The Banshee guys, the Beagle guys, the Blam! guysm the Diva guys, the DotNet BlogEngine guys, the GNOME Do guys, the F-Spot guys, the FusionFall guys, the Graffiti CMS guys, the iFolder 3 guys, the KeePass 2 guys, the Second Life guys, the MonoTorrent guys, the Muine guys, the PHP4Mono guys, the Smuxi guys, the Sky Net guys, the Unity guys and the VistaDB guys. Just to name a few.
There are orders of magnitude more stuff "built-in" to Java (the platform),
I don't think you know exactly what that term means. The BCL of 3.5.NET framework defines 294 libraries which each contain hundreds of interfaces, classes, enumerations, structures, delegates, etc. So now to do the math according to you Java must have at least 2 orders of magnitude more of everything (as you said orders) so if your claim is correct Java contains at least 29400 built-in libraries for a combined total of 2940000 interfaces, classes, structures, etc. I'm sorry, but the facts just don't bear your hyperbole out.
While mildly funny, this reeks of elitism and untruth.
No, it's very much true. The "developers" who use a mouse when coding are always slower when writing code and are also usually poorer programmers.
You are associating memorization of esoteric editor commands and customization options with programming skill. While there's likely a good correlation, one can have one without the other.
Well yes. Actually knowing how to use your environment as efficiently as possible would be a sign of good skill.
On a separate note, modern IDEs, such as Eclipse, require the use of the mouse.
Only if you have no clue what you're doing.
I would argue that this streamlines the coding process, leaving the developer to focus on the actual design and logic.
I'm sorry, but I've never once been sidetracked from designing and coding by not using a mouse with my code editor or IDE.
Exactly. Nothing is more painful than being paired up with a "developer" that is trying to code using a mouse and having them work at half to quarter speed of a person who actually knows how to use keyboard shortcuts.
What use is a mouse when you are coding? The only programmers I ever see using mice are either those who aren't coding or those who work as slow as molasses because they are wasting time doing shit with their mouse with what they could do with a keyboard shortcut.
I don't think I've ever heard of any real programmer needing a mouse to code. Is the submitter one of those clueless code mashers flooding the industry that call themselves "developers" that I keep hearing about?
I don't know how they've done it, but I know this is a good thing.
They've done it by removing the responsibility of X talking directly to the graphics hardware by implementing Kernel Mode Switching for graphics drivers (among other much needed overhauls to the Linux graphics stack). Thus X can now access what it needs at the logged-in users' level and doesn't need root.
Actually the part about the proprietary bootstrap code isn't an issue as was decided in Sega v Accolade in which Accolade reverse engineered code to load their games for the Genesis as they weren't a licensee of Sega. Basically that code wasn't covered by copyright because it was considered "non-expressive" and as such didn't get copyright protection. The issue for what the GP is talking about has to do with the cryptographic key signing that is used by the consoles. That is illegal to circumvent.
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?
The fact that it won't play on the vast amount of consoles that aren't unhacked?
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Are you completely unaware of the DMCA?
If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.
And you'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law.
In its target market of smart phones it has several major releases, and they appear to be making the news.
Whoop de doo. Making the news doesn't mean much if something like the 3G S can sell in one weekend almost as many phones as you've sold in almost 8 months.
One might say that OSX mobile is on fewer phones than Android, and has a tiny market share, both of which are true, but in its target market it is still making a splash.
Except that that is a false statement. iPhone OS powers far more phones than Android does.
Anyway the point was that the OP was probably not talking about netbooks, but phones, which still stands.
Except the point doesn't really stand since the adoption of Android by phone makers is glacially slow.
It's at the bottom of the list for all major mobile OSes. We must have different notions of "OK" because I consider being last place to be doing pretty poorly.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean other than the fact that he didn't denounce Microsoft, Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates as satan spawn on every line of the article?
Well of course it can. It has support for sockets and anything else you would need to stream things.
The Banshee guys, the Beagle guys, the Blam! guysm the Diva guys, the DotNet BlogEngine guys, the GNOME Do guys, the F-Spot guys, the FusionFall guys, the Graffiti CMS guys, the iFolder 3 guys, the KeePass 2 guys, the Second Life guys, the MonoTorrent guys, the Muine guys, the PHP4Mono guys, the Smuxi guys, the Sky Net guys, the Unity guys and the VistaDB guys. Just to name a few.
Except if you look at the Java 6 API there are only about 205 packages.
Its very flashy and friendly if all you do is check your email and browse the web though.
Almost like that was the entire point of the distro in the first place!
What has changed?
The fanatics have become more reasonable?
There are orders of magnitude more stuff "built-in" to Java (the platform),
I don't think you know exactly what that term means. The BCL of 3.5 .NET framework defines 294 libraries which each contain hundreds of interfaces, classes, enumerations, structures, delegates, etc. So now to do the math according to you Java must have at least 2 orders of magnitude more of everything (as you said orders) so if your claim is correct Java contains at least 29400 built-in libraries for a combined total of 2940000 interfaces, classes, structures, etc. I'm sorry, but the facts just don't bear your hyperbole out.
Oh yes, because only your way is correct, making you a super dude of a programmer.
No, it's not just my way. It's pretty much the way you see any efficient programmer uses.
I think there is a happy medium somewhere between totally eschewing the mouse and copy pasting individual letters to form words and lines.
Why would you copy paste individual letters? Do you not know how to do line selects? It's a pretty basic shortcut in almost any code editor.
While mildly funny, this reeks of elitism and untruth.
No, it's very much true. The "developers" who use a mouse when coding are always slower when writing code and are also usually poorer programmers.
You are associating memorization of esoteric editor commands and customization options with programming skill. While there's likely a good correlation, one can have one without the other.
Well yes. Actually knowing how to use your environment as efficiently as possible would be a sign of good skill.
On a separate note, modern IDEs, such as Eclipse, require the use of the mouse.
Only if you have no clue what you're doing.
I would argue that this streamlines the coding process, leaving the developer to focus on the actual design and logic.
I'm sorry, but I've never once been sidetracked from designing and coding by not using a mouse with my code editor or IDE.
Exactly. Nothing is more painful than being paired up with a "developer" that is trying to code using a mouse and having them work at half to quarter speed of a person who actually knows how to use keyboard shortcuts.
I think they've been reading the Japanese Slashdot.
Real Programmers are recognized by their "smart laziness".
So then why would they be fiddling with a mouse when you can do everything faster with a keyboard shortcut?
Now, I use a mouse and keyboard.
What use is a mouse when you are coding? The only programmers I ever see using mice are either those who aren't coding or those who work as slow as molasses because they are wasting time doing shit with their mouse with what they could do with a keyboard shortcut.
Because they dodge and weave their head to go along with the mouse cursor movements?
I don't think I've ever heard of any real programmer needing a mouse to code. Is the submitter one of those clueless code mashers flooding the industry that call themselves "developers" that I keep hearing about?
It's not just the submitter. Apparently the writer of the blog post themselves don't even understand X all that well.
What a clueless statement. Somebody doesn't understand how X works. The server part that runs SUID root has never ran on the app server.
Yeah, the submitter is clearly clueless as is timothy since he couldn't notice such a glaring error.
What this does do is stop a random remote app getting to root on your workstation but any local exploit of the X server gets them your user account
Which is far less dangerous than them getting root access.
and that can cause a lot of mischief and only needs a different local root exploit to get the rest of the way to 0wn1ng your local desktop machine.
Which basically makes it harder for someone to get root access since they have to find another exploit to gain it.
I don't know how they've done it, but I know this is a good thing.
They've done it by removing the responsibility of X talking directly to the graphics hardware by implementing Kernel Mode Switching for graphics drivers (among other much needed overhauls to the Linux graphics stack). Thus X can now access what it needs at the logged-in users' level and doesn't need root.
Doesn't DMCA have provisions for compatibility/interactivity issues?
Sure, but none of them would allow what you are talking about.
What about monopoly issues, they the company alone decides who can sell games for their systems?
Pretty much would fail. No company is obligated to let anyone and everyone develop for their system. Especially if they aren't a licensee.
That kind of thing wouldn't work for computers would it?
Really? Seems to work plenty fine for Apple.
Actually the part about the proprietary bootstrap code isn't an issue as was decided in Sega v Accolade in which Accolade reverse engineered code to load their games for the Genesis as they weren't a licensee of Sega. Basically that code wasn't covered by copyright because it was considered "non-expressive" and as such didn't get copyright protection. The issue for what the GP is talking about has to do with the cryptographic key signing that is used by the consoles. That is illegal to circumvent.
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?
The fact that it won't play on the vast amount of consoles that aren't unhacked?
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Are you completely unaware of the DMCA?
If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.
And you'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law.
In its target market of smart phones it has several major releases, and they appear to be making the news.
Whoop de doo. Making the news doesn't mean much if something like the 3G S can sell in one weekend almost as many phones as you've sold in almost 8 months.
One might say that OSX mobile is on fewer phones than Android, and has a tiny market share, both of which are true, but in its target market it is still making a splash.
Except that that is a false statement. iPhone OS powers far more phones than Android does.
Anyway the point was that the OP was probably not talking about netbooks, but phones, which still stands.
Except the point doesn't really stand since the adoption of Android by phone makers is glacially slow.
It's at the bottom of the list for all major mobile OSes. We must have different notions of "OK" because I consider being last place to be doing pretty poorly.
Only about a million? That's peanuts. Symbian phone have sold around an average of 17+ million phones per quarter last year.