Many higher end smartphones already support WiFi. Bluetooth is still great for connecting user interface devices like headsets/mics etc. But for the other things you mention, WiFi is better.
One of the posts above quotes from the Android development team saying they understand there is demand for Bluetooth. Perhaps it is simply they feel there are more pressing priorities right now.
Could also be that their product manager feels that support for Bluetooth peripherals is all that is needed and the rest will be handled by WiFi.
Exactly... Although I'm not discounting the effect of the exterior colour of the car, I believe the interior colour (through the aforementioned windows) has a much greater effect on how much cooling must be applied to the car's interior to make the passengers comfortable. The AC is not trying to cool the exterior surface of the car after all.
Granted the engine compartment in which the AC unit resides might be a few degrees hotter in a black car. But this is probably negligible (as a percentage) once the engine is running and heating up that self same compartment.
You mentioned something about another project. Note that there is a difference between development you do on "your" time versus stuff you do on "their" time. If you used any of the company's resources, or spent any time doing work on the project while you were being paid by the company (with respect to normal work/office hours as stated in your employment contract if applicable). Then they own at least a portion of it and need to be considered in any decisions with respect to the dispensation of the code.
TB:...A bunch of Canadian government money came in, on the stipulation that they produce not only academic research, but also working, usable software...
And PAT was:
working: yes
usable: mostly
pretty: good thing this wasn't one of the criteria:-)
Sorry Tim, I couldn't resist. But you have to admit that PAT was rather ugly... ....Paul
Just one minor modification to this. You should probably use tar or cpio instead of mv. For example: cd/home.orig
tar cf - . | ( cd/home; tar xf - )
The reason? The mv command will not keep any hard links when mv'd across filesystems; tar will. Unless of course, you are absolutely 100% sure you have no hard linked files in/home.
And whatever you do, *don't* use cp; otherwise both your hard and sym-links will go bye-bye too.
Exactly. There is no replacement for diligence, attention to detail, and completeness when developing software. I see the article by Mr. Eckel in the same way. Although I agree that you can get lazy and "swallow" exceptions when "checked" you can similarly get lazy with your test coverage and readily put a time-bomb out into the open.
You either need the discipline to write the "reams" of code or you need the discipline and patience to write and run exhaustive test cases that will uncover all the exceptions you could so "conveniently" ignore. However, in my experience it usually isn't reams of code that need to be written, it usually has more to do with the amount of thinking that needs to happen. i.e. Ok, this has happened, what should I do about it?.
Perhaps the "real" problem with checked exceptions is laziness and not so much the mechanism itself?;-)
Secondly, what are you really gaining? If you write two programs with identical functionality; one in say, Python and the other in Java; you will inevitably encounter nearly identical exceptional situations (network down, out of memory, disk full, etc. ad. nauseum). Just because you can ignore these errors up front doesn't save you from having to write "reams" of code to deal with them at some point; regardless of what language you write in. You simply delay the writing of such code until:
you find it
a tester finds it
a customer finds it (with possible loss of time, money or life or any combination thereof)
Unfortunately, the analogy you use is fundamentally flawed and I'd be willing to bet there has been no detailed study of the life-span of Linux-based PCs vesus their Windows counterparts. In fact, the machine I use at work (Win2k-Pro) is much older than the Linux machines I have at home.
Are you suggesting that hard-drives and memory and optical drives and video cards wear out faster on Windows machines? Or that they become obsolete more quickly?
Listen, I'm not trying to push Windows, but this 5-to-1 lifespan is really just wishful thinking on your part.
Having said that though, I believe that the number of people like me that buy a machine with MS-something on it and immediately format the drive and install Linux is greater than anyone might be able to measure. It certainly seems that Gartner didn't even try to acknowledge this segment of the market; let alone estimate it. Furthermore, the unfortunate side effect of this is to over-inflate the Windows figures...
So, to the original issue, how can 5% of machines sold this year be pre-installed with Linux and yet only 2% of the market be Linux. Because not *everyone* replaces their machine every year. The fact of the matter is that there are one h*ll of a lot of working, Win98 vintage machines out there. It will take several years of good sales to start impacting the overall installed base figures.
But the more important questions are:
Did Gartner gather their research with due dilligence and care? Yes
Are these statistics correct? Yes, within the context of the large PC distributors they surveyed.
Are the numbers they published representative of the true story? Resoundingly *NO*
Unfortunately, many people will believe the number because it is Gartner that published them.
What you are forgetting is that the 5% figure is only for the shipments this year. Overall only 2% of the world's PC run Linux, because there are all the existing PCs out there that run Windows.
If everyone in the world replaced their PC each year then the share for Linux would only be 5%; it could not be more.
Even so, the figure of 2% is probably a bit conservative. For example, the notebook I ordered from Dell had WinXP-Home on it (Home because it is cheaper; I knew I was going to replace the OS anyway). It now happiliy runs Mandrake 10.0.....Paul
Here in South Africa we have just had the Sci-Fi channel cancelled as of July 1st because it is no longer financially viable in Southern Africa.
What would they put on 500 channels? I can already choose from about 6 24-hour news channels that are all showing the same footage of the latest big event.
Will 80 or so 24-hour news channels really be useful?
Furthermore, as you pointed out, the niche channels can't get enough viewers because the appeal isn't broad enough. (Hence the term "niche" I guess:-). In order to have broader appeal the niche channels end up expanding their coverage until they start to clash. I find there is quite a bit of overlap in programming between Discovery, History, Nat. Geo. and the Learning Channel.
Oh look, the Discovery Channel has a spot on "Extreme Engineering - Bridges". And what's on History? The building of the Golden Gate Bridge. Go figure.
Having myself gone through every Mandrake version since 7.0 I can appreciate this. However, I think you may find that ultimately, it would be better in the long run to plan for upgradability.
I think that several upgrades using a tool like you mention, no matter how well designed, would still leave a bunch of OS lint lying about.
I personally format/,/usr and/var every upgrade. Put all my personal stuff in/home and/usr/local and copy every file I modify into/usr/local right after I do it. i.e. if I hack up/etc/sysconfig/... or/etc/ppp/... I copy it and save it away, I can then easily figure out what I did later and re-apply changes as required. This only applies to manual changes I make with vi, not to things that I configure with tools.
It usually only takes a few hours post-install to get back to everything humming the way it was.
Of course, this assumes that you have enough disk space to create all these partitions in the first place...
However, in way of supplementation... Evolution also takes a long time; several generations or more. Even if social, political and economic factors did result in impetus for genetic change, probably the situation would have changed from external factors anyway. Rendering the genetic change obsoloete. Or at least "late".
Humans right now (and this is most likely to continue) use technology and other means to adapt the environment to themselves. So, is evolution at the end of the road for humans? I think not. Prof. Jones obviously has blinders on. I just think that right now, evolution never gets a chance. It's just too slow for us now.
The GPL is an excellent license if one doesnt wish to charge for their code.
I want to write a wildly succesful piece of software, and charge a lot for it. And the only way I can see to do that does not involve the GPL...
Umm... What do you mean by this? That the GPL doesn't allow you to charge money for your code? Or that some other clause of the license makes it impossible to do so?
Man, perhaps you should read and understand the GPL before making such wild statements.
The GPL DOES NOT limit you from charging money for your code. It doesn't even limit someone else from charging money for a derivative to your code (whether that derivative adds value or not is then up to the end user).
What it does do (or is intended to do; as it hasn't been upheld in court yet) is assure that if you release software under it, the people you release it to are entitled to the source code, which they can modify anyway they wish, for their own purposes. They can then even release this modified code, but if they do, anyone who receives it is entitled to the exact same rights. The BSD license doesn't provide for this. That isn't to say that the BSDL is not a viable license. Instead, merely to point out where the major differences are.
I hate the terms Free as in beer and Free as in speech, as I believe they only promote more confusion. I know they were not used in your article, but I have seen them used in the past by others who didn't fully understand something trying to explain their flawed view to others who also didn't understand.
You must instead think about the GPL in the following way. If you buy a car for example, you are free to change the paint colour, add options and make other modifications, which don't contravene any laws surrounding road-worthiness etc. You are free to sell the car to someone else. Take a look at most commercial closed software license agreements and you'll see that when you buy the software it isn't yours. You aren't allowed to change the colour, or modify it in any other way. You are not allowed to sell the license on. This is the crux of the issue, not whether you were charged money or not.
I am not really advocating one license over the other, but, rather that people understand them. Read it for yourself rather than listening to what other people tell you about it...
I think a very important, but largely ignored point that came from the recent essay by Lawyer Dan Ravicher is that it is possible to release software under more than one license. Some may want to look more closely at this scenario too.
Yeah, Microsoft has so many resources, and because they're not interested in a profit they don't care how much money it would take to develop something that complex from scratch.
Hell, I'll bet they even rolled their own browser. Hmmm... Let's see...
Start Internet Explorer (even the most latest version).
Click on "Help|About"
Oh my!!! What's this??? Based on NCSA Mosaic??? Now why do you think they would need to base IE on Mosaic hmm?
Your argument is just plain crap. M$ will ALWAYS look for the cheapest way to do things. They are a company concerned with bottom lines. So, if that means ripping off some code to make the profit margin better, then they'll do it.
This isn't to say Microsoft doesn't have competent programmers or that IE hasn't advanced a LOOONG way since Mosaic. But, look in the mirror to find the FUD bud!
Slashdot Mirror
Many higher end smartphones already support WiFi. Bluetooth is still great for connecting user interface devices like headsets/mics etc. But for the other things you mention, WiFi is better.
One of the posts above quotes from the Android development team saying they understand there is demand for Bluetooth. Perhaps it is simply they feel there are more pressing priorities right now.
Could also be that their product manager feels that support for Bluetooth peripherals is all that is needed and the rest will be handled by WiFi.
Exactly... Although I'm not discounting the effect of the exterior colour of the car, I believe the interior colour (through the aforementioned windows) has a much greater effect on how much cooling must be applied to the car's interior to make the passengers comfortable. The AC is not trying to cool the exterior surface of the car after all. Granted the engine compartment in which the AC unit resides might be a few degrees hotter in a black car. But this is probably negligible (as a percentage) once the engine is running and heating up that self same compartment.
Best advice in this whole thread so far.
You mentioned something about another project. Note that there is a difference between development you do on "your" time versus stuff you do on "their" time. If you used any of the company's resources, or spent any time doing work on the project while you were being paid by the company (with respect to normal work/office hours as stated in your employment contract if applicable). Then they own at least a portion of it and need to be considered in any decisions with respect to the dispensation of the code.
Get yourself a lawyer. Really.
Signed,
Been there, done that.
Or 10 at twice the price!
Much bigger bonfire!
"Now, where'd I put those marshmallows?"
Don't you mean:
Spammer 2: You are so smrt! You are so smrt! S. M. R. T. You are so smrt!
And PAT was:
Sorry Tim, I couldn't resist. But you have to admit that PAT was rather ugly...
Just one minor modification to this. You should probably use tar or cpio instead of mv. For example:
/home.orig
/home; tar xf - )
/home.
cd
tar cf - . | ( cd
The reason? The mv command will not keep any hard links when mv'd across filesystems; tar will. Unless of course, you are absolutely 100% sure you have no hard linked files in
And whatever you do, *don't* use cp; otherwise both your hard and sym-links will go bye-bye too.
Despite my rather flippant and less than successful attempt at humour, I do believe your site is a good idea.
;-)
My sympathies with regard to the unfortunate and pre-mature exposure.
Good luck!
If not, you should add it in...
But this is brilliant...
/. and *poof*...
Put up a nearly empty site, make it publicly editable, advertise on
Hordes of slavering technophiles come and fill up your site. Assuming it stays up long enough under the onslaught that is...
You either need the discipline to write the "reams" of code or you need the discipline and patience to write and run exhaustive test cases that will uncover all the exceptions you could so "conveniently" ignore. However, in my experience it usually isn't reams of code that need to be written, it usually has more to do with the amount of thinking that needs to happen. i.e. Ok, this has happened, what should I do about it?.
Perhaps the "real" problem with checked exceptions is laziness and not so much the mechanism itself?
Secondly, what are you really gaining? If you write two programs with identical functionality; one in say, Python and the other in Java; you will inevitably encounter nearly identical exceptional situations (network down, out of memory, disk full, etc. ad. nauseum). Just because you can ignore these errors up front doesn't save you from having to write "reams" of code to deal with them at some point; regardless of what language you write in. You simply delay the writing of such code until:
Well, I did say "everyone".
Unfortunately, the analogy you use is fundamentally flawed and I'd be willing to bet there has been no detailed study of the life-span of Linux-based PCs vesus their Windows counterparts. In fact, the machine I use at work (Win2k-Pro) is much older than the Linux machines I have at home.
Are you suggesting that hard-drives and memory and optical drives and video cards wear out faster on Windows machines? Or that they become obsolete more quickly?
Listen, I'm not trying to push Windows, but this 5-to-1 lifespan is really just wishful thinking on your part.
Having said that though, I believe that the number of people like me that buy a machine with MS-something on it and immediately format the drive and install Linux is greater than anyone might be able to measure. It certainly seems that Gartner didn't even try to acknowledge this segment of the market; let alone estimate it. Furthermore, the unfortunate side effect of this is to over-inflate the Windows figures...
So, to the original issue, how can 5% of machines sold this year be pre-installed with Linux and yet only 2% of the market be Linux. Because not *everyone* replaces their machine every year. The fact of the matter is that there are one h*ll of a lot of working, Win98 vintage machines out there. It will take several years of good sales to start impacting the overall installed base figures.
But the more important questions are:
Did Gartner gather their research with due dilligence and care? Yes
Are these statistics correct? Yes, within the context of the large PC distributors they surveyed.
Are the numbers they published representative of the true story? Resoundingly *NO*
Unfortunately, many people will believe the number because it is Gartner that published them.
What you are forgetting is that the 5% figure is only for the shipments this year. Overall only 2% of the world's PC run Linux, because there are all the existing PCs out there that run Windows.
....Paul
If everyone in the world replaced their PC each year then the share for Linux would only be 5%; it could not be more.
Even so, the figure of 2% is probably a bit conservative. For example, the notebook I ordered from Dell had WinXP-Home on it (Home because it is cheaper; I knew I was going to replace the OS anyway). It now happiliy runs Mandrake 10.0.
Tell me about it...
:-). In order to have broader appeal the niche channels end up expanding their coverage until they start to clash. I find there is quite a bit of overlap in programming between Discovery, History, Nat. Geo. and the Learning Channel.
Here in South Africa we have just had the Sci-Fi channel cancelled as of July 1st because it is no longer financially viable in Southern Africa.
What would they put on 500 channels? I can already choose from about 6 24-hour news channels that are all showing the same footage of the latest big event.
Will 80 or so 24-hour news channels really be useful?
Furthermore, as you pointed out, the niche channels can't get enough viewers because the appeal isn't broad enough. (Hence the term "niche" I guess
Oh look, the Discovery Channel has a spot on "Extreme Engineering - Bridges". And what's on History? The building of the Golden Gate Bridge. Go figure.
Flipping you off or getting ready for that prostate exam?
The ftp client integral with almost all Un*xes since the early '80s.
Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last.
Having myself gone through every Mandrake version since 7.0 I can appreciate this. However, I think you may find that ultimately, it would be better in the long run to plan for upgradability.
/, /usr and /var every upgrade. Put all my personal stuff in /home and /usr/local and copy every file I modify into /usr/local right after I do it. i.e. if I hack up /etc/sysconfig/... or /etc/ppp/... I copy it and save it away, I can then easily figure out what I did later and re-apply changes as required. This only applies to manual changes I make with vi, not to things that I configure with tools.
....Paul
I think that several upgrades using a tool like you mention, no matter how well designed, would still leave a bunch of OS lint lying about.
I personally format
It usually only takes a few hours post-install to get back to everything humming the way it was.
Of course, this assumes that you have enough disk space to create all these partitions in the first place...
Not sure if anyone else noticed...
It looks like the first couple photos were taken in a grocery store.
So what, is it stuffed in amongst the Honeydews? I wonder if it sounds hollow when you knock on it?
It's funny how computer hardware goes out of "fashion" and then gets re-incarnated later. I wonder when drums are coming back?
....Paul
Totally agree.
However, in way of supplementation... Evolution also takes a long time; several generations or more. Even if social, political and economic factors did result in impetus for genetic change, probably the situation would have changed from external factors anyway. Rendering the genetic change obsoloete. Or at least "late".
Humans right now (and this is most likely to continue) use technology and other means to adapt the environment to themselves. So, is evolution at the end of the road for humans? I think not. Prof. Jones obviously has blinders on. I just think that right now, evolution never gets a chance. It's just too slow for us now.
....Paul
Yeah right... You know how much it would cost to score a stash big enough to stay juiced for the entire psychedelic trip through the obelisk?
The GPL is an excellent license if one doesnt wish to charge for their code.
I want to write a wildly succesful piece of software, and charge a lot for it. And the only way I can see to do that does not involve the GPL...
Umm... What do you mean by this? That the GPL doesn't allow you to charge money for your code? Or that some other clause of the license makes it impossible to do so?
Man, perhaps you should read and understand the GPL before making such wild statements.
The GPL DOES NOT limit you from charging money for your code. It doesn't even limit someone else from charging money for a derivative to your code (whether that derivative adds value or not is then up to the end user).
What it does do (or is intended to do; as it hasn't been upheld in court yet) is assure that if you release software under it, the people you release it to are entitled to the source code, which they can modify anyway they wish, for their own purposes. They can then even release this modified code, but if they do, anyone who receives it is entitled to the exact same rights. The BSD license doesn't provide for this. That isn't to say that the BSDL is not a viable license. Instead, merely to point out where the major differences are.
I hate the terms Free as in beer and Free as in speech, as I believe they only promote more confusion. I know they were not used in your article, but I have seen them used in the past by others who didn't fully understand something trying to explain their flawed view to others who also didn't understand.
You must instead think about the GPL in the following way. If you buy a car for example, you are free to change the paint colour, add options and make other modifications, which don't contravene any laws surrounding road-worthiness etc. You are free to sell the car to someone else. Take a look at most commercial closed software license agreements and you'll see that when you buy the software it isn't yours. You aren't allowed to change the colour, or modify it in any other way. You are not allowed to sell the license on. This is the crux of the issue, not whether you were charged money or not.
I am not really advocating one license over the other, but, rather that people understand them. Read it for yourself rather than listening to what other people tell you about it...
I think a very important, but largely ignored point that came from the recent essay by Lawyer Dan Ravicher is that it is possible to release software under more than one license. Some may want to look more closely at this scenario too.
Yeah, Microsoft has so many resources, and because they're not interested in a profit they don't care how much money it would take to develop something that complex from scratch.
Hell, I'll bet they even rolled their own browser. Hmmm... Let's see...
Start Internet Explorer (even the most latest version).
Click on "Help|About"
Oh my!!! What's this??? Based on NCSA Mosaic???
Now why do you think they would need to base IE on Mosaic hmm?
Your argument is just plain crap. M$ will ALWAYS look for the cheapest way to do things. They are a company concerned with bottom lines. So, if that means ripping off some code to make the profit margin better, then they'll do it.
This isn't to say Microsoft doesn't have competent programmers or that IE hasn't advanced a LOOONG way since Mosaic. But, look in the mirror to find the FUD bud!