You need Delphi as much as you need.NET. Linux already have many languages and frameworks, all open source. Php, Python, Ruby, C/C++, Java, Qt, GTK+, etc.
Now if Borland would have open sourced Delphi and their frameworks, that would have been a different story. And don't tell me it would have not made sense. It's not 1960 any more when you can hope to make money with compilers and libraries. Eclipse, Netbeans, Java, Php, Python, Ruby, C/C++, Java, Qt, GTK+, are all open source. They contain way more "intellectual property" then Delphi.
You are so right. I meant of course MariaDB the fork of MySQL. I don't know why I wrote MaraDNS, maybe because they sound a-like. I'm sure one of the poster have corrected me already.
It's a shame that even Sun did not believed in the "Write Once Run Everywhere" of Java. They could have had something like Android years before of Google, in fact Google approached Sun to create Android together (see Oracle vs. Google). But instead Sun created JavaME.
The first release of Windows Home Server, RTM (Release to manufacturing), suffered from a file corruption flaw whereby files saved directly to or edited on shares on a WHS device could become corrupted.[29] Only the files that had NTFS Alternate Data Streams were susceptible to the flaw.[30] The flaw led to data corruption only when the server was under heavy load at the time when the file (with ADS) was being saved onto a share.[31]
What are the "good" engineering in Windows 8? You still can't delete opened/used files, you still can't open a file in multiple applications at the same time, chkfsk takes hours (compare that with fsck with takes seconds on 1.5TB RAID that I have). You still don't have a package manager, you still don't have anything useful in Windows pre-installed (like Python, Bash, Git, ssh, or a text editor (no notepad is a joke not a text editor)! No LVM support, no support for ext2/3/4 or btfs, no LUKS encryption. You still have the worst file manager ever (now I can't just drag&drop files and choose what I want copy/move/link)*
Can you please tell me anything new in Windows that is actually a benefit to the user? Anything except transparent windows.
* no really. I try to move a file from my USB to the hard disk. I try to drag&drop the file with the right mouse button and then to choose that I want to move the file. Windows tries to open the file with the file over the mouse cursor? WTF. I ask why I can't do that and the answer I get, use Control+X and Control-V.
you could always runs Window Maker, Sawfish, Enlightenment, Open Box, or one of many other window managers without a compositor.
I think I can just disable the compositor on KDE and re-enable it if I wish. Or does the author have a bias against KDE that he/she is not mentioned one of the most used Linux desktops?
RedHat and Suse are doing that just fine for thousand of packages. So do Debian and Canonical. It's called package repository and with the main package repository that contains applications like Apache, Bind, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and many more, they offer support and security updates.
They can do that because they have no limitations of copyright, because every copyright holder of the applications in the main package repositories agreed to that a third party can modify and distribute their applications. Also known as Open Source.
I don't know, but I think girlintraining are thinking like that kind of repository but for proprietary applications.
Nice quote. I think most of the people here did not reprinted anything in years. Also they would gladly pay 50 cents for every sheets they reprinted, zero times 50 cents equals zero after all.
denounced the printing press as "the Devil's Invention"
Then the MPAA and the RIAA is in good company, only about the Internet (oh and the video tape before that, and the CD before that, and the DVD before that).
... the author in all likelihood dead, but his heirs or other owners of the copyright may be difficult or even impossible to identify or find. The copyright term should be shorter."
Oh please we all know why copyright terms are continuously increased. Because of companies like Disney do not want to lose one of their most profitable franchise (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act). Also the MPAA, RIAA and the like do not want to compete with public domain work that are just 14 or 24 years old (which was the original copyright terms, and that in a time where the most advanced copy-machine was the printing press).
I just wait until 2019, in which year we get the Protect Mickey Mouse to the End Of the Universe Act of 2018, in which the copyright terms are increased to the life time of the sun, which is per definition limited to just a few billion years and as such in bounds of the constitution*. Of course it will not end in the USA, because of some "free trade" treaty the copyright terms will be all "aligned" across the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada.
Also just forget about your rights to privacy and due-process. Because Mickey Mouse is one of the most important national treasures, there is no freedom that can be sacrificed to ensure future profits. Personal computing is also overrated, to protect our artists we need to put everything in a walled garden with Trusted Computing Chips and open source operating systems will just be made impossible to install. We already put teenagers in jail for copyright infringement. Due-process is already gone for good, and who cares about privacy and guaranteed rights, like private copy and format shift? We just declare everyone a pirate, that's easier anyway.
So can we finally have a specification that is not bound to a specific implementation? Why in all what is good and holy, do we need the limitation of JavaScript? Just make a byte-language specification, just like the CLR or Java Byte-Code for the DOM stuff.
Then everyone are free to use Python, Ruby, Java or what else as a language, the browser needs only to interpret the Byte-Code that the language-compiler is producing (just like with Java and javac, where you can use any language you like to produce the Java byte-code).
If you are really worried about open source, then answer me this: What is the difference between this and byte-code? There is none, because both are not human-readable. So why not just to agree to a byte-code that interfaces the DOM and html5 and then we can use any language we like to generate the byte-code?
Wouldn't it be nice to fire up your favorite IDE or editor and just write Python or Ruby (or insert here your favorite language) for your web-page? But no, we just have to use JavaScript until the end of the universe.
PS: most browsers are compiling JavaScript to a byte-language anyway nowadays, because then they can optimize the byte-code so JS will run faster.
Can you elaborate why KDE should be a "joke"? because I'm using it every day since 4 years now. Gnome 3 is a joke that I agree, because it stays in your way while you try and get your job done. Xfce is for me to simple and the other Desktops I don't feel like to invest time to figure them out.
Compare please Windows 7 file explorer and Dolphin. Or the Windows 7 start menu and KDE start menu. Or the panels and widgets of KDE. I find the one in KDE way better, both in design and usefulness.
KDE is like Windows XP or Windows 7, but much more useful, and user friendly. OSes are not monolithic. In Linux you can change your desktop to what you like. Ubuntu Unity, Gnome 3, Gnome 2, KDE4, Xfce, Enlightenment, etc. It's only Windows that is monolithic in design, where you can't really change the Windows desktop to KDE4, for example (which I would very like do).
Who cares if Windows is liked or not. Half of the installs are coming on pre-installed whether you like it or not. The other half is coming from the businesses that have to upgrade because of finished support for Windows XP/Vista or 7. So it really don't matter how you like your Windows, in 5 years Microsoft will still have 80% market share of Windows 8.
Really, Microsoft have a monopoly on PCs and Laptops that comes from the a) Office format, b) games and c) applications. Microsoft can put one turd after another on the market, as long as it is compatible with the old Windows applications, it will be an instant hit (compare with the alternatives like Linux or MacOS).
What you want to choose as an alternative? MacOS, where half of your applications and games are not working (and costs double of that of PCs)? Linux, that you have to install yourself (plus the same problems of MacOS)?
So maybe, the anti-trust commission of EU or US should finally look at this grip of death, and should care less about the stupid choice of browsers.
I myself am using Linux now for 4 years exclusively on my laptops. Linux installation is finished in 10 minutes and if you enter in Google "Laptop xxxx Linux" then you can be sure that everything works before you buy the laptop. Also KDE is looking way better and is more functional that I have seen anything yet from Microsoft or Apple.
And why are you modded 0 and and not 5 insightful? The OP have a claim, the religious group have a counter-claim. You need to take it to a curt. Why artists always insists on some kind of special rights? If my neighbour steals my car I need to call the police and prove that it is indeed my car. If the neighbour somehow states that it's his car, I need to sue him first. So why artists are taking it for graded that some kind of magic fairy should come, swing her magic wand and resolve all copyright claims?
So Ubuntu/Canonical is now moving to make the PC a glorifying shopping mall? They are in good company, Google (Chrome OS), Mozilla (Firefox OS), Microsoft (Windows 8) and Apple are all moving in the same direction.
Now this Unity and Gnome 3 makes for me sense, because to present stuff like a products shelf in a super market the Unity and Gnome 3 desktops are very good, but not so good for getting stuff done (you know, like open multiple windows, and get out of my way while I work).
So I guess Linux with KDE4, Xfce or the other light weight desktops are the last bastion of General Purpose Personal Computers (aka PCs and Laptops). Who knows, in 10 years I have to install a server oriented Linux distribution like Redhat or CentOS to have my work done without the commercialization and the social stuff.
That is so stupid. The KDE4 menu is the best menu I ever saw, between Windows, Mac, and other Linux desktops.
You open the start menu and the first thing you see is "Favorites" with Firefox/Chrome or Konqueror as the browser, the Dolphin file manager, and something else I forget. The focused field is the search field, where you can just enter the name or the description of the application you want. Then you have it and can right click it to your favorites.
The next tab is "Applications" where you have, oh surprise, your applications. If you forget the name or what the application is for you can search it here by yourself.
The next is "Computer" where you have access to directories and settings. Recently used is very good as well, and Leave is where you leave. It is all pretty intuitive and it will not overload the user. Also it is click-less, meaning you do not have to click on the tabs.
Compare that please with Window's start menu. The Windows 95/XP menu is pretty useless because you can't search by name or description and the applications are sorted by the company name not by categories or names. The Windows Vista and 7 menu is overloaded with everything, plus it changes all the time (new installed apps wants always be there). There is "Recent", "Frequent", "Log Out", "Favorites" and Windows Explorer, Office, and Internet Explorer. It's like the Windows GUI designer were afraid that the users are too dump to find anything if it's not right there in one place.
Stop using comments as Bug-Tracker. We have Bug-Tracking software for that. Stop using comments for everything. I just counted from the Slashdot posts here what comments are all for: For Bug-Tracker, Documentation, Source Control System.
You need to understand that comments are only for one entity only: for the developer as a human. For the compiler comments are just non-existent. They don't have a syntax, they don't compile and they don't run. If you start writing a comment like: This algorithm must run in 50ms and needs to assume that corner-case and that issue. Then why are you not writing a test that ensures just that?
Just be true to yourself and just realize that you just being lazy. That's it. Maybe you don't have the time to write a test, maybe the code is a mess and you can't write a test without re-write the code or whatever. Bust stop making excuses.
You can use the language to hide things. Hide the code is not a language construct, it is an IDE "feature". The OOP brings everything you need: packages, classes and methods, inheritance and composition. If you want to hide code, why not just move the code in a new class and use composition. Because you are lazy again, that's it.
In Eclipse you even have a menu item for that. Just go to refactoring and chose extract class and Eclipse will do the rest for you.
I understand that sometimes you need to make ugly code, for what ever reason. And you better document that ugly code if it's not clear. But why you want to hide that ugly code I don't understand at all. Are you hiding your trash under your carped? Trash is ugly and you should see it every time you look at the code, so you see how ugly it is and maybe one day you say: enough if enough and I'm going to fix that ugly hack now.
Collapsed comments/code blocks are only make the ugly code disappear for the eyes, so nobody will care anymore. The result is, that it will be dragged on forever. And after 5 years you have hidden so much ugly hacks that the only solution is to re-write your whole application.
Another reason for collapsed blocks of code are often that a class or method gets so big, you need to collapse out code to have any oversight. But you can also very easy split a big class in multiple classes (composition) or split a big method into smaller. For example, if you have one big method, then you can very easy put that method in a new class and use composition.
No, that is for what tests are. Tests and a Version Control System for the old approaches.
You implement a solution, then you experience a bug for which you write a test case. Then you re-write your solution so the test passes. No need to write any comments, you have a test that documents the bug. Also in the future if you re-write the solution again, you are sure that you will not experience the same bug again.
Of course that approach means you have actually write a test and fix the bug. More easily is of course to write a comment like "Don't touch that, it's a corner case Foo that I experienced in 1988".
My opinion on hide or collapse stuff is very easy: it's a bad idea. Sooner or later developers will hide a lot of stuff, code, comments, it's like why it is a bad idea to hide stuff under the carped: clean up your room and not hide the dirt under the carpet.
"Intellectual Property" it's a legal term for a very broad category of protections. Like patents, copyrighted works, trademarks. Since we are talking here about copyrighted works, you can't just use the term IP. Also the common definition of property do not covers IP. You can't just say "property" if you are mean "intellectual property".
Anyone who does that wants only one: to remove the distinction between real property and "intellectual property". "intellectual property" is very different from a property. For example, a property you can steal or break, it's called theft and vandalism. For copyrighted works it's called copyright violation or infringement. Also you can't steal a copyrighted work.
Also a property belongs to you indefinitely. Copyright protection is limited and the works are go in the public domain.
The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
Re-use of non-text media
Where not otherwise noted, non-text media files are available under various free culture licenses, consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file.
Free Content License
A license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean:
the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
You are using red-herrings yourself. Why are you sharing your private pictures with a CC license in the first place? Why not just use no license at all and be protected by copyright? There is no point in using a CC-ND/NC if you are not want to share in the first place. Just use no license.
I'm a software developer and let me say that most software and libraries are intended to be used as-is. With the hundred libraries I have used not once I have modified the code. Libraries and applications are most used like art: they are part of something bigger. Like a puzzle that needs to be a complete picture, or lego blocks put together.
More then software, art is most useless as-is. I'm talking about icons and textures for software. That art is almost useless as-is, it always needs to be modified and if just to change the size.
The ND/NC clauses are a legal mind-field, just like software patents. Nobody can define exactly what a derivation is and what is commercial use is. Is re-sizing an icon a derivation? Is having Ads on your web-site commercial?
Slashdot Mirror
You need Delphi as much as you need .NET. Linux already have many languages and frameworks, all open source. Php, Python, Ruby, C/C++, Java, Qt, GTK+, etc.
Now if Borland would have open sourced Delphi and their frameworks, that would have been a different story. And don't tell me it would have not made sense. It's not 1960 any more when you can hope to make money with compilers and libraries.
Eclipse, Netbeans, Java, Php, Python, Ruby, C/C++, Java, Qt, GTK+, are all open source. They contain way more "intellectual property" then Delphi.
You are so right. I meant of course MariaDB the fork of MySQL. I don't know why I wrote MaraDNS, maybe because they sound a-like. I'm sure one of the poster have corrected me already.
It's a shame that even Sun did not believed in the "Write Once Run Everywhere" of Java.
They could have had something like Android years before of Google, in fact Google approached Sun to create Android together (see Oracle vs. Google). But instead Sun created JavaME.
Look here: MaraDNS. It is a fork of MySQL, incorporates all free available changes from MySQL and makes some improvements.
How about the Windows Home Server?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server#File_corruption
The first release of Windows Home Server, RTM (Release to manufacturing), suffered from a file corruption flaw whereby files saved directly to or edited on shares on a WHS device could become corrupted.[29] Only the files that had NTFS Alternate Data Streams were susceptible to the flaw.[30] The flaw led to data corruption only when the server was under heavy load at the time when the file (with ADS) was being saved onto a share.[31]
What are the "good" engineering in Windows 8? You still can't delete opened/used files, you still can't open a file in multiple applications at the same time, chkfsk takes hours (compare that with fsck with takes seconds on 1.5TB RAID that I have). You still don't have a package manager, you still don't have anything useful in Windows pre-installed (like Python, Bash, Git, ssh, or a text editor (no notepad is a joke not a text editor)! No LVM support, no support for ext2/3/4 or btfs, no LUKS encryption. You still have the worst file manager ever (now I can't just drag&drop files and choose what I want copy/move/link)*
Can you please tell me anything new in Windows that is actually a benefit to the user? Anything except transparent windows.
* no really. I try to move a file from my USB to the hard disk. I try to drag&drop the file with the right mouse button and then to choose that I want to move the file. Windows tries to open the file with the file over the mouse cursor? WTF. I ask why I can't do that and the answer I get, use Control+X and Control-V.
Does KDE requires OpenGL support now as well?
you could always runs Window Maker, Sawfish, Enlightenment, Open Box, or one of many other window managers without a compositor.
I think I can just disable the compositor on KDE and re-enable it if I wish. Or does the author have a bias against KDE that he/she is not mentioned one of the most used Linux desktops?
Don't you have a scroll bar that indicates how many content your can scroll and where in the document you are?
RedHat and Suse are doing that just fine for thousand of packages. So do Debian and Canonical. It's called package repository and with the main package repository that contains applications like Apache, Bind, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and many more, they offer support and security updates.
They can do that because they have no limitations of copyright, because every copyright holder of the applications in the main package repositories agreed to that a third party can modify and distribute their applications. Also known as Open Source.
I don't know, but I think girlintraining are thinking like that kind of repository but for proprietary applications.
Nice quote. I think most of the people here did not reprinted anything in years. Also they would gladly pay 50 cents for every sheets they reprinted, zero times 50 cents equals zero after all.
Wow nobody have posted that before? I'm so disappointed in slashdot right now.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody
denounced the printing press as "the Devil's Invention"
Then the MPAA and the RIAA is in good company, only about the Internet (oh and the video tape before that, and the CD before that, and the DVD before that).
... the author in all likelihood dead, but his heirs or other owners of the copyright may be difficult or even impossible to identify or find. The copyright term should be shorter."
Oh please we all know why copyright terms are continuously increased. Because of companies like Disney do not want to lose one of their most profitable franchise (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act). Also the MPAA, RIAA and the like do not want to compete with public domain work that are just 14 or 24 years old (which was the original copyright terms, and that in a time where the most advanced copy-machine was the printing press).
I just wait until 2019, in which year we get the Protect Mickey Mouse to the End Of the Universe Act of 2018, in which the copyright terms are increased to the life time of the sun, which is per definition limited to just a few billion years and as such in bounds of the constitution*. Of course it will not end in the USA, because of some "free trade" treaty the copyright terms will be all "aligned" across the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada.
Also just forget about your rights to privacy and due-process. Because Mickey Mouse is one of the most important national treasures, there is no freedom that can be sacrificed to ensure future profits. Personal computing is also overrated, to protect our artists we need to put everything in a walled garden with Trusted Computing Chips and open source operating systems will just be made impossible to install. We already put teenagers in jail for copyright infringement. Due-process is already gone for good, and who cares about privacy and guaranteed rights, like private copy and format shift? We just declare everyone a pirate, that's easier anyway.
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So can we finally have a specification that is not bound to a specific implementation? Why in all what is good and holy, do we need the limitation of JavaScript? Just make a byte-language specification, just like the CLR or Java Byte-Code for the DOM stuff.
Then everyone are free to use Python, Ruby, Java or what else as a language, the browser needs only to interpret the Byte-Code that the language-compiler is producing (just like with Java and javac, where you can use any language you like to produce the Java byte-code).
If you are really worried about open source, then answer me this: What is the difference between this and byte-code? There is none, because both are not human-readable. So why not just to agree to a byte-code that interfaces the DOM and html5 and then we can use any language we like to generate the byte-code?
Wouldn't it be nice to fire up your favorite IDE or editor and just write Python or Ruby (or insert here your favorite language) for your web-page? But no, we just have to use JavaScript until the end of the universe.
PS: most browsers are compiling JavaScript to a byte-language anyway nowadays, because then they can optimize the byte-code so JS will run faster.
Can you elaborate why KDE should be a "joke"? because I'm using it every day since 4 years now. Gnome 3 is a joke that I agree, because it stays in your way while you try and get your job done. Xfce is for me to simple and the other Desktops I don't feel like to invest time to figure them out.
Compare please Windows 7 file explorer and Dolphin. Or the Windows 7 start menu and KDE start menu. Or the panels and widgets of KDE. I find the one in KDE way better, both in design and usefulness.
KDE is like Windows XP or Windows 7, but much more useful, and user friendly.
OSes are not monolithic. In Linux you can change your desktop to what you like. Ubuntu Unity, Gnome 3, Gnome 2, KDE4, Xfce, Enlightenment, etc. It's only Windows that is monolithic in design, where you can't really change the Windows desktop to KDE4, for example (which I would very like do).
Who cares if Windows is liked or not. Half of the installs are coming on pre-installed whether you like it or not. The other half is coming from the businesses that have to upgrade because of finished support for Windows XP/Vista or 7. So it really don't matter how you like your Windows, in 5 years Microsoft will still have 80% market share of Windows 8.
Really, Microsoft have a monopoly on PCs and Laptops that comes from the a) Office format, b) games and c) applications. Microsoft can put one turd after another on the market, as long as it is compatible with the old Windows applications, it will be an instant hit (compare with the alternatives like Linux or MacOS).
What you want to choose as an alternative? MacOS, where half of your applications and games are not working (and costs double of that of PCs)? Linux, that you have to install yourself (plus the same problems of MacOS)?
So maybe, the anti-trust commission of EU or US should finally look at this grip of death, and should care less about the stupid choice of browsers.
I myself am using Linux now for 4 years exclusively on my laptops. Linux installation is finished in 10 minutes and if you enter in Google "Laptop xxxx Linux" then you can be sure that everything works before you buy the laptop. Also KDE is looking way better and is more functional that I have seen anything yet from Microsoft or Apple.
And why are you modded 0 and and not 5 insightful? The OP have a claim, the religious group have a counter-claim. You need to take it to a curt. Why artists always insists on some kind of special rights? If my neighbour steals my car I need to call the police and prove that it is indeed my car. If the neighbour somehow states that it's his car, I need to sue him first. So why artists are taking it for graded that some kind of magic fairy should come, swing her magic wand and resolve all copyright claims?
So Ubuntu/Canonical is now moving to make the PC a glorifying shopping mall? They are in good company, Google (Chrome OS), Mozilla (Firefox OS), Microsoft (Windows 8) and Apple are all moving in the same direction.
Now this Unity and Gnome 3 makes for me sense, because to present stuff like a products shelf in a super market the Unity and Gnome 3 desktops are very good, but not so good for getting stuff done (you know, like open multiple windows, and get out of my way while I work).
So I guess Linux with KDE4, Xfce or the other light weight desktops are the last bastion of General Purpose Personal Computers (aka PCs and Laptops). Who knows, in 10 years I have to install a server oriented Linux distribution like Redhat or CentOS to have my work done without the commercialization and the social stuff.
That is so stupid. The KDE4 menu is the best menu I ever saw, between Windows, Mac, and other Linux desktops.
You open the start menu and the first thing you see is "Favorites" with Firefox/Chrome or Konqueror as the browser, the Dolphin file manager, and something else I forget. The focused field is the search field, where you can just enter the name or the description of the application you want. Then you have it and can right click it to your favorites.
The next tab is "Applications" where you have, oh surprise, your applications. If you forget the name or what the application is for you can search it here by yourself.
The next is "Computer" where you have access to directories and settings. Recently used is very good as well, and Leave is where you leave. It is all pretty intuitive and it will not overload the user. Also it is click-less, meaning you do not have to click on the tabs.
Compare that please with Window's start menu. The Windows 95/XP menu is pretty useless because you can't search by name or description and the applications are sorted by the company name not by categories or names. The Windows Vista and 7 menu is overloaded with everything, plus it changes all the time (new installed apps wants always be there). There is "Recent", "Frequent", "Log Out", "Favorites" and Windows Explorer, Office, and Internet Explorer. It's like the Windows GUI designer were afraid that the users are too dump to find anything if it's not right there in one place.
Stop using comments as Bug-Tracker. We have Bug-Tracking software for that. Stop using comments for everything. I just counted from the Slashdot posts here what comments are all for: For Bug-Tracker, Documentation, Source Control System.
You need to understand that comments are only for one entity only: for the developer as a human. For the compiler comments are just non-existent. They don't have a syntax, they don't compile and they don't run. If you start writing a comment like: This algorithm must run in 50ms and needs to assume that corner-case and that issue. Then why are you not writing a test that ensures just that?
Just be true to yourself and just realize that you just being lazy. That's it. Maybe you don't have the time to write a test, maybe the code is a mess and you can't write a test without re-write the code or whatever. Bust stop making excuses.
You can use the language to hide things. Hide the code is not a language construct, it is an IDE "feature". The OOP brings everything you need: packages, classes and methods, inheritance and composition. If you want to hide code, why not just move the code in a new class and use composition. Because you are lazy again, that's it.
In Eclipse you even have a menu item for that. Just go to refactoring and chose extract class and Eclipse will do the rest for you.
I understand that sometimes you need to make ugly code, for what ever reason. And you better document that ugly code if it's not clear. But why you want to hide that ugly code I don't understand at all. Are you hiding your trash under your carped? Trash is ugly and you should see it every time you look at the code, so you see how ugly it is and maybe one day you say: enough if enough and I'm going to fix that ugly hack now.
Collapsed comments/code blocks are only make the ugly code disappear for the eyes, so nobody will care anymore. The result is, that it will be dragged on forever. And after 5 years you have hidden so much ugly hacks that the only solution is to re-write your whole application.
Another reason for collapsed blocks of code are often that a class or method gets so big, you need to collapse out code to have any oversight. But you can also very easy split a big class in multiple classes (composition) or split a big method into smaller. For example, if you have one big method, then you can very easy put that method in a new class and use composition.
No, that is for what tests are. Tests and a Version Control System for the old approaches.
You implement a solution, then you experience a bug for which you write a test case. Then you re-write your solution so the test passes. No need to write any comments, you have a test that documents the bug. Also in the future if you re-write the solution again, you are sure that you will not experience the same bug again.
Of course that approach means you have actually write a test and fix the bug. More easily is of course to write a comment like "Don't touch that, it's a corner case Foo that I experienced in 1988".
My opinion on hide or collapse stuff is very easy: it's a bad idea. Sooner or later developers will hide a lot of stuff, code, comments, it's like why it is a bad idea to hide stuff under the carped: clean up your room and not hide the dirt under the carpet.
"Intellectual Property" it's a legal term for a very broad category of protections. Like patents, copyrighted works, trademarks. Since we are talking here about copyrighted works, you can't just use the term IP. Also the common definition of property do not covers IP. You can't just say "property" if you are mean "intellectual property".
Anyone who does that wants only one: to remove the distinction between real property and "intellectual property". "intellectual property" is very different from a property. For example, a property you can steal or break, it's called theft and vandalism. For copyrighted works it's called copyright violation or infringement. Also you can't steal a copyrighted work.
Also a property belongs to you indefinitely. Copyright protection is limited and the works are go in the public domain.
What are you talking about? Art and text of Wikipedia are licensed under the CC-SA-Attribution. There is no ND/NC restriction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses. Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
Re-use of non-text media
Where not otherwise noted, non-text media files are available under various free culture licenses, consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Free Content License
A license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean:
the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
You are using red-herrings yourself. Why are you sharing your private pictures with a CC license in the first place? Why not just use no license at all and be protected by copyright? There is no point in using a CC-ND/NC if you are not want to share in the first place. Just use no license.
I'm a software developer and let me say that most software and libraries are intended to be used as-is. With the hundred libraries I have used not once I have modified the code. Libraries and applications are most used like art: they are part of something bigger. Like a puzzle that needs to be a complete picture, or lego blocks put together.
More then software, art is most useless as-is. I'm talking about icons and textures for software. That art is almost useless as-is, it always needs to be modified and if just to change the size.
The ND/NC clauses are a legal mind-field, just like software patents. Nobody can define exactly what a derivation is and what is commercial use is. Is re-sizing an icon a derivation? Is having Ads on your web-site commercial?