The stated that:
.) YOU feel that asking "are oil painting art" sound insane to YOU
.) YOU feel that asking "are videogames art" sound reasonable to YOU.
Therefore you only proved that:
YOU don't consider videogames art.
Not that.
videogames are not art.
Please, use the term QED only if you _reall_ proved something undoubtly, not for some stupid pseudo-prove
I'am a geek. I use Linux on my Desktop. I don't care if 0.1, 1, 10, or 90 % of the other compuer users use the same OS as I do.
I also like the hack on some linux (or other open-source application). Not because I fight some ware, and my app will be the killer app, but because it fun.
I thats the point. For me (and many others) hacking is fun, and thats why we do it. And it's the more source-code is available (to look how others do it, and find out how things work) the more fun it is.
The author states that "developer hours are waster". Well, those developers are working for free, and they have any right to work on whatever they want. I like people like the author of this article to either start some project themselfes (there is enough to do - even for non-programmers), to join an existing project, or to SHUT UP.
I don't care what the think about linux's sucess. And I doubt that a lot of people care.
I think one has to look at a specific system closer to see if it should be called GNU/Linux, or not.
I believe that e.g. the GUI makes a major part of any modern operating system, and with saying "GUI", I mean "Gnome", "KDE", or something similar, not Xfree.
Xfree is basically a graphic driver (on steroids), but Gnome/KDE/... is actual GUI.
So I would call a system running Gnome GNU/Linux, 'cause now really a lot of cruical parts are GNU (the libc, the compiler, various shell utilities, the shell itself, and finally the GUI).
On the other hand, when the system runs KDE, I would _NOT_ call it GNU/Linux, because KDE is _NOT_ part of the GNU project.
A system running no GUI at all should again be called GNU/Linux, 'cause now the GNU-Tools again make a important part of the OS.
Since the Linux Kernel, the GNU-Tools, the BSD-Tools, and various other OpenSource/FreeSoftware programs can be put together in so many different ways, I believe you can't decide once and for every how to call a resulting system - it depends on which components where puts together.
To come to RMS. I am sure he _is_ no easy man to cope with. (I once tried to make him remove some statements about the political situation in austria from his homepage, since there were inaccurate, and wrong. He wouldn't. Even thoug I _live_ here, and know that what he was writing is wrong.).
But has deserves credit for what he did. He put alot of work into GNU, and (at least at the beginning) he made sure that this project did not fall apart.
I don't say what he did in this case was right. I believe it to be entirely wrong. But he nevertheless is an important person when I comes to Free Software, and one should not forget this when judging the actions he takes now.
Wow - the american government seems to do everything possible to stop people helping each other.
It's forbidden to point out security flaws in commercial software (adobe!!)
It's forbidden to check software you _buy_ for security flaws, even when not telling anybody
It's forbidden to tell someone that they have a problem (or at least you shouldn't do it because you could go to jail for it).
I always though RMS and the FSF are taking it too far with their political opinion.
But are more and more things like this happen, I am more and more convinced that they are totally right. It's a moral obligation to help others, and anything that try to stop this, being the DMCA, other silly laws, or propritary software is just plain WRONG.
I live in austria, and things aren't this bad here, but they will certainly get worse.
Wow... long post... but it IMHO
CORRECT IN EVERY LITTLE DETAIL...
A serious programmer should always be interested in some new paradigm/language/tool/os/...
Only partly because he will actually USE it on a project, but to learn new things, and see variuous ways to solve problems...
Maybe you will never cody any real-work-application in LISP - but functional programming has areas where is really shines - and learning LISP (as well as learning Ruby/Phyton/Perl/C++/Smalltalk/Objective-C/....) makes you a better programmer.
> I agree Ruby and Perl seem to be like the latter type
So, have you ever actually looked at ruby?
Or are you just another troll?
Ruby actually has a lot in common with smalltalk (classes are fist-class-objects, as well as functions, you can pass code-blocks,...)
I has some "syntatic sugar", but you don't have to use it.
Please just SHUT UP if you don't really know what you are talking about. Nobody forces you to program in ruby, and nobody (well, at least nobody who knows what he is talking about) says "phyton is better than ruby/ruby is better than phyton/perl is better/perl is worse/.....).
Each language has is strenght and weaknesses, and ruby is IMHO no more or less hacked than the other two major scripting languages.
Calling a language "hacked" is always problematic(ok - lets forget about BASIC;-) ).
One could call C++ hacked - it's "features on top of features". But than- it's the most widely use language, so I guess it _MUST_ have is strengts...
I feel that of some software has serious security problems, I as a past or future customer have the right to know about this.
I don't see why analyzing and auditing software should in any form be prohibited by the law.
Here is Austria (where I live), you have the right to even _disassemble_ software, if you need some cruical information, and the vendor won't supply you with it.
The whole definition of a "circumvention device" in the DMCA is ridiciulous, because I believe it to be my right to do what ever I want with information that I received (received them without commiting a crime of course).
If the information is executable code, I believe that I have to _right_ to test, and analyze this code. And if I find serious problems in the code, I think it is my _duty_ to tell the people about it.
There _are_ encryption mechanisms which cannot be cracked (at least in the near future), and its a companies faul if the use weak encryption or protection alogrithmns.
Freedom of speech, and generally freedom of information is more important to me, than some company losing money. If we stop carying about the ethical issues of certain laws, we will find ourselves in world we all didn't want to create, where money means power - in a much stronger way than now.
I find it quite interesting how MySQL AB interprets the GPL.
As you might know mysql was put under the GPL recently.
Before this, you could download the mysql code from www.mysql.com, and use it freely for private, and some sorts of commercial use.
If you had mysql running on a server at _your_ company, and just sold the service you provided using mysql (e.g. some online mail-reader storing its mail in the db) you could use mysql for free
But if you _sold_ a product (NOT the service!), and your product needed mysql to run, you needed to obtain a mysql license.
I though this restrictions of commercial use would be gone by putting mysql under the GPL, but MySQL AB seems to believe that connecting to a DB via TCP/IP is the same as linking, as long as your application can connect _only_ to mysql (via the mysql client library). If you use ODBC or some other (are there others?) general purpose DB abstraction layers, it's not "linking" I guess.
Seems to quite the opposite of what Vidomi believes
Sorry for my generialization in the title.
But this article is quite far away from being "in-depth".
Some quotes:
About MOL (Mac-On-Linux, allows you to run MacOS on top of Linux):
"This is done sort of like how WINE (on x86 Linux)does things."
Wrong! It's more like vmware of win4lin does things. MOL boots MacOs by emulating the traditional MacOS-Hardware and ROMS (and some black-assembly-magick is guess)
"Like I mentioned earlier, I was disappointed with the speed of OS X -- including OS X Server 1.2 (which I'm told is a little faster -- but I couldn't tell much of a difference). I expected the lack of extensive Altivec support on Linux to maybe hold Yellow Dog Linux (as well as other Linuxes) back."
He keeps talking about "Altivec" support all of the time (he even says something of "altivec-optimizations" in the kernel).
Doesn't he get the e.g. gcc most certainly will _NOT_ use either altivec or ISSE/MMX instructions?
"I decided on doing a make vmlinux because Yellow Dog didn't come with anything to make bzImages out of the box."
Oh come on. Please. zImage ist _JUST_ for x86 (due to its stuipid design)
I could go on like this for a while, but I think those examples are enough.
This guy just doesn't know what he is talking about
Re:scripting languages are a dime a dozen
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
"In fact, on the whole, they are simply slowly retracing the early evolution of Lisp and Smalltalk. Perl and Python could have started out being as good as Perl 5.6 and Python 2.1 if they had built on what had come before"
Well, but if perl and phyton just retrace the early evolution of lisp and smalltalk, shouldn't you be able to predict where they will end, rather than telling us "they could have started out beeing as good as 5.6/2.1"?
Saying "they could have started EXACTLY where they are now" sounds more like trolling, that like a serious statement about those languages.
But, of course, we are just retracing a discussing of 20 years ago, and this post ist EXACTLY where it lead;-))
So saying?
"Here you get a copy of this program. You had honour of paying $$$ for it, so DO NOT DARE to reverse engineer it, or even modify it. NEVER EVER gives this program to ANYONE ELSE. If you find a bug, tell us about it, we might fix it, and you can than purchase the bugfix for $$. To use this program longer than 30 days you need to tell us your name, address, age, income, hobbies, your wife's name, your girlfriend's name, the name of your cat, and your favorite color."
is less controling than
"Here is our program. You can use it, modify it, and give it to whoever you want. You DONT have to give us money for doing that. If you find a bug, you can fix it yourself, or let us know. If we can fix it, the fix will be in the next version. Feel free if you want to.
If you modify the program, you don't have to tell anyone, or give it to anyone. But if you _DO_ distribute your changed version, you have to include the sources, and you may not change the license"
?????????
ARE YOU SURE??????
I agree.
I don't like the Idea of brining more and more windows emulation to linux.
And this wont help to establish Linux as a Desktop OS. Because why hassle with Linux, just to use wine/... to use my win98/nt software?
I rather use winNT directly.
1000Mbits/sec are 125 mbytes/sec.
An uncompressed vidostream at 800x600, 32Bits, 25 fps gives (800*600*4*25/(1024*1024)) = 45 mbytes/sec.
Given that there is surely some overhead in PCI transactions, this means that two of this streams pretty much need the whole bandwidth that PCI can provide.
At the moment good harddrives run at 20-30 Mbytes/sec, and they are gettings faster and faster, and will reach 45mbytes/sec soon.
Then capuring this stream via my tv-tuner-card, and saving it to the hard drive will pretty much use my pci bus to its limits.
I think there _IS_ need for an improvement in speed. But I thin extending PCI is better than replacing it (what about 133Mhz, 64Bit PCI?)
We do they have to replace PCI?
I guess there are enough possibilities to enhance PCI. I own an Blue&White G3, and this BOX has some 64-Bit PCI Slots, and one 66-Mhz (but 32bit) PCI-Slot for the gfx-card.
It _should_ be possible the create a PCI-Specification with let's say 133Mhz, and 64 Bits, and maye some enhancements in the PCI protocol (AGP extends the PCI protocoll, maybe take some of these extensions), and the result should be sufficient for the another few years.
This would make transition easier, as old PCI cards would run in the new slots (at least this works for 64Bits Pci-Slots, which can also run 32Bit Card). If this doesn't work for Slots using a higher frequency, the chipsets could include 2 Pci-Controllers, each driving 3 or 4 slots, and each controller could fall back to 33Mhz if there is one card which doesn't support higher speeds.
You can than put all your highspeed cards on one bus, and the old ones on the other.
voila.
The important difference between KDE, Gnome, Win95,... ist their API, not their look and feel.
By just using Sawfish/GTK Themes you can sure make Gnome look alot like Windows... but this doesn't help a bit if you want to port Windows Software.
Providing compatibility in OS/X for Win/Linux.. Software would be about providing the APIs of these OSes/GUIs. Which IMHO has _nothing_ to do with themeing.
And people wonder why RMS hasn't gotten anywhere.
So starting the developement of the GNU OS is nothing?.
The creation of the FSF is nothing?
Gnome is nothing (the developement of Gnome was started by the FSF!).
GCC is nothing?
Emacs is nothing?
Come on, just shut up!
Slashdot Mirror
The stated that:
.) YOU feel that asking "are oil painting art" sound insane to YOU
.) YOU feel that asking "are videogames art" sound reasonable to YOU.
Therefore you only proved that:
YOU don't consider videogames art.
Not that.
videogames are not art.
Please, use the term QED only if you _reall_ proved something undoubtly, not for some stupid pseudo-prove
Hi
I'am a geek. I use Linux on my Desktop. I don't care if 0.1, 1, 10, or 90 % of the other compuer users use the same OS as I do.
I also like the hack on some linux (or other open-source application). Not because I fight some ware, and my app will be the killer app, but because it fun.
I thats the point. For me (and many others) hacking is fun, and thats why we do it. And it's the more source-code is available (to look how others do it, and find out how things work) the more fun it is.
The author states that "developer hours are waster". Well, those developers are working for free, and they have any right to work on whatever they want. I like people like the author of this article to either start some project themselfes (there is enough to do - even for non-programmers), to join an existing project, or to SHUT UP.
I don't care what the think about linux's sucess. And I doubt that a lot of people care.
Liberty is something you have to fight for, if don't want to lose it.
Maybe taking the risk of another attack is, in this case, the "fighting for liberty", that losing our civil rights for "prevention" is not
Why? One things the GPL makes sure is that this is _NOT_ necessary.
You just fork the GNU-Tools. Take them as they are now, and develope your own version.
Reimplementing all of it is just a terrible wast of time
I think one has to look at a specific system closer to see if it should be called GNU/Linux, or not.
I believe that e.g. the GUI makes a major part of any modern operating system, and with saying "GUI", I mean "Gnome", "KDE", or something similar, not Xfree.
Xfree is basically a graphic driver (on steroids), but Gnome/KDE/... is actual GUI.
So I would call a system running Gnome GNU/Linux, 'cause now really a lot of cruical parts are GNU (the libc, the compiler, various shell utilities, the shell itself, and finally the GUI).
On the other hand, when the system runs KDE, I would _NOT_ call it GNU/Linux, because KDE is _NOT_ part of the GNU project.
A system running no GUI at all should again be called GNU/Linux, 'cause now the GNU-Tools again make a important part of the OS.
Since the Linux Kernel, the GNU-Tools, the BSD-Tools, and various other OpenSource/FreeSoftware programs can be put together in so many different ways, I believe you can't decide once and for every how to call a resulting system - it depends on which components where puts together.
To come to RMS. I am sure he _is_ no easy man to cope with. (I once tried to make him remove some statements about the political situation in austria from his homepage, since there were inaccurate, and wrong. He wouldn't. Even thoug I _live_ here, and know that what he was writing is wrong.).
But has deserves credit for what he did. He put alot of work into GNU, and (at least at the beginning) he made sure that this project did not fall apart.
I don't say what he did in this case was right. I believe it to be entirely wrong. But he nevertheless is an important person when I comes to Free Software, and one should not forget this when judging the actions he takes now.
Wow - the american government seems to do everything possible to stop people helping each other.
It's forbidden to point out security flaws in commercial software (adobe!!)
It's forbidden to check software you _buy_ for security flaws, even when not telling anybody
It's forbidden to tell someone that they have a problem (or at least you shouldn't do it because you could go to jail for it).
I always though RMS and the FSF are taking it too far with their political opinion.
But are more and more things like this happen, I am more and more convinced that they are totally right. It's a moral obligation to help others, and anything that try to stop this, being the DMCA, other silly laws, or propritary software is just plain WRONG.
I live in austria, and things aren't this bad here, but they will certainly get worse.
Wow... long post... but it IMHO
CORRECT IN EVERY LITTLE DETAIL...
A serious programmer should always be interested in some new paradigm/language/tool/os/...
Only partly because he will actually USE it on a project, but to learn new things, and see variuous ways to solve problems...
Maybe you will never cody any real-work-application in LISP - but functional programming has areas where is really shines - and learning LISP (as well as learning Ruby/Phyton/Perl/C++/Smalltalk/Objective-C/....) makes you a better programmer.
> I agree Ruby and Perl seem to be like the latter type So, have you ever actually looked at ruby? Or are you just another troll? Ruby actually has a lot in common with smalltalk (classes are fist-class-objects, as well as functions, you can pass code-blocks,...) I has some "syntatic sugar", but you don't have to use it. Please just SHUT UP if you don't really know what you are talking about. Nobody forces you to program in ruby, and nobody (well, at least nobody who knows what he is talking about) says "phyton is better than ruby/ruby is better than phyton/perl is better/perl is worse/.....). Each language has is strenght and weaknesses, and ruby is IMHO no more or less hacked than the other two major scripting languages. Calling a language "hacked" is always problematic(ok - lets forget about BASIC ;-) ).
One could call C++ hacked - it's "features on top of features". But than- it's the most widely use language, so I guess it _MUST_ have is strengts...
I feel that of some software has serious security problems, I as a past or future customer have the right to know about this. I don't see why analyzing and auditing software should in any form be prohibited by the law. Here is Austria (where I live), you have the right to even _disassemble_ software, if you need some cruical information, and the vendor won't supply you with it. The whole definition of a "circumvention device" in the DMCA is ridiciulous, because I believe it to be my right to do what ever I want with information that I received (received them without commiting a crime of course). If the information is executable code, I believe that I have to _right_ to test, and analyze this code. And if I find serious problems in the code, I think it is my _duty_ to tell the people about it. There _are_ encryption mechanisms which cannot be cracked (at least in the near future), and its a companies faul if the use weak encryption or protection alogrithmns. Freedom of speech, and generally freedom of information is more important to me, than some company losing money. If we stop carying about the ethical issues of certain laws, we will find ourselves in world we all didn't want to create, where money means power - in a much stronger way than now.
I find it quite interesting how MySQL AB interprets the GPL. As you might know mysql was put under the GPL recently. Before this, you could download the mysql code from www.mysql.com, and use it freely for private, and some sorts of commercial use.
If you had mysql running on a server at _your_ company, and just sold the service you provided using mysql (e.g. some online mail-reader storing its mail in the db) you could use mysql for free
But if you _sold_ a product (NOT the service!), and your product needed mysql to run, you needed to obtain a mysql license. I though this restrictions of commercial use would be gone by putting mysql under the GPL, but MySQL AB seems to believe that connecting to a DB via TCP/IP is the same as linking, as long as your application can connect _only_ to mysql (via the mysql client library). If you use ODBC or some other (are there others?) general purpose DB abstraction layers, it's not "linking" I guess. Seems to quite the opposite of what Vidomi believes
Sorry for my generialization in the title. But this article is quite far away from being "in-depth". Some quotes: About MOL (Mac-On-Linux, allows you to run MacOS on top of Linux): "This is done sort of like how WINE (on x86 Linux)does things." Wrong! It's more like vmware of win4lin does things. MOL boots MacOs by emulating the traditional MacOS-Hardware and ROMS (and some black-assembly-magick is guess)
"Like I mentioned earlier, I was disappointed with the speed of OS X -- including OS X Server 1.2 (which I'm told is a little faster -- but I couldn't tell much of a difference). I expected the lack of extensive Altivec support on Linux to maybe hold Yellow Dog Linux (as well as other Linuxes) back." He keeps talking about "Altivec" support all of the time (he even says something of "altivec-optimizations" in the kernel). Doesn't he get the e.g. gcc most certainly will _NOT_ use either altivec or ISSE/MMX instructions?
"I decided on doing a make vmlinux because Yellow Dog didn't come with anything to make bzImages out of the box." Oh come on. Please. zImage ist _JUST_ for x86 (due to its stuipid design)
I could go on like this for a while, but I think those examples are enough. This guy just doesn't know what he is talking about
"In fact, on the whole, they are simply slowly retracing the early evolution of Lisp and Smalltalk. Perl and Python could have started out being as good as Perl 5.6 and Python 2.1 if they had built on what had come before" Well, but if perl and phyton just retrace the early evolution of lisp and smalltalk, shouldn't you be able to predict where they will end, rather than telling us "they could have started out beeing as good as 5.6/2.1"? Saying "they could have started EXACTLY where they are now" sounds more like trolling, that like a serious statement about those languages. But, of course, we are just retracing a discussing of 20 years ago, and this post ist EXACTLY where it lead ;-))
So saying? "Here you get a copy of this program. You had honour of paying $$$ for it, so DO NOT DARE to reverse engineer it, or even modify it. NEVER EVER gives this program to ANYONE ELSE. If you find a bug, tell us about it, we might fix it, and you can than purchase the bugfix for $$. To use this program longer than 30 days you need to tell us your name, address, age, income, hobbies, your wife's name, your girlfriend's name, the name of your cat, and your favorite color." is less controling than "Here is our program. You can use it, modify it, and give it to whoever you want. You DONT have to give us money for doing that. If you find a bug, you can fix it yourself, or let us know. If we can fix it, the fix will be in the next version. Feel free if you want to. If you modify the program, you don't have to tell anyone, or give it to anyone. But if you _DO_ distribute your changed version, you have to include the sources, and you may not change the license" ????????? ARE YOU SURE??????
I agree. I don't like the Idea of brining more and more windows emulation to linux. And this wont help to establish Linux as a Desktop OS. Because why hassle with Linux, just to use wine/... to use my win98/nt software? I rather use winNT directly.
1000Mbits/sec are 125 mbytes/sec.
An uncompressed vidostream at 800x600, 32Bits, 25 fps gives (800*600*4*25/(1024*1024)) = 45 mbytes/sec.
Given that there is surely some overhead in PCI transactions, this means that two of this streams pretty much need the whole bandwidth that PCI can provide.
At the moment good harddrives run at 20-30 Mbytes/sec, and they are gettings faster and faster, and will reach 45mbytes/sec soon.
Then capuring this stream via my tv-tuner-card, and saving it to the hard drive will pretty much use my pci bus to its limits.
I think there _IS_ need for an improvement in speed. But I thin extending PCI is better than replacing it (what about 133Mhz, 64Bit PCI?)
mfg, phlo
We do they have to replace PCI?
I guess there are enough possibilities to enhance PCI. I own an Blue&White G3, and this BOX has some 64-Bit PCI Slots, and one 66-Mhz (but 32bit) PCI-Slot for the gfx-card.
It _should_ be possible the create a PCI-Specification with let's say 133Mhz, and 64 Bits, and maye some enhancements in the PCI protocol (AGP extends the PCI protocoll, maybe take some of these extensions), and the result should be sufficient for the another few years.
This would make transition easier, as old PCI cards would run in the new slots (at least this works for 64Bits Pci-Slots, which can also run 32Bit Card). If this doesn't work for Slots using a higher frequency, the chipsets could include 2 Pci-Controllers, each driving 3 or 4 slots, and each controller could fall back to 33Mhz if there is one card which doesn't support higher speeds.
You can than put all your highspeed cards on one bus, and the old ones on the other.
voila.
mfg, phlo
You are talking about two different things....
The important difference between KDE, Gnome, Win95,... ist their API, not their look and feel.
By just using Sawfish/GTK Themes you can sure make Gnome look alot like Windows... but this doesn't help a bit if you want to port Windows Software.
Providing compatibility in OS/X for Win/Linux.. Software would be about providing the APIs of these OSes/GUIs. Which IMHO has _nothing_ to do with themeing.
And people wonder why RMS hasn't gotten anywhere. So starting the developement of the GNU OS is nothing?. The creation of the FSF is nothing? Gnome is nothing (the developement of Gnome was started by the FSF!). GCC is nothing? Emacs is nothing? Come on, just shut up!