Name one heavily armed group thats been massacred in large numbers
France, WWII. Vietnam. In fact, the loosing side of any war.
Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.
What I'd like to see is for Linux to bring about a new OS market in which competition can flourish. Of course, what I'd really like to see is for an open-source "category killer" to arise in the OS arena (similar to sendmail, for example) but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I hope BeOS succeeds.
Except for the small problem that an open-source "category killer" would be, erm, open-source. So it could be made to run on all OSs which slightly defeats the point of it being a category killer. Oh, well...
How has AOL poisoned ICQ? I don't really see any changes in the program as a whole. Well, ICQ really has been a bit of a poisoned chalice from the start. Have you seen the licencing terms - the owners of ICQ own the format, reserve the right to ban ICQ clients, only approved ICQ servers can be run... The problems were there from the start. All AOL need to do is make ICQ take off, and then they control the market.
Get a window manager that supports frameless windows, map the maximise key to F11, and set up your apps so they have no menus. Hey pretso! You can do that to all your windows. Whats so important about that extra centimeter, though, I don't know. Shiesh.
Ah! Its time for the traditional quote:- `If a man places security over freedom he looses both.' In any case, all the existing nuclear devices were developed on the computational equivalent of todays graphical calculators. Well - maybe not quite, but any nation could probably get sufficient computational power to create a bomb. A depressing or optimistic reflection of the world? Thats up to you to judge.
Apparently the only reason that they `needed' not to release it under GPL was that they wanted to hinder undesirables getting supercomputers. Thus they want to release it as binary only module limited to (presently) six nodes. I don't see the logic in that myself... but hey - its not my code.
The bridge analogy is plain daft. An engineer gets out a standard bridge, then alters it so that it is appropriate for the situation, as he was taught. The result? A lot of similar bridges, which on the whole, don't fail.
With open source, on occasion the programer can start with some standard software and modify it so that it is appropriate to the situation. This is the exception. Writing a piece of proprietry software, or software to solve as yet unexplored problems is equivalent to designing the bridge from basic principles and cannot be taught.
Teaching schemes may be able to help you get more information about making the program you write more efficient - it may give general guidelines on how to design programs. However they cannot begin to give or replace the inspiration needed to see the best way to solve a problem, to see where the design problems are or where bugs could be. Thus the scheme should fail - it is irrelevant to whether or not you are a good programmer.
If Qt were allowing people to download a "free" desktop they owned, and admitted it, noone would blink an eyelid. The trouble with KDE is that they are pretending that it is free in a completely different sense. Corel, on the other hand, for the moment are being honest about their ambitions and getting the respect for that.
May I assume you're running linux using a self made CPU then? And that if it goes wrong you can fix it?
I'm sorry, but there are so many hours in the day. Accept the choices people make and remember - it may only take a couple of minutes for you to understand, but that is hardly a guarentee that they will pick it up as easily.
Of course they are - by publishing the halloween documents they sent a signal to every publisher that Linux was the next big thing and that Microsoft would not complain if they talked about it. The only question is whether Microsoft will be able to, erm, disuade the media attention back after the trial. My guess is that they will be able to - if nothing else, linux is not ready for the joe average that the magazines are targetted at. 2004's my guess for when everything will really take off.
I think the most important thing for a compiler is that it compiles things well. GCC far better than VC, you fool. Why do you think quake was programmed in it? I'll admit it probably wasn't for the ease of use;)
Oh, come on. Just because linux becomes the mainstream OS would not mean that it is no longer the hacker OS - Redhat may be kept down to a yearly kernal upgrade but that by no way means that noone else can download upgraded development kernals.
And who exactly is going to bug-test the libraries? I mean - changing the source slightly when the nexts stable library comes out can't be that hard (Spoken with no experience whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong) It sounds as if it all works at the moment so stop fretting - just wait until it comes out in a nice stable package for your enjoyment. Thats generally what I do.
1) If anyone wants to know *that* badly, the drivers are small enough to realiably decompile. Or you could just examine the patents the company holds.
2) There will be one driver included in standard dists that works 100% in all hardware combinations. As opposed to the one that works at 95% optimal.
One point - in the article he said some parts would be kept secret due to alorithms creative wants to protect. Does this mean he would roughly label what they do and so people can write a (perhaps less efficient) free version?
Slashdot Mirror
Name one heavily armed group thats been massacred in large numbers
France, WWII. Vietnam. In fact, the loosing side of any war.
Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.
What I'd like to see is for Linux to bring about a new OS market in which competition can flourish. Of course, what I'd really like to see is for an open-source "category killer" to arise in the OS arena (similar to sendmail, for example) but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I hope BeOS succeeds.
Except for the small problem that an open-source "category killer" would be, erm, open-source. So it could be made to run on all OSs which slightly defeats the point of it being a category killer. Oh, well...
How has AOL poisoned ICQ? I don't really see any changes in the program as a whole.
Well, ICQ really has been a bit of a poisoned chalice from the start.
Have you seen the licencing terms - the owners of ICQ own the format, reserve the right to ban ICQ clients, only approved ICQ servers can be run...
The problems were there from the start. All AOL need to do is make ICQ take off, and then they control the market.
Get a window manager that supports frameless windows, map the maximise key to F11, and set up your apps so they have no menus. Hey pretso! You can do that to all your windows.
Whats so important about that extra centimeter, though, I don't know. Shiesh.
Ah! Its time for the traditional quote:- `If a man places security over freedom he looses both.'
In any case, all the existing nuclear devices were developed on the computational equivalent of todays graphical calculators. Well - maybe not quite, but any nation could probably get sufficient computational power to create a bomb. A depressing or optimistic reflection of the world? Thats up to you to judge.
Apparently the only reason that they `needed' not to release it under GPL was that they wanted to hinder undesirables getting supercomputers. ... but hey - its not my code.
Thus they want to release it as binary only module limited to (presently) six nodes.
I don't see the logic in that myself
The bridge analogy is plain daft. An engineer gets out a standard bridge, then alters it so that it is appropriate for the situation, as he was taught. The result? A lot of similar bridges, which on the whole, don't fail.
With open source, on occasion the programer can start with some standard software and modify it so that it is appropriate to the situation. This is the exception. Writing a piece of proprietry software, or software to solve as yet unexplored problems is equivalent to designing the bridge from basic principles and cannot be taught.
Teaching schemes may be able to help you get more information about making the program you write more efficient - it may give general guidelines on how to design programs. However they cannot begin to give or replace the inspiration needed to see the best way to solve a problem, to see where the design problems are or where bugs could be. Thus the scheme should fail - it is irrelevant to whether or not you are a good programmer.
Try reading the book 'Starship Troopers'. Then, having got the philosophy out of the way, watch the completely unrelated film of the same title.
If Qt were allowing people to download a "free" desktop they owned, and admitted it, noone would blink an eyelid. The trouble with KDE is that they are pretending that it is free in a completely different sense. Corel, on the other hand, for the moment are being honest about their ambitions and getting the respect for that.
May I assume you're running linux using a self made CPU then? And that if it goes wrong you can fix it?
I'm sorry, but there are so many hours in the day. Accept the choices people make and remember - it may only take a couple of minutes for you to understand, but that is hardly a guarentee that they will pick it up as easily.
Of course they are - by publishing the halloween documents they sent a signal to every publisher that Linux was the next big thing and that Microsoft would not complain if they talked about it. The only question is whether Microsoft will be able to, erm, disuade the media attention back after the trial. My guess is that they will be able to - if nothing else, linux is not ready for the joe average that the magazines are targetted at. 2004's my guess for when everything will really take off.
I think the most important thing for a compiler is that it compiles things well. GCC far better than VC, you fool. Why do you think quake was programmed in it? I'll admit it probably wasn't for the ease of use ;)
Oh, come on. Just because linux becomes the mainstream OS would not mean that it is no longer the hacker OS - Redhat may be kept down to a yearly kernal upgrade but that by no way means that noone else can download upgraded development kernals.
And who exactly is going to bug-test the libraries? I mean - changing the source slightly when the nexts stable library comes out can't be that hard (Spoken with no experience whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong) It sounds as if it all works at the moment so stop fretting - just wait until it comes out in a nice stable package for your enjoyment. Thats generally what I do.
1) If anyone wants to know *that* badly, the drivers are small enough to realiably decompile. Or you could just examine the patents the company holds.
2) There will be one driver included in standard dists that works 100% in all hardware combinations. As opposed to the one that works at 95% optimal.
One point - in the article he said some parts would be kept secret due to alorithms creative wants to protect. Does this mean he would roughly label what they do and so people can write a (perhaps less efficient) free version?
100 Turns to develop Basic funtionality. 10 Turns to become advanced. Unlimited use for free thereafter.
Excellent defensive capabilities.
I'd build it...
And there's no way there'd be enough detail to identify who owned the watermark - which let's face it, is what companies implementing want.