Now granted, they do also have a SuSE version, but still. The program is only available for those two distros. The mentality comes from the same place.
The problem in this case (I believe) is that they are distributing neither as source nor as RPM/Apt/Deb/pkg/etc. Rather, they are distributing just as binary and with their own installer, or whatever. And I believe (again, I don't know, because I don't actually use the program; I just know about it) that it looks for certain libs in certain places, and so on, making it difficult to "simulate" a Red Hat/SuSE environment.
It definitely is possible, as this example shows.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it. - Sean
What you are proposing is basically the Linux Standards Base project. It was formed to do pretty much what you just said, and that was almost 2 years ago. Hate to say it, but they haven't come terribly far just yet.
People will be people, and they will have divergent opinions. But this seems to be the best hope for something like that. And it has at the very least, token participation from all the major players (Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Corel, Debian, etc, etc.)
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it. - Sean
> When the verdict (package) clocked in at around 10 meg -- I quickly dismissed ever using VB again.
I'd say one of about 5 things is happening here:
You are exaggerating the size of the program
You are understating the magnitude of the project
Your programmer is incompetent
Said database is huge
You are using an unusual database format, for which the driver is huge
I say this because I am just currently finishing up a seemingly similar application, also in VB. It reads and writes records to/from a MUMPS (medical) database over a TCP/IP connection, with verification. It can handle 4 different types of record, each of which has roughly 50 different business rules they must be read against, embeds the capability for the user to connect to the host the database is on via a telnet screen, and correlates these records against code tables stored locally in an MS-ACCESS database (not a format known for file size efficiency). This local database contains 17 tables with a total of about 60,000 records (between 5 and 20 fields per record).
The install files, executable and data files altogether come in at only about 6.5 MB. And the MS-ACCESS code table is over half of that. I'd give you the source code to show you except it's kinda proprietary. But it is nevertheless the truth.
I repeat again, something is wrong with the scenario you described. And it's not all VB that's wrong unless you are doing something VERY strange..
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it. - Sean
Of course, you realize that all INTERCAL needs is a good preprocessor?
I mean, hell, with a half-decent preprocessor, you could write INTERCAL code that would be quite easily readable (and therefore maintainable). Yes, it's blasphemy, but it's also the truth. Just something that could handle something like:
#define iRecordLength.1234
Or, something that allows you to define how to substitute:
declare function MyFunction( iParameter ) declare iLocalVar1 declare iLocalVar2
> corporations will standardize on what they percieve the market leader is.
Ok, but how are they going to determine that? That's what I was getting at. You were paying too much attention to the names. I agree... it won't matter one damn bit what they're called. My point was that they'd all be equal. Since they all came directly from MS in the first place, they'd all share the same codebase, the same document sets, etc, etc. They would share customers equally. There would be no difference whatsoever between them.
Who decides then which one is the market leader? One company may perceive said market leader as different from the next company. So where are we now?
And my PC analogy is not brain-damaged. Rather, it may be, but not for the reason you mentioned. You say that (1) A PC is easier to clone than the MS code, and (2) the PC makers didn't have to clone very much.
Those are both true, but totally irrelevant. You keep approaching this as if there would be one MS (or whatever it descended into) and several clones that came in from outside sources and tried to copy MS.
That is simply not the situation we are talking about. We are talking about splitting MS from the inside. Like taking an orange and cutting it into 4 quarters (or 3 thirds or whatever). They would all come from the same place. No-one would have to "clone" (clone as in copy) anything. They would all come from exactly the same place. They would be identical copies of each other. So it doesn't matter how hard the code would be to copy, since no-one would be copying anything from an outside position. It would be duplicated from the inside.
Get it now?
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it. - Sean
First off, he was not talking about making MSWin plus CloneWin 1 plus CloneWin 2 plus CloneWin 3. He was talking about CloneWin1, CloneWin2, CloneWin3 and CloneWin4. They would be absolutely identical, no one having any better claim to "real" MS lineage than any other. In all respects, they'd be on equal footing.
Second, assume your proposed situation were the case. If you think that a lot of people wouldn't take Clone Windows at a significantly (for different values of significant) lower price, if they were the same (or even if they weren't), then I'm afraid you haven't paid much attention to history. Take a look at the early 80's, and at what happened when first Compaq, then other companies made cheap clones of the IBM PC. IBM tried exactly the same tactics as you've described (coercing 3rd party app developers into claiming that an IBM Clone wouldn't be fully supported (and in many cases that was true)), but it didn't help. The price decrease was enough to get a critical mass of people to switch.
And look at where we are today in the PC market. 2 decades ago, hardware became commoditized. There's no reason why the same could not happen to software today.
Sure it won't happen overnight. But that's not to say it won't happen.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it. - Sean
Actually, you probably don't need Miguel for that. You might want to check out the Pango, which is a project to incorporate unicode into Gtk. That is being rolled into GNOME as an intrinsic component as of (what is now being projected as) the November GNOME release, which will basically be GNOME 2.0 -- slated to come out November 2000 (hence the name). This is detailed in the O'Reilly Summary of the GUADEC conference.
Keep in mind that I don't follow it very closely, so it's possible that this doesn't actually address your question. In which case I'll shut up now:-)
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Basically they boiled down to it not being stable enough on anything other than i386. They figured that by the time the inevitable bugfixes, etc. made it out, that Linux 2.4 would be also out, and that would be about time to start up a 7.0 series.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
>Now, he's been "chosen" because of his skills. Because he is smart, because he is smarter than most, right? Well then how come he doesn't know what an EMP is?
Oh, come on. There are a number of problems with that statement, but the big one is the old assumption that "smart" == "knows everything".
Bullshit.
"Smart" does not mean you know everything. Smart means you have a greater capacity for understanding, for absorbing new information. Specifically, and most importantly (especially in the context of this movie), it means an ability to look at things in a new light, to fire different neurons along different paths, and from the same base facts, make different connections, and draw new, different and wonderous conclusions.
That is what "smart" means, and that especially is what being "the One" means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much you know. There is no basis whatsoever for the assertion that he must have been "smart" therefore he had to know everything, therefore he had to know what an EMP was. That's a completely different (and unrealistic) quality.
Argh.
*gets off soapbox*
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Well... I can't speak for everyone, of course. But I can speak for myself, and this is why I am going to pay for it.
I am on a 28.8 dial-up. I have no interest in waiting hours and hours to download it. I will pay for the convenience of avoiding that.
I like little things, such as the books that come with it, the fact that it will come with boot disks, so I don't have to rawrite my own. I will pay for the paper and the convenience of having little details taken care of for me.
Most importantly, I want to give back to the community. I will pay so they can pay developers to help give us more great stuff.
That's why I will pay for it.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
The acronym ISO stands for "International Standards Organization". They"devise" (for lack of a better word) standards for all sorts of things. The nomenclature ISOXXXX refers to a specific standard. ISO9000, for example, is a standard for workflow management, designed to help get optimum efficiency and stuff out of a work process. ISO8570 (or something close to it) is a standard for fabrics, designed with safety (ie: fire retardancy) in mind. The standards they come up with are extremely wide-ranging.
The one relevant to this discussion is ISO9660, which is a standard for encoding data on a CD. Thus a *.iso file is one that conforms to the ISO9660 standard, and can be written directly to a CD, which can then be read just like any other "standard" CD.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Re:Red Hat Linux 6.2 Release notes
on
RedHat 6.2 - RSN
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... maybe I should try building from source.
I tried using RPM to do it. It got about half-way through the upgrade, and it aborted, spitting me back out on the command line, and of course, nothing worked. Not a single executable gave me anything but a string of error messages. So I ended up taking it down "the hard way" and mounting my HD on a friend's computer, as mentioned.
And ever since then, I've had cold feet. But I guess the extra flexibility of building from source would help.
But anyway... you mentioned that I should build in a separate directory. Then what? Once I'm sure it built correctly. Should I copy over the existing one? Should I point my system at the new ones? And how exactly do I do that?
Like I said above, I guess I'm actually looking for a HOWTO.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Re:Red Hat Linux 6.2 Release notes
on
RedHat 6.2 - RSN
·
· Score: 1
As a 5.2 user with everything upgraded to the point where it's almost (almost!) a 6.2 anyway, I'm wondering what you did about Glibc?
I've pretty much hit the upgrade ceiling with a number of apps (WiNE, Sawmill, GNOME, Mozilla, etc) because I'm still running Glibc 2.0, and they require 2.1. That's the main reason I'm considering going for the RHat 6.2 upgrade.
I tried upgrading my Glibc myself, but only managed to just about hose my system (only managed to salvage it by removing my HD, and mounting it in a friend's system who copied his Glibc 2.0 libs back over).
SO... how did you overcome that hurdle? Or did you? I dunno... maybe you don't upgrade as much as me. I guess what I'm really looking for is a Glibc-upgrade-HOWTO. Anyone out there that can help me? Or do I just bite the bullet and upgrade to 6.2?
Anyway... I think I've been rambling here enough, so I'll shut up now:-)
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Seriously. All these comments that are marked as "Troll" but aren't really. They're just like this one. Spam. We seriously need a "spam" moderation category. And that would include posts about goatse.cx, Don Knotts and that super-scroller thing.
They're all spam.
Oh, and "Spam" should carry an automatic -5.
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
It's under what (I guess) is called the WINE License which is a lot closer to the BSD license than the GPL.
And no, there's no provision (as far as I can tell) that stipulates that all files you link into an original work have to be open. Derived works have to be, but not the original, as long as it's linked in, not included in the source code. So linking closed-source VBScript/JScript would be ok. Of course, this is only my interpretation and IANAL (duh).
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it. - Sean
Slashdot Mirror
> but how can you only support one distro?
See here for an example. This is Metrowerks' CodeWarrior for Red Hat Linux. You may care to note the system requirements.
Now granted, they do also have a SuSE version, but still. The program is only available for those two distros. The mentality comes from the same place.
The problem in this case (I believe) is that they are distributing neither as source nor as RPM/Apt/Deb/pkg/etc. Rather, they are distributing just as binary and with their own installer, or whatever. And I believe (again, I don't know, because I don't actually use the program; I just know about it) that it looks for certain libs in certain places, and so on, making it difficult to "simulate" a Red Hat/SuSE environment.
It definitely is possible, as this example shows.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> choose the Blue-Hat
Ummm... shouldn't that be "Blue Screen"?
< G >
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
What you are proposing is basically the Linux Standards Base project. It was formed to do pretty much what you just said, and that was almost 2 years ago. Hate to say it, but they haven't come terribly far just yet.
People will be people, and they will have divergent opinions. But this seems to be the best hope for something like that. And it has at the very least, token participation from all the major players (Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Corel, Debian, etc, etc.)
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Eep!
:-)
Ok, you've successfully set my brain spinning out of control...
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I'd say one of about 5 things is happening here:
I say this because I am just currently finishing up a seemingly similar application, also in VB. It reads and writes records to/from a MUMPS (medical) database over a TCP/IP connection, with verification. It can handle 4 different types of record, each of which has roughly 50 different business rules they must be read against, embeds the capability for the user to connect to the host the database is on via a telnet screen, and correlates these records against code tables stored locally in an MS-ACCESS database (not a format known for file size efficiency). This local database contains 17 tables with a total of about 60,000 records (between 5 and 20 fields per record).
The install files, executable and data files altogether come in at only about 6.5 MB. And the MS-ACCESS code table is over half of that. I'd give you the source code to show you except it's kinda proprietary. But it is nevertheless the truth.
I repeat again, something is wrong with the scenario you described. And it's not all VB that's wrong unless you are doing something VERY strange..
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I mean, hell, with a half-decent preprocessor, you could write INTERCAL code that would be quite easily readable (and therefore maintainable). Yes, it's blasphemy, but it's also the truth. Just something that could handle something like:
Or, something that allows you to define how to substitute:
with
and
with
with
all this assuming, of course, that something akin to the following had been properly set up beforehand:
Of course, this preprocessor would also expose a way to include "proper" comments, but who comments their code anyway?
Last but not least, it would absolutely neccesarily have to have an
ability, to allow for standard libraries to do messy things like IO and character/string handling.
So you see... you can write readable code in pretty much any language, as long as you have a half decent preprocessor. Even assembly can't hide
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> corporations will standardize on what they percieve the market leader is.
Ok, but how are they going to determine that? That's what I was getting at. You were paying too much attention to the names. I agree... it won't matter one damn bit what they're called. My point was that they'd all be equal. Since they all came directly from MS in the first place, they'd all share the same codebase, the same document sets, etc, etc. They would share customers equally. There would be no difference whatsoever between them.
Who decides then which one is the market leader? One company may perceive said market leader as different from the next company. So where are we now?
And my PC analogy is not brain-damaged. Rather, it may be, but not for the reason you mentioned. You say that (1) A PC is easier to clone than the MS code, and (2) the PC makers didn't have to clone very much.
Those are both true, but totally irrelevant. You keep approaching this as if there would be one MS (or whatever it descended into) and several clones that came in from outside sources and tried to copy MS.
That is simply not the situation we are talking about. We are talking about splitting MS from the inside. Like taking an orange and cutting it into 4 quarters (or 3 thirds or whatever). They would all come from the same place. No-one would have to "clone" (clone as in copy) anything. They would all come from exactly the same place. They would be identical copies of each other. So it doesn't matter how hard the code would be to copy, since no-one would be copying anything from an outside position. It would be duplicated from the inside.
Get it now?
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Two things:
First off, he was not talking about making MSWin plus CloneWin 1 plus CloneWin 2 plus CloneWin 3. He was talking about CloneWin1, CloneWin2, CloneWin3 and CloneWin4. They would be absolutely identical, no one having any better claim to "real" MS lineage than any other. In all respects, they'd be on equal footing.
Second, assume your proposed situation were the case. If you think that a lot of people wouldn't take Clone Windows at a significantly (for different values of significant) lower price, if they were the same (or even if they weren't), then I'm afraid you haven't paid much attention to history. Take a look at the early 80's, and at what happened when first Compaq, then other companies made cheap clones of the IBM PC. IBM tried exactly the same tactics as you've described (coercing 3rd party app developers into claiming that an IBM Clone wouldn't be fully supported (and in many cases that was true)), but it didn't help. The price decrease was enough to get a critical mass of people to switch.
And look at where we are today in the PC market. 2 decades ago, hardware became commoditized. There's no reason why the same could not happen to software today.
Sure it won't happen overnight. But that's not to say it won't happen.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> The same goes for HTML help - what the fuck is wrong with just putting it into an RTF document
One word: Hyperlinks.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Actually, you probably don't need Miguel for that. You might want to check out the Pango, which is a project to incorporate unicode into Gtk. That is being rolled into GNOME as an intrinsic component as of (what is now being projected as) the November GNOME release, which will basically be GNOME 2.0 -- slated to come out November 2000 (hence the name). This is detailed in the O'Reilly Summary of the GUADEC conference.
:-)
Keep in mind that I don't follow it very closely, so it's possible that this doesn't actually address your question. In which case I'll shut up now
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Basically they boiled down to it not being stable enough on anything other than i386. They figured that by the time the inevitable bugfixes, etc. made it out, that Linux 2.4 would be also out, and that would be about time to start up a 7.0 series.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
>Now, he's been "chosen" because of his skills. Because he is smart, because he is smarter than most, right? Well then how come he doesn't know what an EMP is?
Oh, come on. There are a number of problems with that statement, but the big one is the old assumption that "smart" == "knows everything".
Bullshit.
"Smart" does not mean you know everything. Smart means you have a greater capacity for understanding, for absorbing new information. Specifically, and most importantly (especially in the context of this movie), it means an ability to look at things in a new light, to fire different neurons along different paths, and from the same base facts, make different connections, and draw new, different and wonderous conclusions.
That is what "smart" means, and that especially is what being "the One" means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much you know. There is no basis whatsoever for the assertion that he must have been "smart" therefore he had to know everything, therefore he had to know what an EMP was. That's a completely different (and unrealistic) quality.
Argh.
*gets off soapbox*
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Ok, fair enough. I stand corrected :-)
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Well... I can't speak for everyone, of course. But I can speak for myself, and this is why I am going to pay for it.
- I am on a 28.8 dial-up. I have no interest in waiting hours and hours to download it. I will pay for the convenience of avoiding that.
- I like little things, such as the books that come with it, the fact that it will come with boot disks, so I don't have to rawrite my own. I will pay for the paper and the convenience of having little details taken care of for me.
- Most importantly, I want to give back to the community. I will pay so they can pay developers to help give us more great stuff.
That's why I will pay for it.--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
The acronym ISO stands for "International Standards Organization". They"devise" (for lack of a better word) standards for all sorts of things. The nomenclature ISOXXXX refers to a specific standard. ISO9000, for example, is a standard for workflow management, designed to help get optimum efficiency and stuff out of a work process. ISO8570 (or something close to it) is a standard for fabrics, designed with safety (ie: fire retardancy) in mind. The standards they come up with are extremely wide-ranging.
The one relevant to this discussion is ISO9660, which is a standard for encoding data on a CD. Thus a *.iso file is one that conforms to the ISO9660 standard, and can be written directly to a CD, which can then be read just like any other "standard" CD.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Hmm... maybe I should try building from source.
I tried using RPM to do it. It got about half-way through the upgrade, and it aborted, spitting me back out on the command line, and of course, nothing worked. Not a single executable gave me anything but a string of error messages. So I ended up taking it down "the hard way" and mounting my HD on a friend's computer, as mentioned.
And ever since then, I've had cold feet. But I guess the extra flexibility of building from source would help.
But anyway... you mentioned that I should build in a separate directory. Then what? Once I'm sure it built correctly. Should I copy over the existing one? Should I point my system at the new ones? And how exactly do I do that?
Like I said above, I guess I'm actually looking for a HOWTO.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
As a 5.2 user with everything upgraded to the point where it's almost (almost!) a 6.2 anyway, I'm wondering what you did about Glibc?
:-)
I've pretty much hit the upgrade ceiling with a number of apps (WiNE, Sawmill, GNOME, Mozilla, etc) because I'm still running Glibc 2.0, and they require 2.1. That's the main reason I'm considering going for the RHat 6.2 upgrade.
I tried upgrading my Glibc myself, but only managed to just about hose my system (only managed to salvage it by removing my HD, and mounting it in a friend's system who copied his Glibc 2.0 libs back over).
SO... how did you overcome that hurdle? Or did you? I dunno... maybe you don't upgrade as much as me. I guess what I'm really looking for is a Glibc-upgrade-HOWTO. Anyone out there that can help me? Or do I just bite the bullet and upgrade to 6.2?
Anyway... I think I've been rambling here enough, so I'll shut up now
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Okay. They day they start insisting I use an external keyboard on my laptop is the day I start getting really worried!
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Seriously. All these comments that are marked as "Troll" but aren't really. They're just like this one. Spam. We seriously need a "spam" moderation category. And that would include posts about goatse.cx, Don Knotts and that super-scroller thing.
They're all spam.
Oh, and "Spam" should carry an automatic -5.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
> There exists a clear separation between application software and OS software.
Eh???
Ok. Is vi OS or application? Howabout ls? Howabout grep? PPPD? HTTPD?
If anything, unix is characterized by a very poor separation of OS and application space. At least, that's the way I've always thought of it...
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
>So as long as WINE is GPL (it is, right?)
Uhhhh... no.
It's under what (I guess) is called the WINE License which is a lot closer to the BSD license than the GPL.
And no, there's no provision (as far as I can tell) that stipulates that all files you link into an original work have to be open. Derived works have to be, but not the original, as long as it's linked in, not included in the source code. So linking closed-source VBScript/JScript would be ok. Of course, this is only my interpretation and IANAL (duh).
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
I kinda like W2K1 myself... (as in: W2K + 1)
Rolls fairly easily off the keyboard... w2k1...
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
eBut eyou ealso eforgot eabout eE efor eEnlightenment eEpplets... e!
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
Nope. Didn't you read the website? The most specifically don't /want/ to unroll it.
There's a laser that sits in the hole in the middle (where the spindle goes) and reads it from the inside out.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean
>Yah...banning books because we don't agree with them is a really good idea - next we can all wear swastikas and put jews in internment camps.
:-)
Well... accoprding to Godwin's Law, you've just lost this entire argument, dude!
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean