its a license. Acceptance is done by using the software, distributing it, etc..
MS is certainly bound by it, in the event they use it.
There is no sort of entrapment as MS most certainly had the same opportunity to know what was developing with version 3 of the GPL as everybody else. Its not like t happened over night. It was a rather long process.
If there was an argument to be had, and there is not, that MS was being entrapped by this change then it could as well be argued that MS intentionally sought agreements with Novel, or anyone they could find that was a klinux distributor with backing, to try and void itself from needing to comply with the license change.
And in a court case it, that will never happen, it would certainly be brought forward that MS uses unvalidated threats against others to motivate them to pay MS extortion money for the use of teh product of MS competition to MS.
It is obvious the MS intends to pursue the application criminal activity on their part.
It should be clear that the article is really nothing more than typical MS distortion of facts.
If there was a scale to show the believe ability of MS and MS supporting news and announcements, wouldn't the scale show a continued drop with this FUD?
I have somewhere the plans for turning an opal gt into a 150 mile a gallon vehicle.
A car that is powered by a dc jet engine starting motor that is in turn powered by a 5 hp brigg and stratten lawn mower engine that turns an electric generator. There are also batteries that the car can run off or but when slowing down to stop some of the breaking power is by reverse power direction that takes the breaking force and converts it back to electricty to store in the batteries.
These plans are from the 1970's from mother earth news magizine.
So in the past 30 or so years we still don't have any real improvements in gas millage???? What the fuck?
But here is an idea. Take the City, remove the lease by removing the batteries and replace it with a lawn mower engine based power plant or better yet, a smaller than lawn mower engine sized rotary engine based power plant.
Or if you read playboy (aug issue) consider a lawn mower engine sized veggie oil burning engine that is small and simple enough that your backyard mechanic can cheaply enough deal with the problems of that type of engine.
This is fucking ridiculous and really should be becoming more publicized as to the obviousness of the intentional failure of the auto industry to not already have vehicles that get upwards of 200 miles a gallon vehicles being sold to the general public and at very affordable proces.
The lease stuff about the City batteries should be a hit....
really, if they make it use alternative fuels like veggy oil (read august issue of playboy) and improve other things of the car needing improvement, they might just find a growing market as gasoline prices climb.
And such alternative fuels would certainly fit the "back to the future" evolution of the car. I might just consider buying one if those things happened.
This thread tree has caused me to take another closer look at d-bus. I sponsored the inclusion of d-bus into AROS http://www.aros.org/ some time ago. Point being is that I have know about d-bus for quiet some time.
Closer look: specifically I have more closely looked at qdbus and qdbusviewer which did not exist some time ago. dbus-send did but not a man page for it. Certainly it is a step in the right direction but the complexity level can and should be reduced for the end user access.
You are right, there doesn't seem to be much that supports d-bus and that should be assisted in changing by making it as easy as possible to integrate a d-bus port into applications. So easy that even code aware end users could help or at least do it for themselves.
Documentation of what functionality is available in applications having a d-bus port, is also lacking. but this of course would be tied to who ever writes the application interface or at least some way to extract it from the code.
Fix the problems that you perceive with the users compiling their own. Let go of your elitism arrogance and realize its causing harm to the software industry in innovation and body count of those taking computer science. There is a certain level of disgust being perceived of the IT industry. And those who might take up computer science are finding reason not to.
Other arguments that you have made are as pointless as your claim of it being pointless for the user to try and customize their system. The library issue only exist due failure to allow different version of the same library. This problem will not/does not exist with Dragonfly BSD. Different versions are allowed. You do know it is not a hard drive space available issue any more?
If there are still issues with package managers needing to be informed then make it so in the compile make install process. We both know it can be done and really is a matter of scripting it in.
Software is not prescription medicine but its a shame the drug industry doesn't make a medicine to treat such arrogance and elitism as you have expressed.
Besides if a technician needs to install all the software, then why are their package manager for the end users anyway?
I have no doubt that things can be complexifabulicated to the point of even the best developers can't keep it straight. CUPS is perhaps an example. But it could as well be the description of how to tie a shoe lace.
The roman numeral accountant elites, in order to protect their social status, promoted against the hindu-arabic decimal system. Only a fool would think nothing can have value... re: zero place holder. Causing the adoption of the now only universal language, the decimal system, to be delayed for 300 years. As a comparison of elitism arrogance the catholic church held off for three hundred and fifty years before accepting Galileo's observations (early 1990's).
But you should note that without the decimal system, computers could not have been invented.
Now imagine what you are promoting against, if you are so capable.
lol, in using linux the end users will sooner or later set in motion the compiling of a program.
Its not at all difficult and generally the same sequence of things the user does to compile a program. The kernel, though I have never compiled one that I recall (probably have - early red-hat) is no different I would think, except for the possibility of turning more things on or off or this way instead of that way. Re: what the article is all about, cpu scheduling. And we all know that such selection can and probably is thru a easy to use interface.
Did you notice how the Mac didn't have a command line shell up until OS-X (move to unix like base) Lacking one of the three primary colors prevents the users from doing more colorful things.
The extension of applescript is the "Automator" in OS-X and it is very limited in what all it can do, what applications it can make use of.
It is also a programming language, rather than just being an IPC user oriented interface to applications and such. I shouldn't have to use applescript, or learn to use it, to tell a music playing program to turn up the volume, via command line or other such external to the application, interface. I should only have to send the application a command telling it to, via IPC
d-bus will be replacing dcop in KDE 4. I sponsored the inclusion of D-Bus in AROS for potential integration between AROS hosted and the host. It could probably be used to refresh the AROS window when going between AROS and its host window activation. Though its been some time since that project was complete and d-bus may have changed.
D-Bus is not end user friendly. It is designed and intended for programmers to use, not end users. For it to be user friendly it would need to provide a more direct, simplified and straight forward way to access the functionality of programs. Program functionality the user already has access to via the programs GUI or Command Line.
The qdbusviewer really should have resizeable areas but here is an example of what I mean "for programmers not users"
oops! it won't let me copy the "methods" tree to show all the programmer stuff that complicates it more than what the users needs. The user doesn't need all the paths complexication.
Use qdbusviewer and run rhythmbox and look at the methods tree expanded. This is not the user interface I am on about but shows the various paths/tree the user needs to know to access something as simple as volume control.
Remember the IPC interface for the user should be near as simple as the interface the user uses within the application, though command based, not gui (a gui can be put on top of a command interface but the command interface is primary). What the user needs is the simplicity of a command set for an application, an address for the application that is straight forward and consistent and a way to receive results, like easy use of a variable that holds return value. I.e. commandline>
dbusit rhythmbox volumeup returnvalue
where: "dbusit" would be an application that knows to take the following over dbus and is used as teh end user interface. "rhythmbox is the target (if more than one then identification via rhythmbox.0, rhythmbox.1 etc...simple) "volumeup" would be the command to pass to rhythmbox to turn up the volume a notch. *command set is left up to the programmer of the application and should make available at least the same functionality the user has thru the gui or command line interface to the application.
I want to give and example of what is required to use qdbus to raise the volume a notch in Rhythmbox but I am only able to get as far as commandline> qdbus org.gnome.Rhythmbox
And that only gives me the complexications of paths...But entering the paths so to access the command, uh err method produce service not existing error.
Such an interface should be as intuitive as possible. The path interface is apparently so, up to before accessing commands... uh err.... methods???? As A user I don't think I'm going to "method volume up" instead I am the user, in control of what I want. I command rhythmbox to turn volume up!
Try teaching calculus to a kid that hasn't learned basic math yet!! End user don't need advanced programmer babel to use basic programing concepts. Especially since they are typically not spending all their time programming to condition themselves to think in terms of programming. Don't make them have to remember complexication forgien to what they do in using computers.
Looking for documentation on the Freedesktop site search engine produces no results for either qdbus or qdbusviewer. And a search on google produced worse, links to programming babel...
Common consistent, end user oriented is lacking in dbus.
And there is the issue of applications lacking a dbus interface, such as firefox.....
To ask, "what would the user want with automating firefox?" as an excuse not to, is an invasion and suppression of innovation. As it express failure to support user freedoms to explore what they may or may not do and shows expectation to hand over any ideas or needs they may have. Which typically get shot down and perhaps later incorporated to the credit of not the originator of the idea, but the programmer w
I'm sure you can come up with a long list. Take that list and divide it into programing languages and protocols or methods of IPC access.
drop the programming languages and divide the IPC stuff into two lists. One strictly oriented towards programmers and the other for providing the typical user with a common, consistent method for accessing functionality of applications, devices and libraries.
Drop the programmer oriented list.
now take what remains and make a list of programs that provide such common consistent user oriented accessibility through the remaining IPC list.
What do you come up with?
Its not like I'm suggesting making functionality accessible to the user that the user doesn't already have, but providing a way the user can make use of it to create or automate their own personalized tasks.
its like the software industry has provided only two of the three primary colors of paint to the users, knowing full well that the users are greatly limited as to what they can do lacking the third color.
And the argument for avoiding providing the third color is "but the users don't wanna..." and that is utter bullshit and entrapment for dumbing down the users base.
Bill Gates said it, about how to become financially successful. "make people need you" And we all know of the dishonest tactics he and his company have applied.
That is not an excuse for the open source community to avoid providing such a common consistent user oriented interface that allows users to put things together for themselves, especially when it is at least providing access to the same functionality the user has already, but in a more versatile use manner.
The arexx port interface on Amiga is easy to add to a program to allow that program to participate. Likewise such a interface for open source software can and should be as common consistent and easy for the user to access and use and easy for the programmers to add to applications, devices and libraries.
On a more serious note, there is more value to be extracted from electronic junk then for the same weight of ore in mining.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for improving the recycling process and maybe adjust the manufacturing process to accomodate the end life cycle of recycling.
Unless the Chinese government outlaws linux and alternative OS, its only a matter of time for world wide open source software to improve beyond what microsoft can produce. Note, I said "Open Source Software" which is a wider base than the "Linux Kernel".
But for this to be promoted as Victory of MS vs. Linux. Certainly it is a hype, as GNU/linux continues to replace Microsoft products in governments around the world. Before GNU/Linux what was the option?
Sooooo, in the bigger picture, MS has been down graded from a sure thing, only option, to a need to announce and amplify the announcement of victory over the competition in specific cases.
You will not find MS announcing competitors victory over them and maybe not even teh same level of media coverage.
The fact that it took the open source software development model to create competition for microsoft, where all other MS competitors business models failed, says a lot as to what to expect of the future of open source software.
Three is right, as its Con and an email exchange between Linus and another.
Whooo hooo..
That settles it.... everybody is accounted for..... right??
Its open source but with all the talk about having a maintainer of certain character as a part of the consideration of.... consideration about inclusion of code they wrote.. Uhhh did I forget to say its "Open Source"? Its not uncommon for pioneers to be forgotten as what comes next, takes over... Or does this mean that when a maintainer dies, so does what they were maintaining?
The general message Con seemed to be expressing was more interesting as a general observation than of specific code.
The response from Linus suggest that although Linus does not frequent specific topic lists because of inherent bias, he has his bias none the less.
There is a general across the board bias, proprietary and open source, and it is one of exclusion of the end users. And it comes across as arrogance motivated by money and/or ego.
To explain, programming is an act that includes creating functionality that is then accessible thru an easier to use interface such as a function call with arguements and expected return value. The general concept is common knowledge in coding regardless of what programming language you are using,
However, this concept is not typically provided to the end user, but instead kept away from the user and certainly not provided to the user, when some distortion of it is provided the user, in any sort of easy common consistent manner.
To clarify, users access programs typically via a command line or GUI. Neither of which are so conducive to allowing teh users to put things together for themselves. All the functionality if available to the user via the programs GUI or command line. But the same functionality is not available in an mode that allows user to call the functionality in the program and make use of the results outside of teh programs command line or GUI interface.
Con mentioned the Amiga. The Amiga had all three user interfaces. The command Line, The GUI and the missing user interface an every other system today, The IPC port interface, most commonly known as the AREXX port but did not need AREXX running in order to use the port for "user putting things together for themselves".
SO YOU DON'T LET USER PUT THINGS TOGETHER FOR THEMSELVES! WHY NOT?
Cause you can dumb down the user and get ideas from them and sell those ideas implemented, back to them.
But when you take away from the users, the ability to put things together for themselves, then that makes you a hypocrite when you then call them ignorant, armchair coders or any other demeaning term. As it is you who have created that self supported dependency of trying to justify your lack of inclusion of others.
Con outright stated how he got started.
Maybe You linus and a whole world of other coders, need to pull you head out of your asses and SERIOUSLY realize, THERE ARE OTHERS you are not considering.
Ultimately, if people want to optimize their system for their needs, they should be able to. But there is serious prevention of that across the board.
It does not matter if you are an illegal alien residing in the US, a lawyer, a carpenter, a musician, a doctor, a nuclear reactor operator, a judge, a member of clergy, a CEO at a super major company, a richest man or second richest man, the ruler of a country...etc...
we are all capable of being stupid, dishonest and deadly. Usually its a choice!
Like how about the war drum banging that was done on deceiving many americans to support the war on iraq?
I believe it was fox national that would pull stuff like using split screens showing one thing, the narrator talking about another thing and a small box showing someone speaking in another language.
It made it appear that it was all related like the non-english speaker was talking about the larger picture being shown while the narrator appeared to be a translator. But none of them were related. And this happen daily in the build up of getting american support behind Bush.
Anyone with half a mind would see thru it, many didn't. Fox tried to make it obvious, as other networks also contributed in less obvious ways. There was even the setting up of what was called the "clear channel network" composed of TV and radio station.
Propoganda!!
Why did they do this?
Anthrax threats.....
I understand the person they tried to blame sued and got more then Richard Jewel did for being publicly accused of the 96 olympic centennial bombing..
No comspiracy needed. just one person with enough clearance at the US military base in teh US that the anthrax came from.
Even an idiot would realize how the politics of the country would play off the anthrax story.
It was an intentional threat against the media to get them to play the war drums in support of US attacking Iraq.
Bim Laden and Saddam are not the same person, regardless of what most supporting the war believe.
There is more that has not been told together, but it has been told and the information is findable on the internet.
911 was the result of extreamist using a genuinely real event Americans were seriously guilty of, as an excuse to do what they did, and the excuse was real and verifiable enough that it certainly helped the extreamist to promote a following of fools to help them.
That's a lot of money that is not going to just appear out of no where and vanish into nowhere.
What other financial things happened in the 90's?
The dotcom boom and bust... money came from somewhere to finance business with out a product or service... easy come easy go... for those who were able to get out in time.
For those who didn't get out in time... enron, worldcom and the likes, hiding their losses from the gamble.
Can Americans say they are sorry? Credit card interest rate dropping to 0% was an attempt. As the world bank offered to make a loan to south east asia countries like indonesia [80% muslim by CIA reports] where the trillion dollar bet drained financials badly, but with an interest rate.... that offer fell flat.....
The information is available, but no-one has yet put it together and communicated it to the masses. And whats his name "ferinheight 911" only provided distraction from the simple occums razor of "follow the money"...
Asking someone if they trust the news media is like asking them if they are stupid.
Networks use news as a vehicle to sell advertising space to. On a slow news day they will take an any hill and make it sound like a mountain to attract viewers. See how bad the ants are to home owners....
... they now have a company wide policy to re-install Vista every night. And that is just for starters. They also have several thousand machines that go through the re-install process continually. And in addition there is going to be a Vista upgrade that cause re-installs on consumer systems that fit the requirements of such a task without bringing suspicion by the consumer.
Considering the human population of the planet is just over 6 billion.... using MS marketing mentality, that must mean the other 5 billion are running something other tan MS OS.
The agreement is contradictory to the GPL license.
The Agreement is null and void because of the contradiction with the license.
It should also be noted that Microsoft... bill gates got his start by porting BASIC and then yelling piracy because he wasn't delivering in a reasonable amount of time.
Second was the sale of MSDOS to IBM but Microsoft did not, at the time of selling it to IBM, own it nor had they even contacted the creator if it.
Is this another example of MS profiting off of what they do not own or have a right to?
Of course it is and it shows what scum Microsoft really are.
Trying to use and agreement that invalidates a license while using libel against the software developer with claims of piracy - patent infrigment on what is by nature not patentable but itself "software patents" an act of fraud supported by the US government. And MS does not present any proof of what is supposedly infringed.
Really people, this is the essence of Microsoft. What they are doing should be pursued legally as it certainly is an intentional consumer deception at various levels.
MS is still attacking Open source software. Make no mistake between what they say and what they do.
I'd say you are a bit lost in all the overcomplexifabulactions you perceive to exist. In fact you have gotten so overwhelmed that you forgot to mention input/output with printers and more devices than I or you know about.
It took three hundred year for the wide spread application the Hindu-Arabic system, after it was introduced. In comparison it took about 350 years for the catholic church to finally accept Galileo's observations. This happened in the early 1990's and to verify I mean like less than 20 years ago.
Why? Politics of course! The church changed because they were losing supporters because of their silly position of punishing someone who was being apparently more honesty than they. Mathematics change took generations to overcome the politics and population growth enough to make fail the roman numeral systems use in mathematics and accounting (numbers got to big). Today the Computer Science courses are losing Students and trying to recapture interest. Some example are "Computational Thinking" and "Great Principles of Computing" efforts (google them).
What might a Roman Numeral Accountant promote in order to protect their elite social status and income? Only a fool would think nothing can have value. And so it is often the case of wrong teachings that program people to think in terms that limit their ability to comprehend what more is possible. Fixing that requires deprogramming.
Programming is the act of automating complexity and supplying it an easier to use interface so the user of the complexity can use and reuse it and even incorporate it in other automations of complexity. It is a recursive act.
Regardless of what programming language you use, the machine needs to see transistor states and changes of on or off. As a first level abstraction, we call this binary. For any program you write, regardless or what language you write it in or any other factors such as interpreted or compiled etc., the hardware needs to see binary. The fundamental technology upon what a computer is built is the two state transistor providing three states, on, off and not accessed.
There is translation involved in programming, perhaps even multiple levels of translations.
program written in programing language x -----> translation levels ---> binary machine perspective.
If you want to get all complexifabulcated as to what goes on in the translation levels for any particular language, then you are being to subjective to the area of problem and will only perhaps see symptoms of the problem, not the cause.. You have to be objective, step away to see a bigger picture, in order to see the problem.
Microsoft tried to quantize the more common and popular programming languages. Anyone could have done this, but MS was most likely as they do not innovate but rather try to own and/or control what others have done. They didn't even own MSDOS when they sold it to IBM. Of course there is the MS bias of application of the summing.
It was the summing of programming concepts and data-type with the integration done to avoid conflicts. This is at the core of what is better know as.net. You can write programs using any number of languages. Then it is translated into a Common Intermediate Language (CIL) which is then run off a run time engine which does the final translation into binary perceivable by the hardware.
You mentioned symptoms of the problem such as:
"In point of fact, almost every abstraction is a loss of power." That is not a fact at all. It is abstraction that enables us to do more. If there is any power loss it is only as a result of losing touch with, or access to, the elements of the abstraction ladder. And that is a symptom of the problem
Slashdot Mirror
its a license. Acceptance is done by using the software, distributing it, etc..
MS is certainly bound by it, in the event they use it.
There is no sort of entrapment as MS most certainly had the same opportunity to know what was developing with version 3 of the GPL as everybody else. Its not like t happened over night. It was a rather long process.
If there was an argument to be had, and there is not, that MS was being entrapped by this change then it could as well be argued that MS intentionally sought agreements with Novel, or anyone they could find that was a klinux distributor with backing, to try and void itself from needing to comply with the license change.
And in a court case it, that will never happen, it would certainly be brought forward that MS uses unvalidated threats against others to motivate them to pay MS extortion money for the use of teh product of MS competition to MS.
It is obvious the MS intends to pursue the application criminal activity on their part.
It should be clear that the article is really nothing more than typical MS distortion of facts.
If there was a scale to show the believe ability of MS and MS supporting news and announcements, wouldn't the scale show a continued drop with this FUD?
My distaste for MS continues to increase.
....done by monkies.
And I bet if they tried other animals they would find the same thing.
However there are some in the computer industry that have yet to grasp that in providing the users with the ability to be interactive..
I just haven't figured out what kind of creature doesn't understand the natural doing feedback loop in learning.
... and so should Regal Cinema.
So put her in jail and make a big story out of it, 60 minutes, 20/20, etc....
I'm sure Regal will lose more than the amount of her fine and her lost wages...
If she is so innocent than how did she miss the posted signs all of the place telling her not to record?
Unless there were no signs.
allowing software to be patented is proof that it is broken.
I have somewhere the plans for turning an opal gt into a 150 mile a gallon vehicle.
A car that is powered by a dc jet engine starting motor that is in turn powered by a 5 hp brigg and stratten lawn mower engine that turns an electric generator. There are also batteries that the car can run off or but when slowing down to stop some of the breaking power is by reverse power direction that takes the breaking force and converts it back to electricty to store in the batteries.
These plans are from the 1970's from mother earth news magizine.
So in the past 30 or so years we still don't have any real improvements in gas millage???? What the fuck?
But here is an idea. Take the City, remove the lease by removing the batteries and replace it with a lawn mower engine based power plant or better yet, a smaller than lawn mower engine sized rotary engine based power plant.
Or if you read playboy (aug issue) consider a lawn mower engine sized veggie oil burning engine that is small and simple enough that your backyard mechanic can cheaply enough deal with the problems of that type of engine.
This is fucking ridiculous and really should be becoming more publicized as to the obviousness of the intentional failure of the auto industry to not already have vehicles that get upwards of 200 miles a gallon vehicles being sold to the general public and at very affordable proces.
The lease stuff about the City batteries should be a hit....
really, if they make it use alternative fuels like veggy oil (read august issue of playboy) and improve other things of the car needing improvement, they might just find a growing market as gasoline prices climb.
And such alternative fuels would certainly fit the "back to the future" evolution of the car.
I might just consider buying one if those things happened.
This thread tree has caused me to take another closer look at d-bus.
u s/Creating_Interfaces
I sponsored the inclusion of d-bus into AROS http://www.aros.org/ some time ago.
Point being is that I have know about d-bus for quiet some time.
Closer look: specifically I have more closely looked at qdbus and qdbusviewer which did not exist some time ago. dbus-send did but not a man page for it. Certainly it is a step in the right direction but the complexity level can and should be reduced for the end user access.
You are right, there doesn't seem to be much that supports d-bus and that should be assisted in changing by making it as easy as possible to integrate a d-bus port into applications. So easy that even code aware end users could help or at least do it for themselves.
Somehow, I think d-bus application interface may be overcomplexicated http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/D-B
which does not help to promote it use, certainly not end users. And that is a real shame.
Documentation of what functionality is available in applications having a d-bus port, is also lacking. but this of course would be tied to who ever writes the application interface or at least some way to extract it from the code.
Let me give you some good advice.
Fix the problems that you perceive with the users compiling their own.
Let go of your elitism arrogance and realize its causing harm to the software industry in innovation and body count of those taking computer science. There is a certain level of disgust being perceived of the IT industry. And those who might take up computer science are finding reason not to.
Other arguments that you have made are as pointless as your claim of it being pointless for the user to try and customize their system. The library issue only exist due failure to allow different version of the same library.
This problem will not/does not exist with Dragonfly BSD. Different versions are allowed. You do know it is not a hard drive space available issue any more?
If there are still issues with package managers needing to be informed then make it so in the compile make install process. We both know it can be done and really is a matter of scripting it in.
Software is not prescription medicine but its a shame the drug industry doesn't make a medicine to treat such arrogance and elitism as you have expressed.
Besides if a technician needs to install all the software, then why are their package manager for the end users anyway?
I have no doubt that things can be complexifabulicated to the point of even the best developers can't keep it straight. CUPS is perhaps an example. But it could as well be the description of how to tie a shoe lace.
The roman numeral accountant elites, in order to protect their social status, promoted against the hindu-arabic decimal system. Only a fool would think nothing can have value... re: zero place holder. Causing the adoption of the now only universal language, the decimal system, to be delayed for 300 years. As a comparison of elitism arrogance the catholic church held off for three hundred and fifty years before accepting Galileo's observations (early 1990's).
But you should note that without the decimal system, computers could not have been invented.
Now imagine what you are promoting against, if you are so capable.
lol, in using linux the end users will sooner or later set in motion the compiling of a program.
Its not at all difficult and generally the same sequence of things the user does to compile a program.
The kernel, though I have never compiled one that I recall (probably have - early red-hat) is no different I would think, except for the possibility of turning more things on or off or this way instead of that way. Re: what the article is all about, cpu scheduling. And we all know that such selection can and probably is thru a easy to use interface.
Did you notice how the Mac didn't have a command line shell up until OS-X (move to unix like base)
Lacking one of the three primary colors prevents the users from doing more colorful things.
The extension of applescript is the "Automator" in OS-X and it is very limited in what all it can do, what applications it can make use of.
It is also a programming language, rather than just being an IPC user oriented interface to applications and such. I shouldn't have to use applescript, or learn to use it, to tell a music playing program to turn up the volume, via command line or other such external to the application, interface. I should only have to send the application a command telling it to, via IPC
You are the Anonymous Coward, not I.
Apparently I have intimidated you.
Let me rub it in!
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
As I said, Com outright stated how he got started with kernel patches. As an end user.
So don't say end users don't wanna, or are to stupid to know they want to.
d-bus will be replacing dcop in KDE 4.
I sponsored the inclusion of D-Bus in AROS for potential integration between AROS hosted and the host.
It could probably be used to refresh the AROS window when going between AROS and its host window activation.
Though its been some time since that project was complete and d-bus may have changed.
D-Bus is not end user friendly. It is designed and intended for programmers to use, not end users.
For it to be user friendly it would need to provide a more direct, simplified and straight forward way to
access the functionality of programs. Program functionality the user already has access to via the programs GUI or Command Line.
The qdbusviewer really should have resizeable areas but here is an example of what I mean "for programmers not users"
oops! it won't let me copy the "methods" tree to show all the programmer stuff that complicates it more than what the users needs. The user doesn't need all the paths complexication.
Use qdbusviewer and run rhythmbox and look at the methods tree expanded. This is not the user interface I am on about but shows the various paths/tree the user needs to know to access something as simple as volume control.
Remember the IPC interface for the user should be near as simple as the interface the user uses within the application, though command based, not gui (a gui can be put on top of a command interface but the command interface is primary). What the user needs is the simplicity of a command set for an application, an address for the application that is straight forward and consistent and a way to receive results, like easy use of a variable that holds return value. I.e. commandline>
dbusit rhythmbox volumeup returnvalue
where:
"dbusit" would be an application that knows to take the following over dbus and is used as teh end user interface.
"rhythmbox is the target (if more than one then identification via rhythmbox.0, rhythmbox.1 etc...simple)
"volumeup" would be the command to pass to rhythmbox to turn up the volume a notch. *command set is left up to the programmer of the application and should make available at least the same functionality the user has thru the gui or command line interface to the application.
I want to give and example of what is required to use qdbus to raise the volume a notch in Rhythmbox but I am only able to get as far as commandline> qdbus org.gnome.Rhythmbox
And that only gives me the complexications of paths...But entering the paths so to access the command, uh err method produce service not existing error.
Such an interface should be as intuitive as possible. The path interface is apparently so, up to before accessing commands... uh err.... methods???? As A user I don't think I'm going to "method volume up" instead I am the user, in control of what I want. I command rhythmbox to turn volume up!
Try teaching calculus to a kid that hasn't learned basic math yet!! End user don't need advanced programmer babel to use basic programing concepts. Especially since they are typically not spending all their time programming to condition themselves to think in terms of programming. Don't make them have to remember complexication forgien to what they do in using computers.
Looking for documentation on the Freedesktop site search engine produces no results for either qdbus or qdbusviewer.
And a search on google produced worse, links to programming babel...
Common consistent, end user oriented is lacking in dbus.
And there is the issue of applications lacking a dbus interface, such as firefox.....
To ask, "what would the user want with automating firefox?" as an excuse not to, is an invasion and suppression of innovation. As it express failure to support user freedoms to explore what they may or may not do and shows expectation to hand over any ideas or needs they may have. Which typically get shot down and perhaps later incorporated to the credit of not the originator of the idea, but the programmer w
I'm sure you can come up with a long list.
Take that list and divide it into programing languages and protocols or methods of IPC access.
drop the programming languages and divide the IPC stuff into two lists. One strictly oriented towards programmers and the other for providing the typical user with a common, consistent method for accessing functionality of applications, devices and libraries.
Drop the programmer oriented list.
now take what remains and make a list of programs that provide such common consistent user oriented accessibility through the remaining IPC list.
What do you come up with?
Its not like I'm suggesting making functionality accessible to the user that the user doesn't already have, but providing a way the user can make use of it to create or automate their own personalized tasks.
its like the software industry has provided only two of the three primary colors of paint to the users, knowing full well that the users are greatly limited as to what they can do lacking the third color.
And the argument for avoiding providing the third color is "but the users don't wanna..." and that is utter bullshit and entrapment for dumbing down the users base.
Bill Gates said it, about how to become financially successful. "make people need you"
And we all know of the dishonest tactics he and his company have applied.
That is not an excuse for the open source community to avoid providing such a common consistent user oriented interface that allows users to put things together for themselves, especially when it is at least providing access to the same functionality the user has already, but in a more versatile use manner.
The arexx port interface on Amiga is easy to add to a program to allow that program to participate. Likewise such a interface for open source software can and should be as common consistent and easy for the user to access and use and easy for the programmers to add to applications, devices and libraries.
ain't no mo free...
On a more serious note, there is more value to be extracted from electronic junk then for the same weight of ore in mining.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for improving the recycling process and maybe adjust the manufacturing process to accomodate the end life cycle of recycling.
small minds see only small pieces of a bigger picture....
Unless the Chinese government outlaws linux and alternative OS, its only a matter of time for world wide open source software to improve beyond what microsoft can produce. Note, I said "Open Source Software" which is a wider base than the "Linux Kernel".
But for this to be promoted as Victory of MS vs. Linux. Certainly it is a hype, as GNU/linux continues to replace Microsoft products in governments around the world. Before GNU/Linux what was the option?
Sooooo, in the bigger picture, MS has been down graded from a sure thing, only option, to a need to announce and amplify the announcement of victory over the competition in specific cases.
You will not find MS announcing competitors victory over them and maybe not even teh same level of media coverage.
The fact that it took the open source software development model to create competition for microsoft, where all other MS competitors business models failed, says a lot as to what to expect of the future of open source software.
... I find a bit of hypocrisy.
.... consideration about inclusion of code they wrote.. Uhhh did I forget to say its "Open Source"?
Three is right, as its Con and an email exchange between Linus and another.
Whooo hooo..
That settles it.... everybody is accounted for..... right??
Its open source but with all the talk about having a maintainer of certain character as a part of the consideration of
Its not uncommon for pioneers to be forgotten as what comes next, takes over...
Or does this mean that when a maintainer dies, so does what they were maintaining?
The general message Con seemed to be expressing was more interesting as a general observation than of specific code.
The response from Linus suggest that although Linus does not frequent specific topic lists because of inherent bias, he has his bias none the less.
There is a general across the board bias, proprietary and open source, and it is one of exclusion of the end users.
And it comes across as arrogance motivated by money and/or ego.
To explain, programming is an act that includes creating functionality that is then accessible thru an easier to use interface such as a function call with arguements and expected return value. The general concept is common knowledge in coding regardless of what programming language you are using,
However, this concept is not typically provided to the end user, but instead kept away from the user and certainly not provided to the user, when some distortion of it is provided the user, in any sort of easy common consistent manner.
To clarify, users access programs typically via a command line or GUI. Neither of which are so conducive to allowing teh users to put things together for themselves. All the functionality if available to the user via the programs GUI or command line. But the same functionality is not available in an mode that allows user to call the functionality in the program and make use of the results outside of teh programs command line or GUI interface.
Con mentioned the Amiga. The Amiga had all three user interfaces. The command Line, The GUI and the missing user interface an every other system today, The IPC port interface, most commonly known as the AREXX port but did not need AREXX running in order to use the port for "user putting things together for themselves".
SO YOU DON'T LET USER PUT THINGS TOGETHER FOR THEMSELVES! WHY NOT?
Cause you can dumb down the user and get ideas from them and sell those ideas implemented, back to them.
But when you take away from the users, the ability to put things together for themselves, then that makes you a hypocrite when you then call them ignorant, armchair coders or any other demeaning term. As it is you who have created that self supported dependency of trying to justify your lack of inclusion of others.
Con outright stated how he got started.
Maybe You linus and a whole world of other coders, need to pull you head out of your asses and SERIOUSLY realize, THERE ARE OTHERS you are not considering.
Ultimately, if people want to optimize their system for their needs, they should be able to. But there is serious prevention of that across the board.
... human.
It does not matter if you are an illegal alien residing in the US, a lawyer, a carpenter, a musician, a doctor, a nuclear reactor operator, a judge, a member of clergy, a CEO at a super major company, a richest man or second richest man, the ruler of a country...etc...
we are all capable of being stupid, dishonest and deadly. Usually its a choice!
Like how about the war drum banging that was done on deceiving many americans to support the war on iraq?
k market.html
I believe it was fox national that would pull stuff like using split screens showing one thing, the narrator talking about another thing and a small box showing someone speaking in another language.
It made it appear that it was all related like the non-english speaker was talking about the larger picture being shown while the narrator appeared to be a translator. But none of them were related. And this happen daily in the build up of getting american support behind Bush.
Anyone with half a mind would see thru it, many didn't. Fox tried to make it obvious, as other networks also contributed in less obvious ways. There was even the setting up of what was called the "clear channel network" composed of TV and radio station.
Propoganda!!
Why did they do this?
Anthrax threats.....
I understand the person they tried to blame sued and got more then Richard Jewel did for being publicly accused of the 96 olympic centennial bombing..
No comspiracy needed. just one person with enough clearance at the US military base in teh US that the anthrax came from.
Even an idiot would realize how the politics of the country would play off the anthrax story.
It was an intentional threat against the media to get them to play the war drums in support of US attacking Iraq.
Bim Laden and Saddam are not the same person, regardless of what most supporting the war believe.
There is more that has not been told together, but it has been told and the information is findable on the internet.
911 was the result of extreamist using a genuinely real event Americans were seriously guilty of, as an excuse to do what they did, and the excuse was real and verifiable enough that it certainly helped the extreamist to promote a following of fools to help them.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stoc
That's a lot of money that is not going to just appear out of no where and vanish into nowhere.
What other financial things happened in the 90's?
The dotcom boom and bust... money came from somewhere to finance business with out a product or service... easy come easy go... for those who were able to get out in time.
For those who didn't get out in time... enron, worldcom and the likes, hiding their losses from the gamble.
Can Americans say they are sorry? Credit card interest rate dropping to 0% was an attempt. As the world bank offered to make a loan to south east asia countries like indonesia [80% muslim by CIA reports] where the trillion dollar bet drained financials badly, but with an interest rate.... that offer fell flat.....
The information is available, but no-one has yet put it together and communicated it to the masses. And whats his name "ferinheight 911" only provided distraction from the simple occums razor of "follow the money"...
Asking someone if they trust the news media is like asking them if they are stupid.
Networks use news as a vehicle to sell advertising space to. On a slow news day they will take an any hill and make it sound like a mountain to attract viewers. See how bad the ants are to home owners....
... they now have a company wide policy to re-install Vista every night. And that is just for starters. They also have several thousand machines that go through the re-install process continually. And in addition there is going to be a Vista upgrade that cause re-installs on consumer systems that fit the requirements of such a task without bringing suspicion by the consumer.
Considering the human population of the planet is just over 6 billion.... using MS marketing mentality, that must mean the other 5 billion are running something other tan MS OS.
The agreement is contradictory to the GPL license.
... bill gates got his start by porting BASIC and then yelling piracy because he wasn't delivering in a reasonable amount of time.
The Agreement is null and void because of the contradiction with the license.
It should also be noted that Microsoft
Second was the sale of MSDOS to IBM but Microsoft did not, at the time of selling it to IBM, own it nor had they even contacted the creator if it.
Is this another example of MS profiting off of what they do not own or have a right to?
Of course it is and it shows what scum Microsoft really are.
Trying to use and agreement that invalidates a license while using libel against the software developer with claims of piracy - patent infrigment on what is by nature not patentable but itself "software patents" an act of fraud supported by the US government. And MS does not present any proof of what is supposedly infringed.
Really people, this is the essence of Microsoft. What they are doing should be pursued legally as it certainly is an intentional consumer deception at various levels.
MS is still attacking Open source software. Make no mistake between what they say and what they do.
http://zapatopi.net/mindguard/
wind-up
a nd_powered_items.html&cart_id=
http://www.geoduck.com/epicenter/order.cgi?page=h
... the US food industry stops polluting our diets with blood vessel clogging poisons like HFCS and such.
Ultimately what they are talking about here would put more work on the heart, the energy source of blood flow.
What the formula or law regarding conversion of energy?
Then again I suppose if you cut off your arms and legs your heart can then take on more work without shorting your life ????
What ever happened to the wind generators? I heard that someone made a computer system with such a generator built in.
I'd say you are a bit lost in all the overcomplexifabulactions you perceive to exist. In fact you have gotten so overwhelmed that you forgot to mention input/output with printers and more devices than I or you know about.
.net. You can write programs using any number of languages. Then it is translated into a Common Intermediate Language (CIL) which is then run off a run time engine which does the final translation into binary perceivable by the hardware.
It took three hundred year for the wide spread application the Hindu-Arabic system, after it was introduced.
In comparison it took about 350 years for the catholic church to finally accept Galileo's observations.
This happened in the early 1990's and to verify I mean like less than 20 years ago.
Why? Politics of course! The church changed because they were losing supporters because of their silly position of punishing someone who was being apparently more honesty than they. Mathematics change took generations to overcome the politics and population growth enough to make fail the roman numeral systems use in mathematics and accounting (numbers got to big). Today the Computer Science courses are losing Students and trying to recapture interest. Some example are "Computational Thinking" and "Great Principles of Computing" efforts (google them).
What might a Roman Numeral Accountant promote in order to protect their elite social status and income? Only a fool would think nothing can have value. And so it is often the case of wrong teachings that program people to think in terms that limit their ability to comprehend what more is possible. Fixing that requires deprogramming.
Programming is the act of automating complexity and supplying it an easier to use interface so the user of the complexity can use and reuse it and even incorporate it in other automations of complexity. It is a recursive act.
Regardless of what programming language you use, the machine needs to see transistor states and changes of on or off. As a first level abstraction, we call this binary. For any program you write, regardless or what language you write it in or any other factors such as interpreted or compiled etc., the hardware needs to see binary. The fundamental technology upon what a computer is built is the two state transistor providing three states, on, off and not accessed.
There is translation involved in programming, perhaps even multiple levels of translations.
program written in programing language x -----> translation levels ---> binary machine perspective.
If you want to get all complexifabulcated as to what goes on in the translation levels for any particular language, then you are being to subjective to the area of problem and will only perhaps see symptoms of the problem, not the cause.. You have to be objective, step away to see a bigger picture, in order to see the problem.
Microsoft tried to quantize the more common and popular programming languages. Anyone could have done this, but MS was most likely as they do not innovate but rather try to own and/or control what others have done. They didn't even own MSDOS when they sold it to IBM. Of course there is the MS bias of application of the summing.
Anyways, MS produced out of the summing of programing languages the CLI (Common Language Infrastructure).
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/sta ndards/Ecma-335.htm
It was the summing of programming concepts and data-type with the integration done to avoid conflicts. This is at the core of what is better know as
You mentioned symptoms of the problem such as:
"In point of fact, almost every abstraction is a loss of power." That is not a fact at all. It is abstraction that enables us to do more. If there is any power loss it is only as a result of losing touch with, or access to, the elements of the abstraction ladder. And that is a symptom of the problem