated on several occasions, are just as easy to shut down as Napster - if not more-so.
This is the guy who dismissed anti-patent campaigners as being anti-globalisation, anti-big business, and anti-American (he stopped short of "communist"), and who has refused to challenge the European Patent Office's practice of granting software patents even though this is expressly prohibited by European law.
I trust him about as far as a 3 year old child could throw him.
Not really, they now have an answering machine service for when your PC isn't on. Either way, how does that make it "bloatware"?
quality supposedly sucks etc
The sound quality is excellent, far better than a normal phone line.
I looked at it, and dismissed it as a closed network of old technology
Well, millions of people didn't. The reason, IMHO, is that it just works. In my experience, setting up VoIP with other protocols is a nightmare if you have NATs or firewalls to deal with. Skype deals with these effortlessly - just install the software and you are up and running.
I have a P910, I upgraded from a P900 - largely due to not having any better options - and I regret it. The software crashes, performing basic phone tasks takes longer than with simpler phones, its just over-complicated.
My next phone will have the simplest UI I can find unless they have made significant advances in the usability of the P9XX series.
How are you supposed to write software which interoperates with other people's software without relying on a specification to define the interface? I have read some of the thread and I really can't understand where Linus is coming from here.
Then you are unqualified to offer any advice on this subject and you should STFU. If this guy needs advice on a contract then he should talk to a lawyer, not listen to the ill-informed opinions of the peanut gallery.
The thing that is wrong with China is not that it claims to be a communist country (it is, in reality, no more communist than the United States), but that it is an authoritarian country. The important political battle of the last century was not communism versus capitalism, but authoritarianism versus liberalism.
As an example, note that the two worst leaders of the last century, Stalin and Hitler, were on opposite ends of the left-right spectrum, but were squarely on the same side of the authoritarian-liberalism spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
If you disagree with something I said then why not offer more than a childish ad hominem?
The question is: Will Mono support these new features, and if so, when?
There should be a mechanism through which applications can be chosen based on the functionality they offer, rather than on the basis of whatever name their creator chose for it.
Read some recent performance comparisons between Java and C++, and studies on run-time versus in-advance optimization. Note how in many cases, run-time optimization can actually be more efficient than in-advance optimization in many (common) circumstances. Don't even get me started on the advantages of GC versus manual memory allocation/deallocation from a cache-efficiency perspective.
I think ML's approach, where the compiler does enforce typing, but the types are inferred rather than being specified explicitly affords the best of both worlds. Modern Java IDEs, such as Eclipse, which exploit static typing to suggest options to the programmer, also do much to alleviate the tedium that static typing can create - indeed, it exploits static typing in a useful way.
This type of thing may indeed be an issue, but I don't see what role Skype will play in it, given that it is not designed for one-many broadcasting.
I mean, what is the point in Microsoft having its own web browser when there is a free and open alternative (other than to steer users away from free and open cross-platform standards)?
The EFF should have pointed out the vulnerabilities to Sony and left it at that, there was no need for the EFF to lend its name to Sony's fix for the problem.
As such, if these are simply software patents, I think RIM has a much better chance of winning in the UK than they did in the US - so lets hope they put up a fight.
Additionally, patent trolls are immune to this kind of patent pool since they tend not to create any software themselves and are therefore not vulnerable to software patents.
The real fix here is to wrestle the patent system back from the "intellectual property maximalists" and get rid of patents on software which do not motivate innovation (just try to name one useful innovation in software we wouldn't have were it not for software patents - they are occasionally a by-product of innovation, but never a motivator for it).
This is very important, particularly if you consider the growing frustration of video creators as these websites make money from their creativity without rewarding them (see http://ebaumsworldsucks.com for a good example of this frustration).
Taking this doctrine to its logical extreme may, unfortunately, be the only way to force people to recognise how flawed it is. In that regard, this may be a useful decision.
BitTorrent is every bit as centralised as Napster, it relies on centralised trackers which, has has now been demonstrated on several occasions, are just as easy to shut down as Napster - if not more-so.
I trust him about as far as a 3 year old child could throw him.
Seriously, if an employee is determined to compromise the security of their employer, they will do it, with or without a camera phone.
My next phone will have the simplest UI I can find unless they have made significant advances in the usability of the P9XX series.
How are you supposed to write software which interoperates with other people's software without relying on a specification to define the interface? I have read some of the thread and I really can't understand where Linus is coming from here.
As an example, note that the two worst leaders of the last century, Stalin and Hitler, were on opposite ends of the left-right spectrum, but were squarely on the same side of the authoritarian-liberalism spectrum.