Emacs, vim, gcc, python, perl, tcl, sed, awk, grep, tar. All available under windows. So you have all of that PLUS nice GUI IDEs.
I haven't found writing console apps any more difficult under Windows than it is under Linux. Writing GUI apps is as difficult or as easy as the underlying toolkit makes it. You don't have use MFC under windows, anymore than you have to use raw xlib calls under linux.
I imagine it will be just like Open Source. If they're lucky one, maybe two, things will become wildly popular. Another five or so will be vaguely popular. And the other two million ideas will be hugely popular band wagon events for a few weeks until Attention Deficit Disorder kicks in and the 0.2 release announcement sits on freshmeat for 2 years.
But when they were published means nothing. The only thing that matters is how much scrutiny they've received. How much cryptanalysis has Blowfish received compared to the AES candidates? Counterpane's own page admits "there are few published results" of Blowfish cryptanalysis.
I don't think this issue is entirely relevant, although I agree it is important.
For many applications they simply don't have to interoperate with others. For instance, one of the Blowfish apps is a GNOME password manager. They could pick anything they wanted to. But they picked Blowfish over Twofish and Serpent. Why? Same deal with OpenBSD's choice of Blowfish. They don't "interoperate" with anyone in that scenario.
If anything, your argument makes the widespread use of Blowfish even stranger, since it isn't even under consideration as an AES candidate its widespread adoption is unlikely.
I believe that all of the AES candidates have to provide C implementations as part of their submission package. I think they also have to be IP issue free. Twofish and Serpent are every bit as "free" as Blowfish.
I'm pretty sure that most surveys have found that shoppers don't really care about "electronic privacy". I think it usually rates something like sixth or seventh on the list. And then there's the whole question of revealed preferences. Just because people CLAIM they like electronic privacy doesn't mean much. It's their actual behaviour that matters. And it looks like most people care far more about convenience than privacy -- in and out of the electronic realm.
Just because a lot of slashdot readers (and by no means all) put privacy at the top of their lists doesn't mean slashdot accurately reflects the real world.
Actually I think his point was more along the lines of "I hate big companies even though they are the only reason I can afford the computer I am posting this article with."
Deal with today. It can be distributed just fine today so distribute it today. If the application is really so important then it makes even more sense to be distributing it to your users. After all, how "free" can Debian be if it is restricting me based on a misguided notion that the maintainers know better than I do? I thought that was what closed source was all about, not open source.
...is that people knowingly build an infrastructure on what someone else owns (i.e. Fraunhofer/Thomson's IP) and then turn around and act surprised when IP issues arise.
This isn't a case of saying mp3s will use this technology and then discovering after the fact, after it has become popular, that someone owns some relevant IP.
Everyone knew going in that Fraunhofer owned this. If not having to pony up royalties or whatever it is the Fraunhofer wants is important to you then WHY IN GOD'S NAME didn't you use your brains and decide not to use mp3s?
Stop trying to make your stupid mistakes look like someone else's fault.
Alone in the Dark 4 is under development for the Dreamcast. I imagine it'll come out for PCs as well. They had screen shots up at dc.ign.com a few months back.
Not quite sure what you mean by that but I don't think Python will fit the bill, either. I like Python but I doubt it's OO capabilities could ever be described as "bondage and discipline". It lets you break encapsulation almost whenever you feel like it. It doesn't have strong typing or static type checking.
Something like Eiffel might be more to your liking, but that isn't very widely uesd.
It has been a very long time since you were able to write:
IfX=10ThenDoFoo()
There is simply the mandatory white space you are used to and the mandatory white space you aren't used to.
Out of curiosity, has your absolute unwillingness to format source code in a different way never caused you problems on the job? Are you still in college or do you always work alone?
But RMS has already redefined free. "Free software" isn't even vaguely related to "free speech".
People aren't allowed to modify and redistribute my free speech.
Freedom of speech refers to your ability to "speak" without the government interfering. The free speech analogy is pointless because the government, with few exception (just as with "free speech") does not limit the kind of software that can be written and sold. In any case, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the "free speech" the Constitution guarantees only refers to freedom from governmental interference. Private institutions are completely and legally able to restrict freedom of speech in a great many circumstances. Such as when you sign a contract saying you won't disparage your employer.
Kinda like a software license, that way.
I guess the difference is that it is okay for YOUR cult leader to redefine terms, but not for others?
Do you also believe that you have the right to correct typos in a book you have purchased and then republish it? Or what if you don't like the ending? Do you believe you have the "right" the enhance Stephen King's latest book and republish it?
Wasn't that designed so you were only penalized for the features you actually used? I wonder how many people who are saying "live with it - it's a good feature most of the time" praise that effort in C++ and fight tooth and claw to the bitter end against mandatory inclusion of things like garbage collection, of which pretty much the same thing can be said: "live with it - it's a good feature most of the time".
"ActiveX and COM aren't common Internet standards they are just the work of a proprietary company!"
Of course, that doesn't stop many of those same people from complaining about lack of Java on Linux;-). And personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between ActiveX and Perl (or TeX or Python or TCL or...), neither are standardized in any even vaguely meaningful sense of the word.
Apparently de factor "standards" only count when they come from the Good Guys.
Er, what does lack of FPU (by which I assume you mean "not as good an FPU as Intel ships) have to do with anything? Or is sendmail really doing millions of floating point calculations? It's not like you're going to play Quake on the thing....
Small offices are "moving to ADSL/Cable/T1"? Only in the same sense that glaciers "move".
Slashdot Mirror
You can do all of those things under Windows.
Emacs, vim, gcc, python, perl, tcl, sed, awk, grep, tar. All available under windows. So you have all of that PLUS nice GUI IDEs.
I haven't found writing console apps any more difficult under Windows than it is under Linux. Writing GUI apps is as difficult or as easy as the underlying toolkit makes it. You don't have use MFC under windows, anymore than you have to use raw xlib calls under linux.
I imagine it will be just like Open Source. If they're lucky one, maybe two, things will become wildly popular. Another five or so will be vaguely popular. And the other two million ideas will be hugely popular band wagon events for a few weeks until Attention Deficit Disorder kicks in and the 0.2 release announcement sits on freshmeat for 2 years.
But when they were published means nothing. The only thing that matters is how much scrutiny they've received. How much cryptanalysis has Blowfish received compared to the AES candidates? Counterpane's own page admits "there are few published results" of Blowfish cryptanalysis.
Why does FreeS/WAN want to use Blowfish rather than Twofish or Serpent?
I don't think this issue is entirely relevant, although I agree it is important.
For many applications they simply don't have to interoperate with others. For instance, one of the Blowfish apps is a GNOME password manager. They could pick anything they wanted to. But they picked Blowfish over Twofish and Serpent. Why? Same deal with OpenBSD's choice of Blowfish. They don't "interoperate" with anyone in that scenario.
If anything, your argument makes the widespread use of Blowfish even stranger, since it isn't even under consideration as an AES candidate its widespread adoption is unlikely.
I believe that all of the AES candidates have to provide C implementations as part of their submission package. I think they also have to be IP issue free. Twofish and Serpent are every bit as "free" as Blowfish.
I'm pretty sure that most surveys have found that shoppers don't really care about "electronic privacy". I think it usually rates something like sixth or seventh on the list. And then there's the whole question of revealed preferences. Just because people CLAIM they like electronic privacy doesn't mean much. It's their actual behaviour that matters. And it looks like most people care far more about convenience than privacy -- in and out of the electronic realm.
Just because a lot of slashdot readers (and by no means all) put privacy at the top of their lists doesn't mean slashdot accurately reflects the real world.
it was demonized months ago when the original story was posted and everyone said "This isn't any different from anti-aliasing!"
Actually I think his point was more along the lines of "I hate big companies even though they are the only reason I can afford the computer I am posting this article with."
Deal with today. It can be distributed just fine today so distribute it today. If the application is really so important then it makes even more sense to be distributing it to your users. After all, how "free" can Debian be if it is restricting me based on a misguided notion that the maintainers know better than I do? I thought that was what closed source was all about, not open source.
Wow, all three of your quotes are wrong.
The Patent Officer and Bill Gates ones are both urban legends. The other one was from DEC not IBM.
...is that people knowingly build an infrastructure on what someone else owns (i.e. Fraunhofer/Thomson's IP) and then turn around and act surprised when IP issues arise.
This isn't a case of saying mp3s will use this technology and then discovering after the fact, after it has become popular, that someone owns some relevant IP.
Everyone knew going in that Fraunhofer owned this. If not having to pony up royalties or whatever it is the Fraunhofer wants is important to you then WHY IN GOD'S NAME didn't you use your brains and decide not to use mp3s?
Stop trying to make your stupid mistakes look like someone else's fault.
Alone in the Dark 4 is under development for the Dreamcast. I imagine it'll come out for PCs as well. They had screen shots up at dc.ign.com a few months back.
Not quite sure what you mean by that but I don't think Python will fit the bill, either. I like Python but I doubt it's OO capabilities could ever be described as "bondage and discipline". It lets you break encapsulation almost whenever you feel like it. It doesn't have strong typing or static type checking.
Something like Eiffel might be more to your liking, but that isn't very widely uesd.
...sensitive.
It has been a very long time since you were able to write:
IfX=10ThenDoFoo()
There is simply the mandatory white space you are used to and the mandatory white space you aren't used to.
Out of curiosity, has your absolute unwillingness to format source code in a different way never caused you problems on the job? Are you still in college or do you always work alone?
But RMS has already redefined free. "Free software" isn't even vaguely related to "free speech".
People aren't allowed to modify and redistribute my free speech.
Freedom of speech refers to your ability to "speak" without the government interfering. The free speech analogy is pointless because the government, with few exception (just as with "free speech") does not limit the kind of software that can be written and sold. In any case, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the "free speech" the Constitution guarantees only refers to freedom from governmental interference. Private institutions are completely and legally able to restrict freedom of speech in a great many circumstances. Such as when you sign a contract saying you won't disparage your employer.
Kinda like a software license, that way.
I guess the difference is that it is okay for YOUR cult leader to redefine terms, but not for others?
If you buy a book, people WILL stop you from making a copy of that book. I don't understand your point.
Do you also believe that you have the right to correct typos in a book you have purchased and then republish it? Or what if you don't like the ending? Do you believe you have the "right" the enhance Stephen King's latest book and republish it?
How is the Celeron NOT proprietary hardware? Neither Windows CE nor embedded Linux are "standards" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Have you tried running debian/linux with some shell other than bash as /bin/sh? Doesn't work. So much for modularity. Modular in theory, I suppose.
What does "shells are not required to make use of the core functionality" mean?
Wasn't that designed so you were only penalized for the features you actually used? I wonder how many people who are saying "live with it - it's a good feature most of the time" praise that effort in C++ and fight tooth and claw to the bitter end against mandatory inclusion of things like garbage collection, of which pretty much the same thing can be said: "live with it - it's a good feature most of the time".
Dan Quayle never said anything of the sort. He has said plenty of stupid stuff on his own, he doesn't need urban legends attributed to him.
"ActiveX and COM aren't common Internet standards they are just the work of a proprietary company!"
;-). And personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between ActiveX and Perl (or TeX or Python or TCL or...), neither are standardized in any even vaguely meaningful sense of the word.
Of course, that doesn't stop many of those same people from complaining about lack of Java on Linux
Apparently de factor "standards" only count when they come from the Good Guys.
Er, what does lack of FPU (by which I assume you mean "not as good an FPU as Intel ships) have to do with anything? Or is sendmail really doing millions of floating point calculations? It's not like you're going to play Quake on the thing....
Small offices are "moving to ADSL/Cable/T1"? Only in the same sense that glaciers "move".
Come on, the last time I learned anything even vaguely educational from an I/OMNI MAX film was when I was 8. :-)
I suppose all of those hard rock laser light shows that every Museum of Science around the country show have some kind of educational value, too?