Don't forget closed-captioning -- which should be mandatory in sports bars.
The poster next to me is talking about added difficulties created by accessibility, but I would venture to argue that such problems are often a rarity. Yes, TANSTAAFL. But the fact is that I'd rather have a big area to play with than a small one.
The product being created with these capital expenditures (music or software) is something that is infinitely reproducible. The fact is that the economics of the situation are not on the side of the producers and have not been since, oh, about the invention of the cassette tape.
The fact is that in the era of the microcomputer, copy protection has never been anything that a sufficiently sophisticated hacker (and I use the term in the canonical, Jargon File sense, even though it doesn't always apply) can't get around, and the legalities involved consistently attempt to uphold a business model that was built and is being maintained with little thought given to current economic reality.
Look at the DMCA: this is an attempt to strongarm people into falling in line with someone else's business model. The fact is that "artificial scarcity" exists because of a failure to adapt on the part of those putting out the product (and the expenses to develop it).
Butter? Don't you mean cream?
I wonder what exactly the definition of "lightweight languages" is here. Perl is not my idea of lightweight; lightweight *programs* are pretty easy to write, but the language and its environment are *huge*. Python isn't that small either.
Pascal is a lightweight language, even with extensions. Take a look at pax -- that's very possibly the smallest non-obfuscated functional language out there. Take it to another level: Befunge. False. Brainf*ck (the smallest Turing machine implementation I've ever seen). OISC, living proof that Subtract and Branch If Negative is all you need.
Though to be honest with you, when I think lightweight... HTML is precisely one example. The Unix Shell(s), with the possible exceptions of bash and ksh93. JavaScript, if not in execution, is lightweight in concept; Java is not, though it was intended that way. Scheme is lightweight; Common Lisp is not. Snobol probably was. *roff is, PostScript is not. Forth is; var'aq is not. Lightweight implies two things to me: small overhead and specialized (though not necessarily limited) functionality.
So yeah, I don't much like the name of this conference.
Actually, there is a difference, but it's mostly one of intent; Open Source simply says that you should make source available for your own benefit and others, while the FSF feels that that responsibility applies to anyone who borrows your code. My sympathies lie a bit closer to Stallman's point of view (I have an aversion to artificial scarcity), but I find him to be hopelessly fundamentalist in his aims. While openness is to be encouraged, it's not really fair to take a "RMS's way or the highway" attitude.
Trying to think of where it was that I read some history of Manos and it turned out to be an unfinished derelict wreck of a movie that someone thought they could resurrect...
I've seen the docs -- they're about as minimal as they come. It's no more than a quick reference.
It does look like a rather interesting language, though; in some ways it seems almost like a predecessor to Java (if that means anything). It's a fairly cleverly done macro language, basically similar to C++ with all the garbage stripped out.
That rather depends on which version of XLISP you're talking about. XLISP 3.0 was in fact a lisp dialect, and it branched off into XLISP-Plus; however, the main branch turned Schemy at 3.0.
Simple idea: make me a PDA that includes the following:
-A BIOS that handles power management and screen taps, as well as a fairly safe routine for handling flash functions
-Easily swapped OS
-Versatility of an iPaq, batteries of a Palm (rechargeable is best
-USB cradle
Put that out as an OEM device. You can even ship it with WinCE if you like (PalmOS 5/ARM would probably be a better choice of course), but make sure the world knows you can hack it.
Actually I have a sense that iPod support on Linux is inevitable, at least as long as FireWire works properly. Don't forget, there are a lot of Linux-on-Mac users around here, and all you'd have to do is rewrite the Darwin FireWire drivers to divert the data stream to a file.
Not exactly. OpenBIOS is a freeware implementation of the Open Firmware standard that Apple uses for the boot ROMs on their PCI machine. I don't think OpenBIOS is anywhere even close to a working product, actually, and Apple has been using OF since 1995.
Er... I'd be inclined to think that this would be a Bad Idea -- after all, that's what the 2.5 branch is for. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this would essentially be creating a code fork and if I was Linus I'd reject out of hand anyone as a maintainer anyone who would do this.
While I am a passionate Linux supporter, I have also come to the conclusion that kernel bloat is likely to be a major issue fairly soon. It appears to have been the case for some time that =486 systems Need Not Apply, and Red Hat in particular has become a rather memory-hungry distro (it won't even install on my 16MB Pentium system, though I doubt this is really a kernel issue). The end result is that Linux seems slowly to be growing out of the lower-end used-server-in-a-closet market that helped it get so big in the first place.
My question: I presume kernel bloat, both in terms of code size and resource demands, can impact heavily on maintainability. Do you see this as a significant issue for the future, how much of a problem is it, and is it something that can be easily addressed without tearing apart the code base and reorganizing it from the ground up?
I'm sort of curious as to where the Linux version number system came from in the first place; the -ac series seems like a necessity but it seems like a patch on a rather strange system. Is it just that the concept of "beta" software isn't especially meaningful in the Open Source world?
That's an interesting thought, and it's not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard...
The reason it makes sense is the same reason USB is in the process of displacing IEEE 1284 (and the reason RDRAM probably seemed like a good idea at the time) -- in theory parallel is faster, but the simple fact is that it's substantially more of a pain in the ass than serial to get working. The basic idea is to put several gazillion 4004 cores on one chip (perhaps something of a PGA-like device) and just bite off as much processor bandwidth as you need. I think the operative concept here is "dynamic pipelining" -- does that make sense to the sandbenders around here?
Hey, you want an FS supported, get the freakin' source code and do it yourself. Last time I checked that was the big reason/.ers tend to wet themselves over OS X/Darwin to begin with...
Actually, the funny thing about the single-button mouse is that MacOS outgrew it when MacOS 8 came out. I've used a 2-button mouse since OS 8, as I imagine a lot of people do. I do love the new optical mouse, but the sad truth of the matter is that the day I can afford a new Mac that beaut of a pointing device will be the first thing to go into my desk drawer.
It's unfortunate that Apple has yet to recognize this.
And the closest you can come now is PalmPilot+keyboard. I would love to see a modern computer in a Trash-80 100 form factor, but we all know it would be running WinCE if it existed...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget closed-captioning -- which should be mandatory in sports bars.
The poster next to me is talking about added difficulties created by accessibility, but I would venture to argue that such problems are often a rarity. Yes, TANSTAAFL. But the fact is that I'd rather have a big area to play with than a small one.
/Brian
The product being created with these capital expenditures (music or software) is something that is infinitely reproducible. The fact is that the economics of the situation are not on the side of the producers and have not been since, oh, about the invention of the cassette tape.
The fact is that in the era of the microcomputer, copy protection has never been anything that a sufficiently sophisticated hacker (and I use the term in the canonical, Jargon File sense, even though it doesn't always apply) can't get around, and the legalities involved consistently attempt to uphold a business model that was built and is being maintained with little thought given to current economic reality.
Look at the DMCA: this is an attempt to strongarm people into falling in line with someone else's business model. The fact is that "artificial scarcity" exists because of a failure to adapt on the part of those putting out the product (and the expenses to develop it).
/Brian
Pascal is a lightweight language, even with extensions. Take a look at pax -- that's very possibly the smallest non-obfuscated functional language out there. Take it to another level: Befunge. False. Brainf*ck (the smallest Turing machine implementation I've ever seen). OISC, living proof that Subtract and Branch If Negative is all you need.
Though to be honest with you, when I think lightweight... HTML is precisely one example. The Unix Shell(s), with the possible exceptions of bash and ksh93. JavaScript, if not in execution, is lightweight in concept; Java is not, though it was intended that way. Scheme is lightweight; Common Lisp is not. Snobol probably was. *roff is, PostScript is not. Forth is; var'aq is not. Lightweight implies two things to me: small overhead and specialized (though not necessarily limited) functionality.
So yeah, I don't much like the name of this conference.
Actually, there is a difference, but it's mostly one of intent; Open Source simply says that you should make source available for your own benefit and others, while the FSF feels that that responsibility applies to anyone who borrows your code. My sympathies lie a bit closer to Stallman's point of view (I have an aversion to artificial scarcity), but I find him to be hopelessly fundamentalist in his aims. While openness is to be encouraged, it's not really fair to take a "RMS's way or the highway" attitude.
/Brian
Er... Running Linux. On an Xbox. How is this a waste of effort?
/Brian
Battlefield Earth, maybe? (Okay, you can only come up with so many E-meter jokes, and you need at least fifty of them for any given Travolta movie...)
/Brian
You're just asking for DEEP HURTING.
Trying to think of where it was that I read some history of Manos and it turned out to be an unfinished derelict wreck of a movie that someone thought they could resurrect...
I think I need this DVD, though.
/Brian
That makes that rather easy, then, doesn't it?
/Brian
You're not much for web pages, are you?
I find this bit about Bob being used in DVD players to be rather interesting. As the creator of the language, can you tell us a bit more?
/Brian
I've seen the docs -- they're about as minimal as they come. It's no more than a quick reference.
It does look like a rather interesting language, though; in some ways it seems almost like a predecessor to Java (if that means anything). It's a fairly cleverly done macro language, basically similar to C++ with all the garbage stripped out.
/Brian
That rather depends on which version of XLISP you're talking about. XLISP 3.0 was in fact a lisp dialect, and it branched off into XLISP-Plus; however, the main branch turned Schemy at 3.0.
/Brian
Simple idea: make me a PDA that includes the following:
-A BIOS that handles power management and screen taps, as well as a fairly safe routine for handling flash functions
-Easily swapped OS
-Versatility of an iPaq, batteries of a Palm (rechargeable is best
-USB cradle
Put that out as an OEM device. You can even ship it with WinCE if you like (PalmOS 5/ARM would probably be a better choice of course), but make sure the world knows you can hack it.
/Brian
I understand what it means. I'm just curious as to where it came from.
/Brian
*slap* Don't steal other people's posts, yeh idgit.
/Brian
Actually I have a sense that iPod support on Linux is inevitable, at least as long as FireWire works properly. Don't forget, there are a lot of Linux-on-Mac users around here, and all you'd have to do is rewrite the Darwin FireWire drivers to divert the data stream to a file.
/Brian
Not exactly. OpenBIOS is a freeware implementation of the Open Firmware standard that Apple uses for the boot ROMs on their PCI machine. I don't think OpenBIOS is anywhere even close to a working product, actually, and Apple has been using OF since 1995.
/Brian
While you're at it -- what do you think of the controversies over the LinuxPPC patches and the issues over Paul Mackerras' patch sizes?
/brian
Er... I'd be inclined to think that this would be a Bad Idea -- after all, that's what the 2.5 branch is for. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this would essentially be creating a code fork and if I was Linus I'd reject out of hand anyone as a maintainer anyone who would do this.
/Brian
While I am a passionate Linux supporter, I have also come to the conclusion that kernel bloat is likely to be a major issue fairly soon. It appears to have been the case for some time that =486 systems Need Not Apply, and Red Hat in particular has become a rather memory-hungry distro (it won't even install on my 16MB Pentium system, though I doubt this is really a kernel issue). The end result is that Linux seems slowly to be growing out of the lower-end used-server-in-a-closet market that helped it get so big in the first place.
My question: I presume kernel bloat, both in terms of code size and resource demands, can impact heavily on maintainability. Do you see this as a significant issue for the future, how much of a problem is it, and is it something that can be easily addressed without tearing apart the code base and reorganizing it from the ground up?
/Brian
I'm sort of curious as to where the Linux version number system came from in the first place; the -ac series seems like a necessity but it seems like a patch on a rather strange system. Is it just that the concept of "beta" software isn't especially meaningful in the Open Source world?
/Brian
That's an interesting thought, and it's not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard...
The reason it makes sense is the same reason USB is in the process of displacing IEEE 1284 (and the reason RDRAM probably seemed like a good idea at the time) -- in theory parallel is faster, but the simple fact is that it's substantially more of a pain in the ass than serial to get working. The basic idea is to put several gazillion 4004 cores on one chip (perhaps something of a PGA-like device) and just bite off as much processor bandwidth as you need. I think the operative concept here is "dynamic pipelining" -- does that make sense to the sandbenders around here?
/brian
Actually, the killer app in question was a Japanese calculator, programmable I believe.
/Brian
Hey, you want an FS supported, get the freakin' source code and do it yourself. Last time I checked that was the big reason /.ers tend to wet themselves over OS X/Darwin to begin with...
/Brian
Actually, the funny thing about the single-button mouse is that MacOS outgrew it when MacOS 8 came out. I've used a 2-button mouse since OS 8, as I imagine a lot of people do. I do love the new optical mouse, but the sad truth of the matter is that the day I can afford a new Mac that beaut of a pointing device will be the first thing to go into my desk drawer.
It's unfortunate that Apple has yet to recognize this.
/Brian
And the closest you can come now is PalmPilot+keyboard. I would love to see a modern computer in a Trash-80 100 form factor, but we all know it would be running WinCE if it existed...
/Brian