That parts are not "large" parts of.NET. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework >It also features a subset of the.NET base class libraries (about 70 classes with about 420 methods), a GUI framework loosely based on Windows Presentation Foundation, and additional libraries specific to embedded applications. The whole.NET micro have just 320KBytes.
> If you've only seen hardware issues it is only because you're a newb.
Fair enough, as I said I started with Ubuntu 6 or 7. Or maybe, because I'm just a normal desktop user who like that his system just works and don't get in my way like WindowsXP does it all the time.
But I am, as the buyer of a camera, not an "end-user". The end-users are the camera producer, who need the codec to encode their data. I'm the end-user of the camera I buy.
My understanding is that the camera producers are violating the license agreement because they are clearly using the codec in a commercial way and need a commercially license.
I, as the user of the camera, don't need or care about the codec used internal in the camera. I'm only concern about the codec if I need to watch or decode the video, but since I'm buying a video player software I'm not using their codec directly either. The end-user for the decoder is the producer of the player software, not me.
In conclusion, I'm never using their codec, neither for encoding nor for decoding. I'm using a camera which happens to use internal their codec but normally I have no knowledge about what codec is used.
The only way I should be concern with their license is if I'm writing my own library or application that uses their codec to encode or decode videos.
The only difficulties I had with Linux were all hardware related, the lack of drivers.
I had more the interface, like Gnome or KDE and the applications in mind. Like the utilisation of the mouse and keyboard, management of files, the 3D effects with compiz or kwin, etc. Furthermore, the "slimness" (i.e. you have the whole system plus applications in 4GB), the stability and speed of the system. The default applications are more user friendly than the Windows counterparts, too. Last but not least, the package management.
All this things are far more superior than anything I ever saw in Windows, and I have been using Windows since the 3.11 times. But I must say, I started using Linux first with Ubuntu 6.x and I didn't liked it. But since the more recent versions I'll never change back to Windows, except for the games. Linux, as a desktop system, is really starting to mature now and beginning to innovate. If there were only more hardware drivers and more commitment to the Linux system from the OEMs.
How does it make any sense? Isn't it the camera manufacture that needs a commercial license to use their codec in their commercial product, i.e. the camera? Without a codec the camera can't do anything, it is not useful. It's like a calculator producer ships his calculators with a software but the customer don't get a commercial license with it, so he can't use the calculator in his business.
I'm using the camera not their codec. The camera gives me a video, which I can decode to watch, or decode to raw data and encode it to any other video codec. And a license to decode I'll get with the software that I buy. How can they restrict what I can do without me ever using their codec to encode anything?
It makes sense. Like, it's free and secure, no cost and no viruses. And in my opinion, it's just more user friendlier than Windows, the system and both Gnome and KDE.
In addition, uou won't be bothered with re-activiation or with re-installations. Just keep your snapshot of Windows and if something happens, revert it.
Of course, you can keep your Linux snapshot and if something happens revert to it. But it's just a fact that nothing will happen to your Linux system. No re-activation because of new motherboard, no virus or trojan, no cluttering up the system. So it makes more sense to have Windows in a VM with a snapshot to revert to.
> Yeah, it's great, which is why I run Windows in a VM on Linux. I keep a snapshot of a working XP virtual disk handy.
I just was thinking as I read the GP post, I get with Linux a lot of free software, many of them are unmatched in Windows and for the few applications that are Windows-only, I have VirtualBox. Thanks to my school, btw., because they insisted that we have to use ASP.net and Visual Studio.
I favour anyone who can build and deliver a laptop with 12 hours battery live. In addition, a low power ARM server for office work (small and middle enterprise) is a nice to have, too.
I think most users don't give a piece if it's x86 or ARM, as long as their applications are running and it's a good deal. I, for myself, am really glad finally see any innovation in desktop CPUs. I thought in 20 years we will still be using x86 compatible CPUs.
Why he expects that they are going to play ".., violent games, games with a lot of sexual or drug content."? It's like a school proposing to go on a day trip with the class and a parent is worried that they are gonna be somewhere violent and have a lot of sex and drugs, because that is so usual on day trips.
I played a lot of games and I never got a game with violent, sex and drugs in the store. In what world does he live?
At last, why is he putting FPS games and ".. violent games, games with a lot of sexual or drug content" in one pot?
I used to try to format 3½ floppy disks with bigger capacities, i.e. 2.88 MB. Used to use a cool DOS application, which can show information for every sector, i.e. is it formatted, damaged, etc. Took me 30 min or more to watch it try to format and maybe fail.
Now I have 16GB and more USB sticks which take under 1 min to format to ext4.
I should add that a person further down offered a better analogy, having to do with telephone companies. You can look at his post, and then apply the same logic to the postal service, courier companies, public-access television networks, and a variety of other situations in which we wouldn't dream of holding the information provider responsible for the veracity of the information being relayed.
I'm pretty sure that the ISPs aren't prosecuted but Google. Which would be your example, the ISPs are more like a telephone company and Google more like the caller/called. If I call somebody and insult him or tell him threads than not the ISPs are prosecuted, but me.
Google is making a service available, so they are responsible for it's service. If I would make a public service available with a phone (like public forum, only with audio) and open it to everyone to post audio comments, I would be responsible not the telephone company.
The two examples are completely wrong. A better example is if I put a big white board on one side of my building and tell everyone to pick up a pen and write messages on it.
A wall is not suppose to have graffiti on it and the one painting messages on a wall is committing a crime. But if you open a forum which is public for everyone your intent is that everyone is leaving a message.
If you really using MS products you can't change to something else. If it weren't for open source software, you couldn't switch to OpenOffice.org, you couldn't access files on Windows with a Mac. There were no way that Firefox became a real competitor to IE if the code of Mozilla wasn't opened up.
My tangible long term issue which closed source software is that you never end the upgrade path. Need a new Windows? - You need a faster computer. Need a new Office CD? - You need to buy the latest Office version. Nero Burning was once a neat and easy to use burning application. Now it's over 300 Megabytes big.
You can't switch applications. You don't like the ribbon menu in Office2007? Touch luck, you don't have a choice. Windows7 can't use your printer or scanner from 5 years ago? Go get a new one. Nvidia don't write new driver for your 5 years old card for Windows7? You need to get a new one for 100$.
I think we can be thankful for OSS for a lot of things, but of course the normal people would never know because there are no ads on the TV for it.
I think you mean, how well locking in and marketing can be. I personally wouldn't care for MS at all, and would like to use some of their products, if they would use open standards. If I would know that I can safety use their products and can switch to a better alternative.
But because the case with MS is the exact opposite, I try to avoid anything MS related at all cost. OSS is really good and I prefer open source software but a open standards is a little bit more important to the consumer, I think.
You can touch a physical process or a machine. You can't touch some wave functions that are written on a piece of paper.
A patent was always about something you can show and touch, but software is math, which is just some algorithms written somewhere. Only because you can write the algorithms on a computer and make a computer calculate it doesn't mean that the computer will become a device that you can patent.
In the same way, if you write an algorithm on a piece of paper and make a human calculate it in his head doesn't mean that the human is a new device which is patentable.
To make my point clear on your example. If you build a machine, you can patent it. But if you write a formulae which describes the machine as a series of complex particle wave functions on a piece of paper you can't patent it. Because I can calculate the wave functions in my head, by a calculator or with a computer. What are you claiming in your patent, all current and future ways of calculating your wave functions?
That is basically what software patents are. They claiming all current and in the future possible ways of implementing an algorithm.
The line between math, algorithms, software and patentable things are pretty clear. It's only not clear if you try to define software as not been math (which is certainly is) to protect your "intellectual property".
Is the formula to calculate the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter obvious? Neither is E=MC2 obvious, but no algorithm can be patented. Why should be an algorithm for video compression be patentable?
Only because you implement it in software and you run it on a general purpose computer, you argue it should be patentable. So you can implement the calculation of PI and E=MC2 in software and run it on a general purpose computer.
Software are mathematical algorithms, nothing more. It's just that you write the software in a so called "language" and you have multiple languages in which you can express the algorithm. But in the end is all goes down to the work of Turing and his Turing machines.
You don't want Java, you want a completely different language. So, why are you using Java in the first place?
You want a magical language, which combines the advantages of at least Erlang, Ruby and C++.
Btw, verbosity is sometimes a good thing, also backwards compatibility is in a industrial/enterprise used language like Java a must. See C or C++ for example, what it takes to add a new feature.
If you want/need dynamic typing (for example for rapid development) just use Ruby, Python, JavaScript, etc. With JRuby/Jython you can it with Java easily.
Java is in it's constrains a good, solid language. More, with the JVM you can implement all your favorite languages and create easy to use binding between them and the Java API.
Well, Java isn't a functional programming language and is strong typed. The same is valid then for C, C++ and C#. As I said, with closures it will be much better. Hopefully they will be implemented.
As for the libraries, maybe you using the wrong ones? Compare for example Ammentos ORM library (Java) with OPF3 (C#). Annotations are a very good feature, I wouldn't use a library now that don't utilizing them.
I don't get it, why you want the java language to die? I programming Java now for 4 years and the only thing I'm missing are closures.
The core of Java is very robust, you have class, enums and interfaces. Generics are do what they are suppose to do (and they are backwards compatible). Threading is integrated in the Java with synchronized and the threading API. In addition, Java have neat features like annotations and anonymous classes.
Reflection is very easy to use, but the exception model is perhaps debatable.
The tools and the libraries are top class. Maven is my favorite killer-tool for Java.
If Java get closures, what are you missing in Java? It's maybe not the future but Java is a very robust and consistent language.
Slashdot Mirror
That parts are not "large" parts of .NET. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework
.NET base class libraries (about 70 classes with about 420 methods), a GUI framework loosely based on Windows Presentation Foundation, and additional libraries specific to embedded applications. .NET micro have just 320KBytes.
>It also features a subset of the
The whole
> If you've only seen hardware issues it is only because you're a newb.
Fair enough, as I said I started with Ubuntu 6 or 7. Or maybe, because I'm just a normal desktop user who like that his system just works and don't get in my way like WindowsXP does it all the time.
But I am, as the buyer of a camera, not an "end-user". The end-users are the camera producer, who need the codec to encode their data. I'm the end-user of the camera I buy.
My understanding is that the camera producers are violating the license agreement because they are clearly using the codec in a commercial way and need a commercially license.
I, as the user of the camera, don't need or care about the codec used internal in the camera. I'm only concern about the codec if I need to watch or decode the video, but since I'm buying a video player software I'm not using their codec directly either. The end-user for the decoder is the producer of the player software, not me.
In conclusion, I'm never using their codec, neither for encoding nor for decoding. I'm using a camera which happens to use internal their codec but normally I have no knowledge about what codec is used.
The only way I should be concern with their license is if I'm writing my own library or application that uses their codec to encode or decode videos.
The only difficulties I had with Linux were all hardware related, the lack of drivers.
I had more the interface, like Gnome or KDE and the applications in mind. Like the utilisation of the mouse and keyboard, management of files, the 3D effects with compiz or kwin, etc. Furthermore, the "slimness" (i.e. you have the whole system plus applications in 4GB), the stability and speed of the system. The default applications are more user friendly than the Windows counterparts, too. Last but not least, the package management.
All this things are far more superior than anything I ever saw in Windows, and I have been using Windows since the 3.11 times. But I must say, I started using Linux first with Ubuntu 6.x and I didn't liked it. But since the more recent versions I'll never change back to Windows, except for the games. Linux, as a desktop system, is really starting to mature now and beginning to innovate. If there were only more hardware drivers and more commitment to the Linux system from the OEMs.
How does it make any sense? Isn't it the camera manufacture that needs a commercial license to use their codec in their commercial product, i.e. the camera? Without a codec the camera can't do anything, it is not useful.
It's like a calculator producer ships his calculators with a software but the customer don't get a commercial license with it, so he can't use the calculator in his business.
I'm using the camera not their codec. The camera gives me a video, which I can decode to watch, or decode to raw data and encode it to any other video codec. And a license to decode I'll get with the software that I buy. How can they restrict what I can do without me ever using their codec to encode anything?
It makes sense. Like, it's free and secure, no cost and no viruses. And in my opinion, it's just more user friendlier than Windows, the system and both Gnome and KDE.
In addition, uou won't be bothered with re-activiation or with re-installations. Just keep your snapshot of Windows and if something happens, revert it.
Of course, you can keep your Linux snapshot and if something happens revert to it. But it's just a fact that nothing will happen to your Linux system. No re-activation because of new motherboard, no virus or trojan, no cluttering up the system. So it makes more sense to have Windows in a VM with a snapshot to revert to.
Aren't Ghost and Clonezilla Live CDs? I know, Clonezilla is a LiveCD, which was the point of the GP post.
> Yeah, it's great, which is why I run Windows in a VM on Linux. I keep a snapshot of a working XP virtual disk handy.
I just was thinking as I read the GP post, I get with Linux a lot of free software, many of them are unmatched in Windows and for the few applications that are Windows-only, I have VirtualBox. Thanks to my school, btw., because they insisted that we have to use ASP.net and Visual Studio.
Since when is SF pre-installed? Wouldn't it be a great security risk for everyone and wouldn't it be an anti-trust case, like with IE?
I favour anyone who can build and deliver a laptop with 12 hours battery live. In addition, a low power ARM server for office work (small and middle enterprise) is a nice to have, too. I think most users don't give a piece if it's x86 or ARM, as long as their applications are running and it's a good deal. I, for myself, am really glad finally see any innovation in desktop CPUs. I thought in 20 years we will still be using x86 compatible CPUs.
Why he expects that they are going to play ".., violent games, games with a lot of sexual or drug content."? It's like a school proposing to go on a day trip with the class and a parent is worried that they are gonna be somewhere violent and have a lot of sex and drugs, because that is so usual on day trips.
I played a lot of games and I never got a game with violent, sex and drugs in the store. In what world does he live?
At last, why is he putting FPS games and ".. violent games, games with a lot of sexual or drug content" in one pot?
I used to try to format 3½ floppy disks with bigger capacities, i.e. 2.88 MB. Used to use a cool DOS application, which can show information for every sector, i.e. is it formatted, damaged, etc. Took me 30 min or more to watch it try to format and maybe fail.
Now I have 16GB and more USB sticks which take under 1 min to format to ext4.
I should add that a person further down offered a better analogy, having to do with telephone companies. You can look at his post, and then apply the same logic to the postal service, courier companies, public-access television networks, and a variety of other situations in which we wouldn't dream of holding the information provider responsible for the veracity of the information being relayed.
I'm pretty sure that the ISPs aren't prosecuted but Google. Which would be your example, the ISPs are more like a telephone company and Google more like the caller/called. If I call somebody and insult him or tell him threads than not the ISPs are prosecuted, but me.
Google is making a service available, so they are responsible for it's service. If I would make a public service available with a phone (like public forum, only with audio) and open it to everyone to post audio comments, I would be responsible not the telephone company.
Is slashdot on Freenet?
The two examples are completely wrong. A better example is if I put a big white board on one side of my building and tell everyone to pick up a pen and write messages on it.
A wall is not suppose to have graffiti on it and the one painting messages on a wall is committing a crime. But if you open a forum which is public for everyone your intent is that everyone is leaving a message.
If you really using MS products you can't change to something else. If it weren't for open source software, you couldn't switch to OpenOffice.org, you couldn't access files on Windows with a Mac. There were no way that Firefox became a real competitor to IE if the code of Mozilla wasn't opened up.
My tangible long term issue which closed source software is that you never end the upgrade path. Need a new Windows? - You need a faster computer. Need a new Office CD? - You need to buy the latest Office version. Nero Burning was once a neat and easy to use burning application. Now it's over 300 Megabytes big.
You can't switch applications. You don't like the ribbon menu in Office2007? Touch luck, you don't have a choice. Windows7 can't use your printer or scanner from 5 years ago? Go get a new one. Nvidia don't write new driver for your 5 years old card for Windows7? You need to get a new one for 100$.
I think we can be thankful for OSS for a lot of things, but of course the normal people would never know because there are no ads on the TV for it.
I think you mean, how well locking in and marketing can be. I personally wouldn't care for MS at all, and would like to use some of their products, if they would use open standards. If I would know that I can safety use their products and can switch to a better alternative.
But because the case with MS is the exact opposite, I try to avoid anything MS related at all cost. OSS is really good and I prefer open source software but a open standards is a little bit more important to the consumer, I think.
You can touch a physical process or a machine. You can't touch some wave functions that are written on a piece of paper.
A patent was always about something you can show and touch, but software is math, which is just some algorithms written somewhere. Only because you can write the algorithms on a computer and make a computer calculate it doesn't mean that the computer will become a device that you can patent.
In the same way, if you write an algorithm on a piece of paper and make a human calculate it in his head doesn't mean that the human is a new device which is patentable.
To make my point clear on your example. If you build a machine, you can patent it. But if you write a formulae which describes the machine as a series of complex particle wave functions on a piece of paper you can't patent it. Because I can calculate the wave functions in my head, by a calculator or with a computer. What are you claiming in your patent, all current and future ways of calculating your wave functions?
That is basically what software patents are. They claiming all current and in the future possible ways of implementing an algorithm.
The line between math, algorithms, software and patentable things are pretty clear. It's only not clear if you try to define software as not been math (which is certainly is) to protect your "intellectual property".
Is the formula to calculate the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter obvious? Neither is E=MC2 obvious, but no algorithm can be patented. Why should be an algorithm for video compression be patentable?
Only because you implement it in software and you run it on a general purpose computer, you argue it should be patentable. So you can implement the calculation of PI and E=MC2 in software and run it on a general purpose computer.
Software are mathematical algorithms, nothing more. It's just that you write the software in a so called "language" and you have multiple languages in which you can express the algorithm. But in the end is all goes down to the work of Turing and his Turing machines.
I have a PC. Will it run on it, too? Btw, my PC have Ubuntu Linux but since Lightwork will run on a PC it shouldn't be a problem?
Gorge Lukas ruined SW for me with Episode I. The Force is nothing more then some micro critters swimming in your blood.
You don't want Java, you want a completely different language. So, why are you using Java in the first place?
You want a magical language, which combines the advantages of at least Erlang, Ruby and C++.
Btw, verbosity is sometimes a good thing, also backwards compatibility is in a industrial/enterprise used language like Java a must. See C or C++ for example, what it takes to add a new feature.
If you want/need dynamic typing (for example for rapid development) just use Ruby, Python, JavaScript, etc. With JRuby/Jython you can it with Java easily.
Java is in it's constrains a good, solid language. More, with the JVM you can implement all your favorite languages and create easy to use binding between them and the Java API.
Well, Java isn't a functional programming language and is strong typed. The same is valid then for C, C++ and C#. As I said, with closures it will be much better. Hopefully they will be implemented.
As for the libraries, maybe you using the wrong ones? Compare for example Ammentos ORM library (Java) with OPF3 (C#). Annotations are a very good feature, I wouldn't use a library now that don't utilizing them.
I don't get it, why you want the java language to die? I programming Java now for 4 years and the only thing I'm missing are closures.
The core of Java is very robust, you have class, enums and interfaces. Generics are do what they are suppose to do (and they are backwards compatible). Threading is integrated in the Java with synchronized and the threading API. In addition, Java have neat features like annotations and anonymous classes.
Reflection is very easy to use, but the exception model is perhaps debatable.
The tools and the libraries are top class. Maven is my favorite killer-tool for Java.
If Java get closures, what are you missing in Java? It's maybe not the future but Java is a very robust and consistent language.
Why not just rdiff-backup? rdiff-backup.nongnu.org