Borland still has a large market share. In C++, they have roughly one in three, and the Delphi base is only slightly smaller.
Delphi programmers are loyal and vocal, but often go unnoticed, as they spend more time shipping code that works than yammering about language issues.
Many of us are ready to jump ship from Windows, but are unwilling to suffer the setback of shifting language, OS, and UI tools, all at the same time. We're not all in it for fun, after all, and continuing productivity is a deciding factor when your paycheck hinges on it.
Linux is pretty nice, in spite of some pretty horrible documentation problems (rivaling even those of M$). It isn't God's gift to OSes, in spite of some of the fawning commentary I've read, but it is certainly a worthy alternative to Windows. Frankly, I'd rather have BeOS. But if Borland produces Delphi for Linux, then I'm there, as I know I will have a tool I can trust, and which will spare me from the immediate loss of productivity which comes with switching UI toolkits.
If you think Delphi isn't particularly popular, you've been reading in the wrong places. It's true that Pascal is largely dead apart from Borland's version, but that is largely because other versions were never capable of enough real-world activities. ISO Pascal doesn't even have I/O, after all. Borland has done for Pascal, and now Object Pascal, what a committee eventually did for C++: made it useful, and controlled its form.
Unfortunately, the ANSI C++ standard, overwhelming though it is, fails miserably in some areas, such as in failing to define standards for name mangling, and so portability across tools is still poor.
If C++ were the only tool for programming Linux, I would pass it by. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same. Asking me to bet on Linux for my livelihood, and to abandon a highly productive tool, as well as a UI I understand (even if I don't much like it) is asking me to sacrifice too much.
Linux ain't a cause -- it's a tool. It needs to ba a sharp tool, else why move from the rusty Windows tool which currently pays the rent?
Linux people want to see more people using Linux and programming for Linux, yet also seem to want to force us all to adopt their methods and tools. Oddly enough, that's the M$ philosophy, too. Assimilation. Forget it.
I live with the warts on Windows, and I can live with the warts on Linux, but I will do so only when I have highly productive tools.
Your post ably demonstrates your ignorance of Delphi. In the Windows environment, there is little you cannot do with Delphi, apart from writing a Windows device driver (and most would rather avoid that horror, anyway.)
I avoided Windows for years because coding for Windows was 90% about building the UI and only 10% about solving the application problem. Delphi makes the UI part a breeze, and frees me to focus on solving the problem.
Also, I can often spot apps which have been developed in Delphi by the clean UI. It's so easy in Delphi that we often spend more time on it than others seem to when using VC++.
Also, C++ Builder provides the same ease of UI design, while supporting all the complexities of C++. It also finds bugs which VC++ does not.
As to corporate acceptance, if you look at the case studies on the Borland site, you will find some fairly impressive names there.
Acquaint yourself with the facts first, then you may have something useful to offer.
I can't speak to most of your technical concerns, as I have too little experience in Linux, and haven't yet done battle with tape on Linux. (My history with tape anywhere says it's mostly good on paper, but highly unreliable.)
I find Gnome not even close to comfortable, and decided to try Mandrake to get a Red Hat with KDE. I find KDE to be hugely more polished, and less flaky.
I like Caldera, which is also KDE, and is the only one which has been able to fully configure X for 1600x1200.
I like that Mandrake doesn't support less than a Pentium, as I no longer have anything running which is not at least a Pentium.
My only problem with Caldera is that it doesn't support SMP out of the box. And each time I tried to recompile the kernel, it failed. Probably I need to install some source RPMs, but how would I know?
I like Linux, but it desperately needs documentation work, and Caldera is miles ahead of the others on installation. For now, I can't afford the time to school myself in it.
Of the Linux distributions I have so far tried (RH5.0, RH5.1, RH6.0, Caldera 2.2, Suse 6.0, and Mandrake 6.0), the only one close to being ready for prime time is Caldera. My one complaint is that Caldera does not support SMP without recompiling the kernel. They should do as RH does, and support both UP and SMP in the original installation.
Caldera was also the only distribution which painlessly supported 1600x1200 on my ATI Expert and Matrox G200.
While I recognize that tweakability is one of Linux' features, it isn't one which most users really want to trip over on their first experience with the OS.
Key items for any distro should be: 1. Quick and painless install, free from techno questions. 2. Easy internet config. 3. Easy ethernet config.
Once those issues are resolved, most people will be prepared to back off and learn how to tweak the rest.
First, I never said, nor would I say, "everybody does it." What I was pointing out is that when small companies topple larger ones, we cheer, and when the tables are turned, we form a mob.
There is nothing intrinsically "right" about an underdog, nor intrinsically "wrong" about a market leader.
Yes, M$ have behaved villainously. And the DOJ have flaunted their ineptitude by failing miserably to pillory them for their sins. After having bungled cases of the really significant evils of the evil kingdom, they now clutch desperately to a case which is of marginal validity.
It may be possible to legally prove intent; why not prove it then, with respect to predatory practices? The foundation of the house that built IE was the license-per-box royalty plan. It was unethical, it was immoral, and it was illegal. Yet they got a slap on the wrist and "don't do that again."
Following this path of reasoning leads to the conclusion that they should be found guilty this time, whether or not the facts warrant it, just because they meet the "killer" criteria. This is a manifestation of the paranoia with which we in the US work so hard to knock down the winners.
I do not like M$, and I do not like BG, but I like even less the legacy which will derive from faulty judgment.
Yeah, it also precudes them from dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, making fraudulent claims, and hosts of other things that would enhance their profitiability.... What's your point?
My point is that the management of public safety is an altogether different matter, as is fraud.
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
If BeOS thrives, and Windows dies, so be it. But let it be determined by consumers, not by bureaucrats. And if it swings the other way, likewise, let it be determined by the market.
We who live in the world of small business live by our wits and skills. Let M$ and Netscape do the same. Without the "benefit" of unjustified government intervention.
Good points, all, and it seems apparent that the collapse of M$ in it's own entropy has begun. If in doubt, see Win2K.
My own hope is for BeOS to do well. It's clean, fast, well conceived, well implemented, and well documented. Well, the last point is open to argument, but M$ has lowered the bar so far on docs that most other things (even Linux) seem better documented.
That was by no means his first such lie, but it may have been the first really blatant one that the public noticed. For many of us, the first was when he told IBM he had an OS, and we had already known of Tim Patterson and his OS at SCP.
Pirates of Silicon Valley followed the book well enough to get it right. M$ is, and has been, an opportunistic operation based not on technology, but on acquisition. Even so, they have rights, and one of those is freedom from harassment by government. The current case is nonsense. They should have been hit, and hit hard, but the DOJ, on the issue of predatory practices, but DOJ blew it.
Some of us have economic responsibilities in the real world, and cannot indulge in a boycott without damaging our own employers.
Windows sucks, but it is pervasive. While that continues, small companies have few options.
I agree that they should be prosecuted, and that there are reasons for which they should be sanctioned. Unfortunately, the present case is not one of them.
If the DOJ could get their act together, there are plenty of things for which I would cheer them on. This just doesn't happen to be among them.
When the government designes our computers, I well revert to a note pad and pencil.
The government also mandated long ago that public corporations have a responsibility to make a profit, and to plan for their continued profitability. Failure to do so leaves the officers of said corporation liable for charges of mismanagement. Charges which could lead to prison terms for the execs.
Before the gov't freed me from phone company tyranny, I had never experienced the failure of a telephone. No hardware failure. Ever. since then, I have lost count of the telephones I have bought, but I would reckon their half-life at as much as two years.
The government is indeed the only one to rein in a monopolist, but they started twice before, both times with valid cases, and they blew it. Now they have an invalid case, and thousands, if not millions, are cheering them on.
The present case is bogus. The previous cases were real, but were dropped. I will not cheer for a "victory" in a bogus case, as it reduces my own freedom.
You might do well to look at the performance of the government with respect to business matters. Tiem and again they display their ineptitude. They broke up Standard Oil again and again to keep oil prices down. Uh huh. And they broke up AT&T so we could have competition in the phone business. I still can't get any local carrier than Pac Bell.
The "capabilities" you quote are asserted by government, but widely challenged. The government operates on a deficit: illegal for a business to do so. The government has committed acts of malfeasance in management (i.e. SSS) for which executives of private corporations would be jailed.
In a word: YES it is incapable of making any rational judgment about the operation of the software industry.
At last check, Windows was the only OS for which no secondary purchase authorization was required in the FedGov. Level playing field? Hardly.
Sorry, but they are providing no cover at all. what the DOJ are on the brink of doing is establishing horrible and invalid precedents which could be much harder for small vendors to work around than for M$.
No, my argument has no parallel to your comment on embezzlement. M$ did lots to damage the competition, but bundling IE was not a huge threat. Lots of us prefer Netscape, crashes and all.
What M$ has done on other fronts can only be attacked directly, else the government behaves lawlessly. They approached on those fronts, and they trod heavily on their collective foreskins. Repeatedly.
So, after all that, and the attendant bad press, the feds decide to attack on the browser issue, which is bogus.
I'm not much worried, however, as M$ has two problems they may well not resolve: the intrinsic problems of embedding legacy support, and the growing stagnation in their development.
I have loaded Win2K beta 3, and so far, am not impressed.
Linux won't hurt them, as the only thing worse than M$ docs is Linux docs. (sorry, but it's true.... don't bother with the flames.)
My hopes are with BeOS, and I am thankful that I can elect to use an OS for what it can do, not for who it can impress.
They do wield a monopoly position, but that doesn't excuse the DOJ attacking on a faulty premise. If the government prevails, much as I would like to see M$ taken down (but for valid reasons, not the frivolous ones in this case) I fear we all suffer, and a lot of lawyers get a new precedent through which to further damage US business.
Although I feel that Microsoft has long engaged in unfair practices, and that they continue to do so, I have mixed feelings about this case. Twice before, the DOJ approached an attack on Microsoft, and both of those had, IMHO, merit. Twice before the DOJ dropped the ball.
This time, it seemes that the DOJ is likely to be successful but I fail to see the merit in their case. Much as it pains me to say it, BG is right on the browser issue: government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.
We in the US live in a schizoid mindset. We applaud success, and deride big success. As most of us would like to be rich, and are not, we are underdogs, and must cheer other underdogs. But we perceive the king of the hill as the enemy; the reason we are underdogs.
I don't object to governemt intervention, but it has to make sense in the context of a capitalist democracy, and this one does not.
Microsoft should have been punished severely for predatory practices. It seems the only folk unaware of the reality of their execrable history in that regard are the lawyers in DOJ.
If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose. I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.
Logic and common sense will tell us many things: a) computer export controls are obsolete b) tariff systems increase taxes without protecting anyone c) taxes on corporations are passed as a sop to the masses who haven't figured out that only people pay taxes
Logic? Common sense? In goverment? Rarely, if ever , are these qualities found among so-called public servants.
It's good to see some relaxation of constraints occuring, but we would be ill-advised to hold our breath for the repeal of export controls. For one thing, relaxing export controls must, of necessity, lead to relaxed import controls, unless we wish to anger the other G7 countries. And when relaxed import controls are mentioned, the average American will have a knee-jerk negative response.
This isn't about logic and common sense. These issues relate to power games among those who think that they can and should control the lives of others. Power corrupts. Even when it isn't absolute power.
Sprint was great! Lately I have been thinking about going back to it. As a DOS program, it could be used under the DOS emulator in Linux, as well as under Windows.
Now that most laser printers contain at least a few fonts, the payback for editing font tables for Sprint would be immediate.
The one shortcoming, I think, would be the lack of tools for inserting images.
Rather than shipping small disks, it would be more appropriate IMHO, to recognize the need for large file storage (video, for example), and to stay with the current CD form factor.
Hopefully, the increased density will also lead to increased data transfer rates. The slow transfer from present day technology is really limiting in the context of video applications. And yes, 32X is still rather slow. Good quality MPEG-2 is in the neighborhood of 1MByte/Sec, and to be really useful, any mass storage for video must be capable of significantly greater than play-speed transfers, in both read and write.
Censorship has no place in a free society. Information access does not lead to crime, nor to hairy palms. The source point of problems in minors is the home. It begins with lack of parental involvement.
Then it is compounded when they get to school, and become the subjects of more noble experiments in teaching methods given in rooms in which discipline is almost impossible to achieve.
Blocking access to nudity while allowing access to pictures of mayhem, war, and other atrocities is truly insane.
If blocking is to be allowed, then I think we should make certain that the technology is developed to the point where discrimination can be against proselytizing rather than information.
I have no objection to children having unrestricted access to information, but I do object to their having unsupervised access to pitchmen, whether the pitch is religion, war, drugs, or sex.
Unfortunately, as difficult as it appears to be for the blocking software to get it right based on content, it will be even more impossible if based on intent.
I not only don't want to have to cross compiler brands, I'd very much prefer a good compiler which is controlled by a single vendor. No committees, no camels. Delphi is my tool of choice. Lean, mean, and very capable. Well designed, well supported, and well documented.
Slashdot Mirror
Borland still has a large market share. In C++, they have roughly one in three, and the Delphi base is only slightly smaller.
Delphi programmers are loyal and vocal, but often go unnoticed, as they spend more time shipping code that works than yammering about language issues.
Many of us are ready to jump ship from Windows, but are unwilling to suffer the setback of shifting language, OS, and UI tools, all at the same time. We're not all in it for fun, after all, and continuing productivity is a deciding factor when your paycheck hinges on it.
Linux is pretty nice, in spite of some pretty horrible documentation problems (rivaling even those of M$). It isn't God's gift to OSes, in spite of some of the fawning commentary I've read, but it is certainly a worthy alternative to Windows. Frankly, I'd rather have BeOS. But if Borland produces Delphi for Linux, then I'm there, as I know I will have a tool I can trust, and which will spare me from the immediate loss of productivity which comes with switching UI toolkits.
If you think Delphi isn't particularly popular, you've been reading in the wrong places. It's true that Pascal is largely dead apart from Borland's version, but that is largely because other versions were never capable of enough real-world activities. ISO Pascal doesn't even have I/O, after all. Borland has done for Pascal, and now Object Pascal, what a committee eventually did for C++: made it useful, and controlled its form.
Unfortunately, the ANSI C++ standard, overwhelming though it is, fails miserably in some areas, such as in failing to define standards for name mangling, and so portability across tools is still poor.
If C++ were the only tool for programming Linux, I would pass it by. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same. Asking me to bet on Linux for my livelihood, and to abandon a highly productive tool, as well as a UI I understand (even if I don't much like it) is asking me to sacrifice too much.
Linux ain't a cause -- it's a tool. It needs to ba a sharp tool, else why move from the rusty Windows tool which currently pays the rent?
Linux people want to see more people using Linux and programming for Linux, yet also seem to want to force us all to adopt their methods and tools. Oddly enough, that's the M$ philosophy, too. Assimilation. Forget it.
I live with the warts on Windows, and I can live with the warts on Linux, but I will do so only when I have highly productive tools.
Borland, bring on Delphi for Linux! I'm ready.
Your post ably demonstrates your ignorance of Delphi. In the Windows environment, there is little you cannot do with Delphi, apart from writing a Windows device driver (and most would rather avoid that horror, anyway.)
I avoided Windows for years because coding for Windows was 90% about building the UI and only 10% about solving the application problem. Delphi makes the UI part a breeze, and frees me to focus on solving the problem.
Also, I can often spot apps which have been developed in Delphi by the clean UI. It's so easy in Delphi that we often spend more time on it than others seem to when using VC++.
Also, C++ Builder provides the same ease of UI design, while supporting all the complexities of C++. It also finds bugs which VC++ does not.
As to corporate acceptance, if you look at the case studies on the Borland site, you will find some fairly impressive names there.
Acquaint yourself with the facts first, then you may have something useful to offer.
Blue Cross is pretty good on the PPO plans. Don't buy into an HMO from anybody, for any reason!
If you look for coverage against major costs, and pay doctor's visits out of pocket, it's a good deal cheaper.
IF and only IF they can eliminate spam could they possibly be justified in taxing e-mail.
the day I have to pay for spam received is the day I stop using e-mail altogether.
I can't speak to most of your technical concerns, as I have too little experience in Linux, and haven't yet done battle with tape on Linux. (My history with tape anywhere says it's mostly good on paper, but highly unreliable.)
I find Gnome not even close to comfortable, and decided to try Mandrake to get a Red Hat with KDE. I find KDE to be hugely more polished, and less flaky.
I like Caldera, which is also KDE, and is the only one which has been able to fully configure X for 1600x1200.
I like that Mandrake doesn't support less than a Pentium, as I no longer have anything running which is not at least a Pentium.
My only problem with Caldera is that it doesn't support SMP out of the box. And each time I tried to recompile the kernel, it failed. Probably I need to install some source RPMs, but how would I know?
I like Linux, but it desperately needs documentation work, and Caldera is miles ahead of the others on installation. For now, I can't afford the time to school myself in it.
Of the Linux distributions I have so far tried (RH5.0, RH5.1, RH6.0, Caldera 2.2, Suse 6.0, and Mandrake 6.0), the only one close to being ready for prime time is Caldera. My one complaint is that Caldera does not support SMP without recompiling the kernel. They should do as RH does, and support both UP and SMP in the original installation.
Caldera was also the only distribution which painlessly supported 1600x1200 on my ATI Expert and Matrox G200.
While I recognize that tweakability is one of Linux' features, it isn't one which most users really want to trip over on their first experience with the OS.
Key items for any distro should be:
1. Quick and painless install, free from techno questions.
2. Easy internet config.
3. Easy ethernet config.
Once those issues are resolved, most people will be prepared to back off and learn how to tweak the rest.
First, I never said, nor would I say, "everybody does it." What I was pointing out is that when small companies topple larger ones, we cheer, and when the tables are turned, we form a mob.
There is nothing intrinsically "right" about an underdog, nor intrinsically "wrong" about a market leader.
Yes, M$ have behaved villainously. And the DOJ have flaunted their ineptitude by failing miserably to pillory them for their sins. After having bungled cases of the really significant evils of the evil kingdom, they now clutch desperately to a case which is of marginal validity.
It may be possible to legally prove intent; why not prove it then, with respect to predatory practices? The foundation of the house that built IE was the license-per-box royalty plan. It was unethical, it was immoral, and it was illegal. Yet they got a slap on the wrist and "don't do that again."
Following this path of reasoning leads to the conclusion that they should be found guilty this time, whether or not the facts warrant it, just because they meet the "killer" criteria. This is a manifestation of the paranoia with which we in the US work so hard to knock down the winners.
I do not like M$, and I do not like BG, but I like even less the legacy which will derive from faulty judgment.
Yeah, it also precudes them from dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, making fraudulent claims, and hosts of other things that would enhance their profitiability.... What's your point?
My point is that the management of public safety is an altogether different matter, as is fraud.
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
If BeOS thrives, and Windows dies, so be it. But let it be determined by consumers, not by bureaucrats. And if it swings the other way, likewise, let it be determined by the market.
We who live in the world of small business live by our wits and skills. Let M$ and Netscape do the same. Without the "benefit" of unjustified government intervention.
Good points, all, and it seems apparent that the collapse of M$ in it's own entropy has begun. If in doubt, see Win2K.
My own hope is for BeOS to do well. It's clean, fast, well conceived, well implemented, and well documented. Well, the last point is open to argument, but M$ has lowered the bar so far on docs that most other things (even Linux) seem better documented.
That was by no means his first such lie, but it may have been the first really blatant one that the public noticed. For many of us, the first was when he told IBM he had an OS, and we had already known of Tim Patterson and his OS at SCP.
Pirates of Silicon Valley followed the book well enough to get it right. M$ is, and has been, an opportunistic operation based not on technology, but on acquisition. Even so, they have rights, and one of those is freedom from harassment by government. The current case is nonsense. They should have been hit, and hit hard, but the DOJ, on the issue of predatory practices, but DOJ blew it.
Some of us have economic responsibilities in the real world, and cannot indulge in a boycott without damaging our own employers.
Windows sucks, but it is pervasive. While that continues, small companies have few options.
Agreed. However, that relates to the predatory practices they use(d), not to the inclusion of a browser.
I agree that they should be prosecuted, and that there are reasons for which they should be sanctioned. Unfortunately, the present case is not one of them.
If the DOJ could get their act together, there are plenty of things for which I would cheer them on. This just doesn't happen to be among them.
When the government designes our computers, I well revert to a note pad and pencil.
The government also mandated long ago that public corporations have a responsibility to make a profit, and to plan for their continued profitability. Failure to do so leaves the officers of said corporation liable for charges of mismanagement. Charges which could lead to prison terms for the execs.
Before the gov't freed me from phone company tyranny, I had never experienced the failure of a telephone. No hardware failure. Ever. since then, I have lost count of the telephones I have bought, but I would reckon their half-life at as much as two years.
The government is indeed the only one to rein in a monopolist, but they started twice before, both times with valid cases, and they blew it. Now they have an invalid case, and thousands, if not millions, are cheering them on.
The present case is bogus. The previous cases were real, but were dropped. I will not cheer for a "victory" in a bogus case, as it reduces my own freedom.
You might do well to look at the performance of the government with respect to business matters. Tiem and again they display their ineptitude. They broke up Standard Oil again and again to keep oil prices down. Uh huh. And they broke up AT&T so we could have competition in the phone business. I still can't get any local carrier than Pac Bell.
The "capabilities" you quote are asserted by government, but widely challenged. The government operates on a deficit: illegal for a business to do so. The government has committed acts of malfeasance in management (i.e. SSS) for which executives of private corporations would be jailed.
In a word: YES it is incapable of making any rational judgment about the operation of the software industry.
At last check, Windows was the only OS for which no secondary purchase authorization was required in the FedGov. Level playing field? Hardly.
Sorry, but they are providing no cover at all. what the DOJ are on the brink of doing is establishing horrible and invalid precedents which could be much harder for small vendors to work around than for M$.
No, my argument has no parallel to your comment on embezzlement. M$ did lots to damage the competition, but bundling IE was not a huge threat. Lots of us prefer Netscape, crashes and all.
What M$ has done on other fronts can only be attacked directly, else the government behaves lawlessly. They approached on those fronts, and they trod heavily on their collective foreskins. Repeatedly.
So, after all that, and the attendant bad press, the feds decide to attack on the browser issue, which is bogus.
I'm not much worried, however, as M$ has two problems they may well not resolve: the intrinsic problems of embedding legacy support, and the growing stagnation in their development.
I have loaded Win2K beta 3, and so far, am not impressed.
Linux won't hurt them, as the only thing worse than M$ docs is Linux docs. (sorry, but it's true.... don't bother with the flames.)
My hopes are with BeOS, and I am thankful that I can elect to use an OS for what it can do, not for who it can impress.
They do wield a monopoly position, but that doesn't excuse the DOJ attacking on a faulty premise. If the government prevails, much as I would like to see M$ taken down (but for valid reasons, not the frivolous ones in this case) I fear we all suffer, and a lot of lawyers get a new precedent through which to further damage US business.
Shakespeare was right.
Although I feel that Microsoft has long engaged in unfair practices, and that they continue to do so, I have mixed feelings about this case. Twice before, the DOJ approached an attack on Microsoft, and both of those had, IMHO, merit. Twice before the DOJ dropped the ball.
This time, it seemes that the DOJ is likely to be successful but I fail to see the merit in their case. Much as it pains me to say it, BG is right on the browser issue: government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.
We in the US live in a schizoid mindset. We applaud success, and deride big success. As most of us would like to be rich, and are not, we are underdogs, and must cheer other underdogs. But we perceive the king of the hill as the enemy; the reason we are underdogs.
I don't object to governemt intervention, but it has to make sense in the context of a capitalist democracy, and this one does not.
Microsoft should have been punished severely for predatory practices. It seems the only folk unaware of the reality of their execrable history in that regard are the lawyers in DOJ.
If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose. I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.
If this is the correct item, then it is what would have made either the ZD posting or the /. posting into something worthy of web space.
Fluff is pervasive, and in the end, is directly analogous to spam.
Logic and common sense will tell us many things:
a) computer export controls are obsolete
b) tariff systems increase taxes without protecting anyone
c) taxes on corporations are passed as a sop to the masses who haven't figured out that only people pay taxes
Logic? Common sense? In goverment? Rarely, if ever , are these qualities found among so-called public servants.
It's good to see some relaxation of constraints occuring, but we would be ill-advised to hold our breath for the repeal of export controls. For one thing, relaxing export controls must, of necessity, lead to relaxed import controls, unless we wish to anger the other G7 countries. And when relaxed import controls are mentioned, the average American will have a knee-jerk negative response.
This isn't about logic and common sense. These issues relate to power games among those who think that they can and should control the lives of others. Power corrupts. Even when it isn't absolute power.
Sprint was great! Lately I have been thinking about going back to it. As a DOS program, it could be used under the DOS emulator in Linux, as well as under Windows.
Now that most laser printers contain at least a few fonts, the payback for editing font tables for Sprint would be immediate.
The one shortcoming, I think, would be the lack of tools for inserting images.
Rather than shipping small disks, it would be more appropriate IMHO, to recognize the need for large file storage (video, for example), and to stay with the current CD form factor.
Hopefully, the increased density will also lead to increased data transfer rates. The slow transfer from present day technology is really limiting in the context of video applications. And yes, 32X is still rather slow. Good quality MPEG-2 is in the neighborhood of 1MByte/Sec, and to be really useful, any mass storage for video must be capable of significantly greater than play-speed transfers, in both read and write.
Censorship has no place in a free society. Information access does not lead to crime, nor to hairy palms. The source point of problems in minors is the home. It begins with lack of parental involvement.
Then it is compounded when they get to school, and become the subjects of more noble experiments in teaching methods given in rooms in which discipline is almost impossible to achieve.
Blocking access to nudity while allowing access to pictures of mayhem, war, and other atrocities is truly insane.
If blocking is to be allowed, then I think we should make certain that the technology is developed to the point where discrimination can be against proselytizing rather than information.
I have no objection to children having unrestricted access to information, but I do object to their having unsupervised access to pitchmen, whether the pitch is religion, war, drugs, or sex.
Unfortunately, as difficult as it appears to be for the blocking software to get it right based on content, it will be even more impossible if based on intent.
Meanwhile, let freedom ring: open access for all.
I not only don't want to have to cross compiler brands, I'd very much prefer a good compiler which is controlled by a single vendor. No committees, no camels. Delphi is my tool of choice. Lean, mean, and very capable. Well designed, well supported, and well documented.