Funny you should say that (A) is a nonsense rule because I ran across that very situation day before yesterday. I'm teaching a new hire the ropes at my company. The project he will be working on is based on Unix. I asked him to spend some time with XEmacs or Vim, because those were the editors we had. He was horrified. He wanted to know where the IDE was...
Considering that Gnome is a part of GNU, and Debian bends over backwards to please GNU, I expect there will be debs ready five minutes *before* the final release is announced.
This would be like if an English prof told you to write a term paper and you did extensive research but lost points for bad grammar. It matters, but is it enough to dismiss the research done?
Bad grammer on an English test? Gee, that sounds like arithmetic errors in a calculus test!
You missed the main point. The reason for not using an IDE, syntax highlighting, and even the keyboard is to retrain your brain. You've learned syntax by associating it with particular visual and motor cues. This is what needs to be changed if you want to do well on paper and pencil coding tests (and job interviews).
When you're on the job, you WILL have those kinds of time pressures. One of the things the interviewer wants to know is how well you can cope with it.
It's Friday at 5:00 and you're leaving on a weekend trip at 7:00. The software is handed off to SQA on monday. There's one more bug in the queue and it belongs to you. Question: A) Do you bail on your trip? B) Do you sneak out the back door? C) Do you go fix that bug in 57 minutes?
If the test is asking you to use obsure Motif function calls or NT sockets, then you have a point. But if you're being asked to write a linked list or balance a binary tree, then it is perfectly fair. These are skills you are expected to know as a software engineer.
Just because you have a calculator is no excuse not to learn how to add.
This is a skill that you need to learn. When you go out on a job interview, you will most likely be given a marker and white board and told to code something. If you're going to freeze up without a monitor and keyboard in front of you, the employer will be very hesitant.
It seems that you've associated syntax and semantics with the visual cues of a computer. That's not the same part of the brain that answers exams. So you need to retrain yourself. Here are some things you can do to relearn programming:
A) Stop using IDEs. Use the plainest text editor that you can find to write your code. Turn off any syntax highlighting and code completion.
B) Design your code before you write it. Use UML, flowcharts or whatever, but design it first. Then when it comes time to code you will know where you are going.
C) Write code away from a computer. Use a pencil and paper. I didn't have a computer when I was in college (very few people did). So I coded by hand on paper, then went to the lab to type it in.
The point is that the article is about antivirus manufacturers scaring the populace into buying their products. IBM doesn't do that, which may be why they couldn't compete in the AV market.
Re:Differences appear minor
on
Gnome 2.0 RC1
·
· Score: 1
The MOC parts are not C++. They are CPP macros. But no one is requiring you to use moc. Code your MOC files by hand.
Re:Differences appear minor
on
Gnome 2.0 RC1
·
· Score: 1
which means that, among other things, configuration files are in/etc and everything else is where it is "supposed" to be.
The last thing I want is for Gnome to install a bunch of shit in/etc./etc doesn't belong to Gnome. It belongs to the system. Geez, don't those guys even have a clue about standards? Put the configs in/usr/local/etc...
By doing the base object-system in C with a clean API
The object system of Gtk-C is anything but clean. Doing OO in C is like doing GP in Pascal.
which cannot be said for either C++ or the C++ derivitive used by Qt/KDE)
The C++ in Qt/KDE is not some derivative C++. It is real genuine C++. To the letter.
Can't find the taskbar? Geez. It's right there in plain site in the exact same location it is under Windows!
A) People who can't handle trivial modifications to their UI should stick with what they know and never switch.
B) Why the hell are we catering to the Windows crowd anyway? Is this a religion where we have to convert everyone before time runs out and the world explodes?
IBM used to sell the excellent IBM Antivirus program. They also had a webpage that explained viruses. But IBM was too honest for their own good. Their website had articles about how you can't catch a virus from a jpeg, tips on how to avoid viruses, and a diatribe from Gibson on how virus writers weren't evil geniuses but malcontent dumbnuts.
All in all, the IBM website was very informative, very honest, and killed their antivirus business. Oh well. I guess MacAfee, Norton and all the rest think dentists are stupid for telling their customers to brush their teeth.
And I'll be just as serious. If the GPU becomes a CPU, won't it still be a CPU? Somehow, I think the CPU I already have is more efficient doing spreadsheets, word processor, compiling KDE, playing MP3s and browsing the Slashdot than a GPU-turned-CPU would be.
If you're building a game box, then a general-purpose GPU would make sense. But if I ever see someone running NetBSD on a GeForceXXII as a webserver, I'll puke.
Ditto. Two years ago in the midst of the dot com rush, a headhunter called and wanted to take me to lunch to discuss my future with a company. I told him I would get back to him. Next day I told my boss. He said to first call back the headhunter because free lunches are hard to come by and that if I needed suggestions he knew of several very expensive restaurants. Second, he marched me in to the director's office and got me a $7000 raise on the spot. And the director apologized that he couldn't offer me more.
I'm still working for the same company, with absolutely no hints that they think I am disloyal.
Ah, back when a monkey could become a well-paid programmer
Now you got today, where all the unemployed monkeys are clogging your voice and e mail with silly resumes bragging about their Introduction to Java class they dropped out of after two weeks at a junior college. Then getting pissed when you don't hire them despite a total job experience consisting of creating an "eCommerce" site for Joe Bob's Liquor down the street.
I'm glad I didn't leave my job for that promise of millions. I could have gotten any job I wanted a year and a half ago. But you know what? My company is till here and still paying me and actually growing.
Damn straight! That CPU just gets in the way. CPUs are for people wanting to use spreadsheets, word processors, accounting, and parsing XML data. Real people just want to play games.
When the GPU can compile its own code, then the computer will finally be freed from those tyrants who want to do use computers for productivity.
Compared to legislative legalese, the GPL is quite simple. Compared to EULA legalese, it is on par. Compared to every other Free Software license, it is a nightmare of complexity, surpassed only by the likes of the IBM and Sun licenses. Compared to the BSD or MIT licenses, it begins to resemble a work of Proust.
You can do it, but it's a big legal hassle. It involves lawyers, document signing rituals, and the whole nine yards. It's easier to transfer your copyright to someone else than to put it in the public domain.
But here's what you can do instead. Use the simplest unrestricted Open Source license possible (the MIT/X11 license).
Okay, if "EULAs are contracts at the moment they are accepted", then where is the consideration? A contract is not valid without consideration.
I've already paid for the software (if it needs to be paid for), and I already have the right to use the software (according to copyright law). Just what is it that the company is giving me and what am I agreeing to give to them?
Of course, in Mythic's case, there is consideration. You don't have the right to use their server, so that is something you gain. But in the case of regular everyday EULAs, they're bogus.
"To be legally binding as a contract, a promise must be exchanged for adequate consideration."
In Mythic's case, the EULA for using their server does grant consideration. But the typical software EULA does not.
You purchase WinXP for $199. You have the legal right to use the software. A few minutes later you see the EULA for the first time. Where is the consideration? There is none! You've already purchased the software, to the price doesn't count. You already have the right to use it, so their grant to use it doesn't count. In short, you lose a hell of a lot, but gain ziltch, so there is no consideration, and thus the EULA is invalid.
No, I don't know what society tolerates lawyers. That one has me stumped.
Software is copied when it is installed on the hard disk of a computer or when it is loaded in the computer's temporary memory (RAM). Copying software without the permission of the author is "copyright infringement,"
Completely contrary to copyright law. To quote from 17 USC 117:
"It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".
Gee, the law says one thing, and Microsoft says another. No wonder they recommend contacting the BSA as opposed to a qualified and unbiased attorney for clarification.
There was a ruling (involving Netscape IIRC) that said that the EULA has to be displayed to the user. If you can demonstrate (remember, guilty until proven innocent) that you never saw the EULA, then you're off the hook.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should say that (A) is a nonsense rule because I ran across that very situation day before yesterday. I'm teaching a new hire the ropes at my company. The project he will be working on is based on Unix. I asked him to spend some time with XEmacs or Vim, because those were the editors we had. He was horrified. He wanted to know where the IDE was...
Considering that Gnome is a part of GNU, and Debian bends over backwards to please GNU, I expect there will be debs ready five minutes *before* the final release is announced.
This would be like if an English prof told you to write a term paper and you did extensive research but lost points for bad grammar. It matters, but is it enough to dismiss the research done?
Bad grammer on an English test? Gee, that sounds like arithmetic errors in a calculus test!
You missed the main point. The reason for not using an IDE, syntax highlighting, and even the keyboard is to retrain your brain. You've learned syntax by associating it with particular visual and motor cues. This is what needs to be changed if you want to do well on paper and pencil coding tests (and job interviews).
Absolutely! A good chef makes his decisions at the grocers. The grocer is out of leeks. What does he do?
When you're on the job, you WILL have those kinds of time pressures. One of the things the interviewer wants to know is how well you can cope with it.
It's Friday at 5:00 and you're leaving on a weekend trip at 7:00. The software is handed off to SQA on monday. There's one more bug in the queue and it belongs to you. Question: A) Do you bail on your trip? B) Do you sneak out the back door? C) Do you go fix that bug in 57 minutes?
If the test is asking you to use obsure Motif function calls or NT sockets, then you have a point. But if you're being asked to write a linked list or balance a binary tree, then it is perfectly fair. These are skills you are expected to know as a software engineer.
Just because you have a calculator is no excuse not to learn how to add.
This is a skill that you need to learn. When you go out on a job interview, you will most likely be given a marker and white board and told to code something. If you're going to freeze up without a monitor and keyboard in front of you, the employer will be very hesitant.
It seems that you've associated syntax and semantics with the visual cues of a computer. That's not the same part of the brain that answers exams. So you need to retrain yourself. Here are some things you can do to relearn programming:
A) Stop using IDEs. Use the plainest text editor that you can find to write your code. Turn off any syntax highlighting and code completion.
B) Design your code before you write it. Use UML, flowcharts or whatever, but design it first. Then when it comes time to code you will know where you are going.
C) Write code away from a computer. Use a pencil and paper. I didn't have a computer when I was in college (very few people did). So I coded by hand on paper, then went to the lab to type it in.
The point is that the article is about antivirus manufacturers scaring the populace into buying their products. IBM doesn't do that, which may be why they couldn't compete in the AV market.
The MOC parts are not C++. They are CPP macros. But no one is requiring you to use moc. Code your MOC files by hand.
which means that, among other things, configuration files are in /etc and everything else is where it is "supposed" to be.
/etc. /etc doesn't belong to Gnome. It belongs to the system. Geez, don't those guys even have a clue about standards? Put the configs in /usr/local/etc...
The last thing I want is for Gnome to install a bunch of shit in
By doing the base object-system in C with a clean API
The object system of Gtk-C is anything but clean. Doing OO in C is like doing GP in Pascal.
which cannot be said for either C++ or the C++ derivitive used by Qt/KDE)
The C++ in Qt/KDE is not some derivative C++. It is real genuine C++. To the letter.
Who says I'm using Lindows?
Can't find the taskbar? Geez. It's right there in plain site in the exact same location it is under Windows!
A) People who can't handle trivial modifications to their UI should stick with what they know and never switch.
B) Why the hell are we catering to the Windows crowd anyway? Is this a religion where we have to convert everyone before time runs out and the world explodes?
IBM used to sell the excellent IBM Antivirus program. They also had a webpage that explained viruses. But IBM was too honest for their own good. Their website had articles about how you can't catch a virus from a jpeg, tips on how to avoid viruses, and a diatribe from Gibson on how virus writers weren't evil geniuses but malcontent dumbnuts.
All in all, the IBM website was very informative, very honest, and killed their antivirus business. Oh well. I guess MacAfee, Norton and all the rest think dentists are stupid for telling their customers to brush their teeth.
And I'll be just as serious. If the GPU becomes a CPU, won't it still be a CPU? Somehow, I think the CPU I already have is more efficient doing spreadsheets, word processor, compiling KDE, playing MP3s and browsing the Slashdot than a GPU-turned-CPU would be.
If you're building a game box, then a general-purpose GPU would make sense. But if I ever see someone running NetBSD on a GeForceXXII as a webserver, I'll puke.
Ditto. Two years ago in the midst of the dot com rush, a headhunter called and wanted to take me to lunch to discuss my future with a company. I told him I would get back to him. Next day I told my boss. He said to first call back the headhunter because free lunches are hard to come by and that if I needed suggestions he knew of several very expensive restaurants. Second, he marched me in to the director's office and got me a $7000 raise on the spot. And the director apologized that he couldn't offer me more.
I'm still working for the same company, with absolutely no hints that they think I am disloyal.
Ah, back when a monkey could become a well-paid programmer
Now you got today, where all the unemployed monkeys are clogging your voice and e mail with silly resumes bragging about their Introduction to Java class they dropped out of after two weeks at a junior college. Then getting pissed when you don't hire them despite a total job experience consisting of creating an "eCommerce" site for Joe Bob's Liquor down the street.
I'm glad I didn't leave my job for that promise of millions. I could have gotten any job I wanted a year and a half ago. But you know what? My company is till here and still paying me and actually growing.
Damn straight! That CPU just gets in the way. CPUs are for people wanting to use spreadsheets, word processors, accounting, and parsing XML data. Real people just want to play games.
When the GPU can compile its own code, then the computer will finally be freed from those tyrants who want to do use computers for productivity.
Compared to legislative legalese, the GPL is quite simple. Compared to EULA legalese, it is on par. Compared to every other Free Software license, it is a nightmare of complexity, surpassed only by the likes of the IBM and Sun licenses. Compared to the BSD or MIT licenses, it begins to resemble a work of Proust.
You can do it, but it's a big legal hassle. It involves lawyers, document signing rituals, and the whole nine yards. It's easier to transfer your copyright to someone else than to put it in the public domain.
But here's what you can do instead. Use the simplest unrestricted Open Source license possible (the MIT/X11 license).
The consideration in contract two is your promise to uphold the EULA in return for the use of the software.
But I already have the right to use the software. So I am gaining nothing. There is no consideration.
Okay, if "EULAs are contracts at the moment they are accepted", then where is the consideration? A contract is not valid without consideration.
I've already paid for the software (if it needs to be paid for), and I already have the right to use the software (according to copyright law). Just what is it that the company is giving me and what am I agreeing to give to them?
Of course, in Mythic's case, there is consideration. You don't have the right to use their server, so that is something you gain. But in the case of regular everyday EULAs, they're bogus.
From that page's overview:
"To be legally binding as a contract, a promise must be exchanged for adequate consideration."
In Mythic's case, the EULA for using their server does grant consideration. But the typical software EULA does not.
You purchase WinXP for $199. You have the legal right to use the software. A few minutes later you see the EULA for the first time. Where is the consideration? There is none! You've already purchased the software, to the price doesn't count. You already have the right to use it, so their grant to use it doesn't count. In short, you lose a hell of a lot, but gain ziltch, so there is no consideration, and thus the EULA is invalid.
No, I don't know what society tolerates lawyers. That one has me stumped.
Software is copied when it is installed on the hard disk of a computer or when it is loaded in the computer's temporary memory (RAM). Copying software without the permission of the author is "copyright infringement,"
Completely contrary to copyright law. To quote from 17 USC 117:
"It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".
Gee, the law says one thing, and Microsoft says another. No wonder they recommend contacting the BSA as opposed to a qualified and unbiased attorney for clarification.
There was a ruling (involving Netscape IIRC) that said that the EULA has to be displayed to the user. If you can demonstrate (remember, guilty until proven innocent) that you never saw the EULA, then you're off the hook.