No kidding. First they have "COM" - which is useless as a search term, then they follow that up with ".net". How wonderfully attuned to the world around them. My next project goes one better though, it's called "and" STFW for details.
...or you could have money saved up. Some of us work hard not to live paycheck to paycheck. That's why I was able to confidently leave my last job and enjoy a year at home with wife and kids and fun projects, (ok, and some occasional consulting work), before bothering with looking for work.
> Right. So by that logic, you can write OO code in > machine language. (Which you can't, by the by; no > processor on the market today has a "frob this > object" command in its opcodes.)
Hmm, so when your C++ code is converted to machine code, it suddenly stops being object oriented? Interesting.
> it makes absolutely no sense to say "well, you > can do OO in any language." Sure you can. All > Turing-complete languages are equivalent. But at > that point, why don't you go back to machine > code? That's Turing-complete, too.
Wait, so you're saying it makes no sense... and then you're saying it yourself, and then you are contradicting your opening statement...
> you need to compare dpkg to RPM, and apt-get to YUM.
I'd like to compare apt-get to yum, or rather contrast them. Apt is quite fast, but yum seems to take forever for even the simplest operations while sucking up huge amounts of RAM. apt is almost instantaneous on old P1 boxes, but I have to pull up top to convince myself that yum hasn't just died on much faster boxes.
What gives? Why is yum the installer for fedora? Is there some reason why yum is teh awesome and I'm just not getting it?
One of the things that has always annoyed me is how bad the administration tools for LDAP are. My preferred method for quite a while was to keep an LDIF laying around that I would edit and import with slapadd. Not a beautiful solution.
I have since created an LDAP admin tool that doesn't have a strange obsession with DN's, doesn't make you specify UIDNumbers, and generally tries not to suck.
It is also (to my knowledge) the only LDAP admin tool that will manage your Kerberos principals alongside your LDAP users (if you're into that sort of thing). Anyhow, enough of my blathering, check it out: (http://edsadmin.sf.net).
The next step of my Grand Vision is EDSRealmAssistant, which currently auto-configures samba+ldap, and will in the future do the whole LDAP+SAMBA+KRB5+DNS+DHCP shebang that everyone wants but is too lazy to set up:-)
Yeah, I realize that. I don't think it would be an improvement though:-). The thing that's annoying is that you have to create a new class for every event handler (i.e. no function pointers).
I don't misunderstand you at all. I challenge your very narrow definition of "cross-platform." It seems like your definition requires a guarantee that all future versions of mono will always have complete feature parity with.net.
By your definition, Java is not cross platform because Sun's JVM doesn't support GCJ's CNI.
It's not a.so though. No more so than a perl module (.pm) or a python module (.py) is. The term "shared object" has an actual meaning, and renaming things doesn't automatically make them more unixy:-)
It seems strange that your questions do not actually have anything to do with the statement you quoted...
If I can write an application on linux under mono, and run it on windows under mono, would that count as cross-platform? I have done that. So have others.
How would future versions of MS' product change the state of the current mono implementation?
As someone who is a big fan of Python and uses it almost exclusively, I can say that the static typing of C# and Java has one big advantage. It's not better bug detection at compile time, or some nebulous concept of "enterprise readiness", it's intelligent IDEs with autocompletion etc.
I prefer GvR's ideas about static typing for Python 3000 better (basically, all type checking is done via interfaces), but it doesn't actually exist yet:-).
From my brief poking at both java and c# for gui programming, the difference that strikes me most is the incessant need in java to create anonymous classes for event handling:
addHandler(new eventHandler() {
public void yaddaYadda(EventThingie e) {
}
});
As opposed to c#'s typical method:
clicked += clickedEvent; ... } public void clickedEvent(object o, EventArgs e) {
}
I know it is not a huge difference, but I much prefer c#'s method.
So if I'm at a restaurant in France and I ask for a Coke, and the waitress says "Is Pepsi ok?" the restaurant could be liable? Perhaps you shouldn't care about the US disagreeing as much about it being stupid...
Let's assume that you are right (I don't believe that you are, but for the sake of argument). Wouldn't everyone be better served if no one had such a high market share, thus relegating every operating system to only-mildly-interesting status?
Regarding Java on Debian: your post is pretty uninformed. It is Sun, not Debian, who prevents Debian from shipping Sun's Java. Even so, there are numerous packages in Debian main which require Java, and java-package will turn Sun's.bin linux installer into a Debian package.
You'll have to explain what "never designed to work with java" even means. It doesn't sound like a meaningful phrase at all.
(Sorry to get offtopic here)
Regarding publishing illegal, patent infringing software for MP3s, the tradeoff would be that Debian would lose all its mirrors, making Debian available from only those hosts who are either unaffected by, or unmindful of patent laws. Here's a note that people rarely make regarding MP3 en/decoders: **The GPL cannot usefully be applied to MP3 encoders/decoders** and if it is, then that software is effectively non-distributable.
From the GPL section 7:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all
LGPL'ed software falls under the same thing (section 11).
-Mark
Re:They're overhyping a bit, aren't they?
on
Firefox In Print
·
· Score: 1
I like the X on the tab too. The "Tab X" extension does the trick for me. I'm sure there are others.
That seems at first glance like a valid parallel, but it's really not the same thing. Letting a deformed child live is a passive action, creating a horribly mangled and mentally damaged creature is certainly not.
A more appropriate version might be "Should you have a child if you know that it is likely to be deformed?"
> I've heard that ms sql users are not so fortunate > - ie no plain text dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It does have plain text dumps. There's a command line tool to do so. I migrated a couple million records from an MSSQL 6.5 server to postgres that way. I had to use sed to change some of the types to postgres ones (smallint and record to int and text IIRC) and do some escaping of characters, but it wasn't too hard a job.
> The obligation [e.g. lack of freedom] to integrate > GPL code with [often immense] business-owned > closed code serves on one hand to spur [few, IMHO] > businesses to go opensource, while keeping a dark > "obligation" cloud over Open Source that scares > the rest away.
It depends, was this software for internal use? If you are not distributing the software, you do not even have to accept the GPL license. As a user, you are free to link GPL-licensed code against anything you like.
How so? Do you mean that creation of derivative works based on GPL-licensed code must be licensed under the GPL?
I fail to see how you are being forced to do anything in that situation. You are completely free to not use that code at all. If you are making a derivative work of a GPL-licensed application, then, unless you are coding at gunpoint, you have made the choice to do so.
What I think you really want is to be able to license *other people's* code any way you choose. I'm not sure you'll get many takers on that.
You have just (mostly) described gconf. While the current backend does use XML, there's no reason why it couldn't use some other setup (ldap support has been partially implemented). The problem is that people have inacurately painted it as a windows registry clone or fail to see that a billion little configuration languages and parsers for every application is less than ideal:-/
> The lack of ACLs is a major impediment to uptake > of Linux in the business community.
This is not at all insightful. It is uninformed at best. Posix ACLs exist on ext2/3,xfs,reiser,jfs. These ACLs are also completely supported by Samba (and have been for many years).
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. First they have "COM" - which is useless as a search term, then they follow that up with ".net". How wonderfully attuned to the world around them. My next project goes one better though, it's called "and" STFW for details.
-Mark
...or you could have money saved up. Some of us work hard not to live paycheck to paycheck. That's why I was able to confidently leave my last job and enjoy a year at home with wife and kids and fun projects, (ok, and some occasional consulting work), before bothering with looking for work.
-Mark
> Right. So by that logic, you can write OO code in
> machine language. (Which you can't, by the by; no
> processor on the market today has a "frob this
> object" command in its opcodes.)
Hmm, so when your C++ code is converted to machine code, it suddenly stops being object oriented? Interesting.
> it makes absolutely no sense to say "well, you
> can do OO in any language." Sure you can. All
> Turing-complete languages are equivalent. But at
> that point, why don't you go back to machine
> code? That's Turing-complete, too.
Wait, so you're saying it makes no sense... and then you're saying it yourself, and then you are contradicting your opening statement...
My brain asplode.
-Mark
> you need to compare dpkg to RPM, and apt-get to YUM.
I'd like to compare apt-get to yum, or rather contrast them. Apt is quite fast, but yum seems to take forever for even the simplest operations while sucking up huge amounts of RAM. apt is almost instantaneous on old P1 boxes, but I have to pull up top to convince myself that yum hasn't just died on much faster boxes.
What gives? Why is yum the installer for fedora? Is there some reason why yum is teh awesome and I'm just not getting it?
-Mark
Whoops, link for the lazy here: http://edsadmin.sf.net
-Mark
One of the things that has always annoyed me is how bad the administration tools for LDAP are. My preferred method for quite a while was to keep an LDIF laying around that I would edit and import with slapadd. Not a beautiful solution.
:-)
I have since created an LDAP admin tool that doesn't have a strange obsession with DN's, doesn't make you specify UIDNumbers, and generally tries not to suck.
It is also (to my knowledge) the only LDAP admin tool that will manage your Kerberos principals alongside your LDAP users (if you're into that sort of thing). Anyhow, enough of my blathering, check it out: (http://edsadmin.sf.net).
The next step of my Grand Vision is EDSRealmAssistant, which currently auto-configures samba+ldap, and will in the future do the whole LDAP+SAMBA+KRB5+DNS+DHCP shebang that everyone wants but is too lazy to set up
-Mark
Yeah, I realize that. I don't think it would be an improvement though :-). The thing that's annoying is that you have to create a new class for every event handler (i.e. no function pointers).
-Mark
I don't misunderstand you at all. I challenge your very narrow definition of "cross-platform." It seems like your definition requires a guarantee that all future versions of mono will always have complete feature parity with .net.
By your definition, Java is not cross platform because Sun's JVM doesn't support GCJ's CNI.
-Mark
It's not a .so though. No more so than a perl module (.pm) or a python module (.py) is. The term "shared object" has an actual meaning, and renaming things doesn't automatically make them more unixy :-)
-Mark
It seems strange that your questions do not actually have anything to do with the statement you quoted...
If I can write an application on linux under mono, and run it on windows under mono, would that count as cross-platform? I have done that. So have others.
How would future versions of MS' product change the state of the current mono implementation?
-Mark
As someone who is a big fan of Python and uses it almost exclusively, I can say that the static typing of C# and Java has one big advantage. It's not better bug detection at compile time, or some nebulous concept of "enterprise readiness", it's intelligent IDEs with autocompletion etc.
:-).
I prefer GvR's ideas about static typing for Python 3000 better (basically, all type checking is done via interfaces), but it doesn't actually exist yet
-Mark
-Mark
Sure, uniform. But uniformly lower than the current windows cesspool right? I think that's what counts.
-Mark
Yup, I read it. It was stupid. That was why you were unable to back it up with facts.
You: "RTFM",
Me: "Uh... which FM would that be?"
You: (waves hands violently)
*PLONK*
-Mark
So if I'm at a restaurant in France and I ask for a Coke, and the waitress says "Is Pepsi ok?" the restaurant could be liable? Perhaps you shouldn't care about the US disagreeing as much about it being stupid...
-Mark
> For all the geek whining about how Windows sucks,
> and spending hours in vi and obsolete man pages is
> fun, you'd think they can at least RTFM.
Pray tell, in which manual would one find the admonition to never, EVER plug the computer into an Internet connection?
-Mark
Let's assume that you are right (I don't believe that you are, but for the sake of argument). Wouldn't everyone be better served if no one had such a high market share, thus relegating every operating system to only-mildly-interesting status?
-Mark
You'll have to explain what "never designed to work with java" even means. It doesn't sound like a meaningful phrase at all.
(Sorry to get offtopic here)
Regarding publishing illegal, patent infringing software for MP3s, the tradeoff would be that Debian would lose all its mirrors, making Debian available from only those hosts who are either unaffected by, or unmindful of patent laws. Here's a note that people rarely make regarding MP3 en/decoders: **The GPL cannot usefully be applied to MP3 encoders/decoders** and if it is, then that software is effectively non-distributable.
From the GPL section 7:
LGPL'ed software falls under the same thing (section 11).
-Mark
I like the X on the tab too. The "Tab X" extension does the trick for me. I'm sure there are others.
-Mark
That seems at first glance like a valid parallel, but it's really not the same thing. Letting a deformed child live is a passive action, creating a horribly mangled and mentally damaged creature is certainly not.
A more appropriate version might be "Should you have a child if you know that it is likely to be deformed?"
-Mark
> I've heard that ms sql users are not so fortunate
> - ie no plain text dumps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It does have plain text dumps. There's a command line tool to do so. I migrated a couple million records from an MSSQL 6.5 server to postgres that way. I had to use sed to change some of the types to postgres ones (smallint and record to int and text IIRC) and do some escaping of characters, but it wasn't too hard a job.
-Mark
> The obligation [e.g. lack of freedom] to integrate
> GPL code with [often immense] business-owned
> closed code serves on one hand to spur [few, IMHO]
> businesses to go opensource, while keeping a dark
> "obligation" cloud over Open Source that scares
> the rest away.
It depends, was this software for internal use? If you are not distributing the software, you do not even have to accept the GPL license. As a user, you are free to link GPL-licensed code against anything you like.
-Mark
How so? Do you mean that creation of derivative works based on GPL-licensed code must be licensed under the GPL?
I fail to see how you are being forced to do anything in that situation. You are completely free to not use that code at all. If you are making a derivative work of a GPL-licensed application, then, unless you are coding at gunpoint, you have made the choice to do so.
What I think you really want is to be able to license *other people's* code any way you choose. I'm not sure you'll get many takers on that.
-Mark
You have just (mostly) described gconf. While the current backend does use XML, there's no reason why it couldn't use some other setup (ldap support has been partially implemented). The problem is that people have inacurately painted it as a windows registry clone or fail to see that a billion little configuration languages and parsers for every application is less than ideal :-/
-Mark
> The lack of ACLs is a major impediment to uptake
> of Linux in the business community.
This is not at all insightful. It is uninformed at best. Posix ACLs exist on ext2/3,xfs,reiser,jfs. These ACLs are also completely supported by Samba (and have been for many years).
-Mark