Almost *ALL* of my email is related to Java. I'll be adding the IBM JDK and older versions of the Sun JDK later today, as per reader request.
I'm making minor updates to the article as the day passes. I appreciate comments from everyone; once I'm through with my e-mail, I'll respond to these Slashdot comments.
Additional benchmarks will be added to the article with time; I'm putting together a single-precision ("float") benchamrk, for example.
...although I'm not doing now what I was doing then. The key to survival (and success) is staying flexible and continuing to learn -- points that were brought out in the cited article.
...for almost all of my Java development, on both Linux and Windows systems -- and I ship the entire project to my client, who runs Eclipse on his Macs. The same projects work across all three platforms. Why so many systems? Well, let's just say that Java is a "Write once, test everywhere..." language.
I don't use IBM's SWT -- my app needs to be portable, and Swing is working just fine under Eclipse. Don't believe the ignorati who say the Eclipse forces you to write SWT apps -- it doesn't. Eclipse is part of IBM's attempt to control Java -- but considering the piss-poor job Sun does at times, I think they need a little competition.
As for Mono -- anyone who relies on it for the portability of their applications is fooling themselves. I've used.Net since it's beta days; it is a blatant move by Microsoft to lock people into an architecture they control. MS learned the value of a VM-based language when they started implementing Java; when they couldn't "embrace and extend" Java, MS created a semi-clone. I recognize.Net's prupose and goals; it has value in certain situations, but it is not an open standard that guarantees portability.
I'm running Intel C++ and Fortran 95 with Debian "unstable" as my distro (though I provide my own kernel), and it's currently using glibc 2.3.1.
Intel has stated on their web site forum that their compilers don't work with the glibc provided with Red Hat 8.0. I don't have an installation of Red Hat here, so I can't verify the problem.
Several people seem concerned about nVidia's drivers and the forthcoming 2.6 kernel. I can't say much for tomorrow, but today, I have the latest (4191) nVidia drivers working just fine with the most recent development kernel.
To make it all work, the drivers need a minor makefile patch and updated modutils, but otherwise work just fine. You can obtain the required files from:
Aarrrgggghhhhhh! I'd made that point in an earlier incarnation of the article, and it got lost when I rewrote the conclusions. Thanks for bringing this too my attention; I'll restore the lost text.
Historically, Intel has always been ahead of the competition in terms of code generation; I've used their Windows compiler for years as a replacement for Microsoft's less-than-stellar Visual C++.
On the Pentium III, the gcc and Intel C++ run neck-and-neck for the most part, reflecting the maturity of knowledge about that chip. The Pentium 4 is newer territory, and Intel has a decided edge in know how to get the most out of their hardware.
I have great faith in the gcc development team, and as my article clearly states:
If anything, these tests prove that free software can produce products that rival -- and sometimes exceed -- the qualities of their commercial counterparts.
This article is an ongoing effort; I assure you, I'll be updating and expanding the material in response to the comments of readers and further experience.
...to specific applications and environments. I hope the tests bear that out -- in general, Intel and gcc are tied on Pentium III hardware, and Intel produces demonstrably faster code on Pentium 4 systems.
My article is a guideline, not a pronouncement.
Your mileage is guaranteed to vary.
I didn't use -fforce-addr because I didn't think of it!;)
Based on some work suggested by someone in e-mail, I'm going to see if it's possible to write a "test every option combination" script. Given the hundreds of potential options, we're looking at a REALLY BIG test...;)
In my view, gcc has far too many options and virtually no real documentation about how those options interact, or even what options go with what circumstances. Very messy, and very hard for people to figure out.
,
I hope to alleviate that problem, given time and resources.
You need to re-read the article, which has changed. The "15%" senetence was an artifact that should have been deleted (and now is) from an earlier article.
The text you found objectional is replaced by the following:
On the Pentium III, gcc and Intel run very close together. The Pentium IV tests, however, show a trend that will continue throughout the rest of these tests: Intel produces faster code on almost all tests, and produces code that is 20% faster overall. Only on the Sparse Matrix Multiplication test did gcc generate the fastest code.
Many "numerical applications" involve integer calculations; last time I looked, integers were numbers, too.;)
It's a tad late to get into this discussion now, but I'll add this thought (tired as I am):
Microsoft doesn't care about Mono as a competitor; in fact, I'm pretty sure that, internal to Microsoft, Mono is seen as a Good Thing.
Because it is another Java killer.
Sun has dropped the ball on Linux Java so many times and in so many ways. Slow implementations, poor visual quality, and a general attitude of "okay, we did Linux, so quitcher bitchin'".
I've developed large apps in both Java and.Net; in my experience, Java is the more comprehensive and stable option. But Java suffers from poor implementation beyond Sun's favored Windows and Solaris platforms. Mac Java is always one generation behind; Linux Java is rough at best.
The entire point of Java is portability -- the quality of the Java experience is directly tied to the quality of the Java implementation for a given platform.
Now enter Microsoft, which has been limited to the world of Windows. Until now, Java could boldly claim the high moral ground of portability (albeit a dubious claim; in fact, Java is "Write once, test everywhere.").
But if a reliable, free version of.Net is available for Linux and other platforms, Java suddenly loses one of its reasons to live. Why develop in unreliable Java when you can write a portable app in.Net?
Microsoft has every reason to support Mono's success -- because, in the end, it legitimizes their new "platform" at the expense of Sun's Java.
I'll bet Gates has a copy of The Prince (by Machiavelli) on his shelf.
A comfort zone is important to large, monolithic organizations. What works, works. Why change the old and reliable for something new and untried?
Some of my best friends make their living writing COBOL for mainframes; attempts by their agencies or companies to move to "new" technologies have been costly in both time and resources. If a green bar report provides all the information an accountant needs, why rewrite the system to use fancy HTML output that adds nothing but pretty colors? If anything, many web based systems reduce the amount of information available to make room for lots of unproductive frippery.
I spent the first 10 years of my professional career in COBOL on mainframes and minis -- CDC Cybers, VAX clusters, Honeywells -- doing some pretty boring stuff. I moved into PC programming 15 years ago, and I prefer it for a number of reasons -- but I'm not blind to the realities of the bleeding edge and the stupidity of modern PC software design.
Mainframe applications tend to accomplish very basic tasks in a simple way; even 10 million line COBOL apps are pretty straight-forward. The focus is on reliability and accuracy, not buzzwords. PC developers have an alomost pathological lust for the bleeding edge -- which gives us pretty but buggy applications.
On the PC, amid an embarrassment of riches, with more languages and tools than we can enumerate, we constantly throw out the old to chase the new. Windows would be as reliable as a mainframe OS if Microsoft spent more time on QA and less on figuring out how to make curved corners on plastic-looking window borders.
What's wrong with software for "sophisticated users?"
Nothing.
Somewhere, pundits have declared that Open Source and Free Software must appeal to the masses in order to be a "success."
If anything, the desire to attract the masses is a primary reason why commercial software stinks. It's bloated, complex, and wasteful -- because it tries to be everything to everyone.
Open/Free Software, on the other hand, lacks the financial incentive that dilutes creativity and effectiveness in commercial products. "Free" has many connotations, including the freedom to be original and precise.
Open/Free software can not be treated as a monolithic block; "popularity" means very different things to developers of various projects. Where KDE and Gnome care deeply about being popular, many (many) other projects do not.
Freedom is about choice -- some projects chose to chase popularity, while others focus on being the best available tool for a discerning audience. Trying to declare a goal of "popularity" for all Open/Free software is myopic at best and counter-productive at worst.
...I've spent a lot of time thinking about these issues. I'll be releasing an e-book novel in the next few weeks, so I've had to think about how I want to publish and why.
In recent years, I've fed my kids through the work I attract via my contributions to open source and the publication of free software on my web site. It is possible to make a living from free software.
I hope to use a similar model for a fantasy novel I'm writing.
The novel in question was first completed some years back, tentatively sold to a big name publisher, and then "lost" in a series of mergers. Quite discouraging. Writing is a damned tough business; I know, because I made a living for twelve years with magazine columns and programming books.
I write fiction for two reasons -- because I enjoy it, and to entertain people. But getting into the fiction market (as in making money) is very, very hard. The publishing industry is terribly conservative and biased in the most incredible ways.
Success as a writer -- especially as a fiction writer -- is elusive. Lost in a sea of lousy over-the-transom manuscripts, agents, and myopic publishers, how does an author stand out and make themselves known?
Well, I'm told that John Grisham started his career by self-publishing his first books, and selling them from the trunk of his car at fairs and flea markets. Self-promotion is the root of all success...
....which leads back to free software. Giving away a program may induce someone to hire me to write code -- and giving away a book may draw attention to my work, thus attracting a real publisher who may pay me for other works.
And perhaps people will pay me directly, if they believe my book worthy.
So I'm publishing a book in a few weeks via my website, complete with full-color plates (artwork by my talented wife), and a story written exactly the way I want it, without the interference (or grammatical safety net!) of an editor. The complete book will be available under exactly the same terms as a paper book -- you can give it away, make copies for your friends, or print it out, all without paying me a dime.
BUT, I'll also have a honor-based online payment system; for less than the cost of a typical paperback, people who enjoy the book can pay for it. They are not required to pay me -- it is a matter of honor and ethics.
I don't expect most people to pay for what they download; if they simply enjoy the book, pass it on to friends, read it to their kids -- that will be victory (in a different sense.) What I'm giving people is an honest chance to compensate me, the author, for my work, if they deem it worthy.
How many times have you bought a paperback, found it unreadable, and put it on the shelf unfinished or dissatisfied? How often does a pretty cover conceal a lousy book? It happens often enough for me, especially when buying a new science fiction or fantasy book. Wouldn't it be better if you could read the book first, and then only pay the authors whose work you considered worthy?
Perhaps I'm too optimistic about people; if nothing else, this will be an interesting experiment in publishing and human relations.
I've lived in several places that used hand-counted paper ballots -- mostly small towns in Colorado and Nevada. Make your mark, drop the paper in the box, and come back in the evening or early morning to see the results tacked to the front door of the court house.
Given the huge unemployed population, the number of retirees in Florida (where circumstances have caused me to unhappily live these days), I can not understand why they won't use paper ballots and human labor.
But then again, we Americans do tend to worship technology; the media bombards us with images of the latest and greatest, as if not having a PDA or a new car is the lowest of lows. I ignore such drivel, but it does seem to influence the buying habits of most people.
...depending on who is driving Intel's decision. Did Microsoft pressure Intel into supporting Palladium? And will they push AMD to add DRM support, under the threat of being incompatible with future versions of Windows?
I wonder where the PowerPC chip will fall in all of this...
There were supposed to be paragraphs in that message! Argghhhh...
Because Apple provides focus and direction for developers, Mac applications (generally) behave in expected and "natural" ways. Consistency and simplcity make users happy.
Windows suffers from verbosity, backward compatability, and mixed metaphors. What works in one Windows application may not work in another -- even if the two applications were developed as parts of a single package, like Microsoft Office. There are too many ways to do things: different menu commands, keystrokes, and GUI components lead to confusion.
Linux GUIs are, sad to say, even worse than Windows. No one imposed a look-and-ffel guideline on Linux, so apps run an behave differently depending on the whims of individual developers and teams. Even worse, Linux GUIs tend to focus on cloning Windows, instead of boldly trying to be better. What we get are incredibly inconsistent applications that have no consistency or common thread of operation.
Put The Gimp, Abiword, and Evolution on the desktop simultaneously, and you can see very divergent philosophies in operation. This isn't a knock against the developers of these fine application -- it is a recognition that the chaotic Linux community lacks the cohesion that Apple can bring to Aqua.
Give users a clean, clear, easy operating system, and they'll drop Windows like a rock. So why hasn't Apple conquered the world? Because their product is too damned expensive. Windows could be "defeated" if the Linux community were to produce a high-quality, consistent GUI with a quality set of application -- for free. The question is, are we too individualistic to work together as a community?
Because Apple provides focus and direction for developers, Mac applications (generally) behave in expected and "natural" ways. Consistency and simplcity make users happy.
Windows sufferes from verbosity, backward compatability, and mixed metaphors. What works in one Windows application may not work in another -- even if the two applications were developed as parts of a single package, like Microsoft Office. There are too many ways to do things: different menu commands, keystrokes, and GUI components lead to confusion.
Linux GUIs are, sad to say, even worse than Windows. No one imposed a look-and-ffel guideline on Linux, so apps run an behave differently depending on the whims of individual developers and teams. Even worse, Linux GUIs tend to focus on cloning Windows, instead of boldly trying to be better. What we get are incredibly inconsistent applications that have no consistency or common thread of operation.
Put The Gimp, Abiword, and Evolution on the desktop simultaneously, and you can see very divergent philosophies in operation. This isn't a knock against the developers of these fine application -- it is a recognition that the chaotic Linux community lacks the cohesion that Apple can bring to Aqua.
Give users a clean, clear, easy operating system, and they'll drop Windows like a rock. So why hasn't Apple conquered the world? Because their product is too damned expensive. Windows could be "defeated" if the Linux community were to produce a high-quality, consistent GUI with a quality set of application -- for free.
The question is, are we too individualistic to work together as a community?
...that some people here can cheer the theft of intellectual property like movies and music, while viciously attacking perceived violations of the GPL and "little guy" property?
...and so is usability. Quite a bit of work has been done with "unreliable" Microsoft Windows because it is "usable" in ways Linux is not.
Or, to put it another way: It doesn't matter how reliable Linux is if it can't do the job -- and quality fonts are required by graphic artists, publishers, authors, and people who prefer a professional-looking system.
Creating clear, scalable, attractive fonts is neither easy nor cheap -- and the people who care about and need quality fonts are users, not programmers. Given that free software is driven by the needs of technocrats and not by the desires of users, there is little likelihood that high-quality "free" fonts will emerge.
The technocrats argue that "making fonts can't be that hard" and "just whip some out in the Gimp", betraying their ignorance. Technocrats won't stand for a non-programmer making such "it's easy" comments about writing a complex application, but they hypocritically think they are so wise as to belittle the complexities of designing quality fonts (or user interfaces, or whatever else isn't considered "elite" enough for their full understanding).
Microsoft is not stupid; it has identified weakenesses in free software, and is exploiting one (the lack of fonts) to its advantage. People in graphic arts or publishing have no interest in free software because it, quite frankly, does not care about them.
The Mac, which has excellent font support, proves that this is not an issue of free-versus-Microsoft or Unix-versus-Windows; clearly, the Unix-based OS/X provides the kind of font support that users need. The reason for good fonts on the Mac is motivation: Apple cares about meeting the needs of graphic artists and publishers.
The downfall of free software is its elitist and myopic attitude. Microsoft knows this, and can use its power to provide the "niceties" (like quality fonts) that free developers ignore.
gcc is the Foundation of Open Source
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 2
Everything GNU is predicated on the gcc compilers -- which makes a major release of the compiler very pertinent to anyone who cares about free software.
And given that gcc 3.2 is released specifically for Linux and BSD distro developers, I'd say it's kinda important.;)
If the lady does not share your beliefs about social justice, there may be a rocky road ahead. If you find diamonds ethically unacceptable (which they are, in my view), then any woman you marry should respect your feelings.
As an old married, I recommend doing what's in your heart, and forget the dammed rules imposed by a commercial society.
My marriage didn't have an auspicious chart. I proposed in the wrong place, both of us were out of work at the time, her parents hated me, an old boyfriend was harrassing her, and she was 7 years older than I -- a true recipe for disaster. We couldn't afford "good" rings, so we bought a couple of $10 silver rings in a mall, found a free minister, and were married outdoors at the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs.
We've been happily married for 20 years. We don't wear our rings; our bond is something stronger than a simple band of metal. The best spouse is one who sticks with you through he|| and high water, just as you stick with her.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost *ALL* of my email is related to Java. I'll be adding the IBM JDK and older versions of the Sun JDK later today, as per reader request.
I'm making minor updates to the article as the day passes. I appreciate comments from everyone; once I'm through with my e-mail, I'll respond to these Slashdot comments.
Additional benchmarks will be added to the article with time; I'm putting together a single-precision ("float") benchamrk, for example.
...for almost all of my Java development, on both Linux and Windows systems -- and I ship the entire project to my client, who runs Eclipse on his Macs. The same projects work across all three platforms. Why so many systems? Well, let's just say that Java is a "Write once, test everywhere..." language.
I don't use IBM's SWT -- my app needs to be portable, and Swing is working just fine under Eclipse. Don't believe the ignorati who say the Eclipse forces you to write SWT apps -- it doesn't. Eclipse is part of IBM's attempt to control Java -- but considering the piss-poor job Sun does at times, I think they need a little competition.
As for Mono -- anyone who relies on it for the portability of their applications is fooling themselves. I've used .Net since it's beta days; it is a blatant move by Microsoft to lock people into an architecture they control. MS learned the value of a VM-based language when they started implementing Java; when they couldn't "embrace and extend" Java, MS created a semi-clone. I recognize .Net's prupose and goals; it has value in certain situations, but it is not an open standard that guarantees portability.
I'm running Intel C++ and Fortran 95 with Debian "unstable" as my distro (though I provide my own kernel), and it's currently using glibc 2.3.1.
Intel has stated on their web site forum that their compilers don't work with the glibc provided with Red Hat 8.0. I don't have an installation of Red Hat here, so I can't verify the problem.
Several people seem concerned about nVidia's drivers and the forthcoming 2.6 kernel. I can't say much for tomorrow, but today, I have the latest (4191) nVidia drivers working just fine with the most recent development kernel.
To make it all work, the drivers need a minor makefile patch and updated modutils, but otherwise work just fine. You can obtain the required files from:
Unofficial nVidia driver patch
Updated modutils
Those did the tirkc for me. Your mileage may vary.
Aarrrgggghhhhhh! I'd made that point in an earlier incarnation of the article, and it got lost when I rewrote the conclusions. Thanks for bringing this too my attention; I'll restore the lost text.
Historically, Intel has always been ahead of the competition in terms of code generation; I've used their Windows compiler for years as a replacement for Microsoft's less-than-stellar Visual C++.
On the Pentium III, the gcc and Intel C++ run neck-and-neck for the most part, reflecting the maturity of knowledge about that chip. The Pentium 4 is newer territory, and Intel has a decided edge in know how to get the most out of their hardware.
I have great faith in the gcc development team, and as my article clearly states:
My article is a guideline, not a pronouncement. Your mileage is guaranteed to vary.
I didn't use -fforce-addr because I didn't think of it! ;)
Based on some work suggested by someone in e-mail, I'm going to see if it's possible to write a "test every option combination" script. Given the hundreds of potential options, we're looking at a REALLY BIG test... ;)
In my view, gcc has far too many options and virtually no real documentation about how those options interact, or even what options go with what circumstances. Very messy, and very hard for people to figure out.
,I hope to alleviate that problem, given time and resources.
You need to re-read the article, which has changed. The "15%" senetence was an artifact that should have been deleted (and now is) from an earlier article.
The text you found objectional is replaced by the following:
Many "numerical applications" involve integer calculations; last time I looked, integers were numbers, too. ;)
It's a tad late to get into this discussion now, but I'll add this thought (tired as I am):
Microsoft doesn't care about Mono as a competitor; in fact, I'm pretty sure that, internal to Microsoft, Mono is seen as a Good Thing.
Because it is another Java killer.
Sun has dropped the ball on Linux Java so many times and in so many ways. Slow implementations, poor visual quality, and a general attitude of "okay, we did Linux, so quitcher bitchin'".
I've developed large apps in both Java and .Net; in my experience, Java is the more comprehensive and stable option. But Java suffers from poor implementation beyond Sun's favored Windows and Solaris platforms. Mac Java is always one generation behind; Linux Java is rough at best.
The entire point of Java is portability -- the quality of the Java experience is directly tied to the quality of the Java implementation for a given platform.
Now enter Microsoft, which has been limited to the world of Windows. Until now, Java could boldly claim the high moral ground of portability (albeit a dubious claim; in fact, Java is "Write once, test everywhere.").
But if a reliable, free version of .Net is available for Linux and other platforms, Java suddenly loses one of its reasons to live. Why develop in unreliable Java when you can write a portable app in .Net?
Microsoft has every reason to support Mono's success -- because, in the end, it legitimizes their new "platform" at the expense of Sun's Java.
I'll bet Gates has a copy of The Prince (by Machiavelli) on his shelf.
A comfort zone is important to large, monolithic organizations. What works, works. Why change the old and reliable for something new and untried?
Some of my best friends make their living writing COBOL for mainframes; attempts by their agencies or companies to move to "new" technologies have been costly in both time and resources. If a green bar report provides all the information an accountant needs, why rewrite the system to use fancy HTML output that adds nothing but pretty colors? If anything, many web based systems reduce the amount of information available to make room for lots of unproductive frippery.
I spent the first 10 years of my professional career in COBOL on mainframes and minis -- CDC Cybers, VAX clusters, Honeywells -- doing some pretty boring stuff. I moved into PC programming 15 years ago, and I prefer it for a number of reasons -- but I'm not blind to the realities of the bleeding edge and the stupidity of modern PC software design.
Mainframe applications tend to accomplish very basic tasks in a simple way; even 10 million line COBOL apps are pretty straight-forward. The focus is on reliability and accuracy, not buzzwords. PC developers have an alomost pathological lust for the bleeding edge -- which gives us pretty but buggy applications.
On the PC, amid an embarrassment of riches, with more languages and tools than we can enumerate, we constantly throw out the old to chase the new. Windows would be as reliable as a mainframe OS if Microsoft spent more time on QA and less on figuring out how to make curved corners on plastic-looking window borders.
What's wrong with software for "sophisticated users?"
Nothing.
Somewhere, pundits have declared that Open Source and Free Software must appeal to the masses in order to be a "success."
If anything, the desire to attract the masses is a primary reason why commercial software stinks. It's bloated, complex, and wasteful -- because it tries to be everything to everyone.
Open/Free Software, on the other hand, lacks the financial incentive that dilutes creativity and effectiveness in commercial products. "Free" has many connotations, including the freedom to be original and precise.
Open/Free software can not be treated as a monolithic block; "popularity" means very different things to developers of various projects. Where KDE and Gnome care deeply about being popular, many (many) other projects do not.
Freedom is about choice -- some projects chose to chase popularity, while others focus on being the best available tool for a discerning audience. Trying to declare a goal of "popularity" for all Open/Free software is myopic at best and counter-productive at worst.
In recent years, I've fed my kids through the work I attract via my contributions to open source and the publication of free software on my web site. It is possible to make a living from free software.
I hope to use a similar model for a fantasy novel I'm writing.
The novel in question was first completed some years back, tentatively sold to a big name publisher, and then "lost" in a series of mergers. Quite discouraging. Writing is a damned tough business; I know, because I made a living for twelve years with magazine columns and programming books.
I write fiction for two reasons -- because I enjoy it, and to entertain people. But getting into the fiction market (as in making money) is very, very hard. The publishing industry is terribly conservative and biased in the most incredible ways.
Success as a writer -- especially as a fiction writer -- is elusive. Lost in a sea of lousy over-the-transom manuscripts, agents, and myopic publishers, how does an author stand out and make themselves known?
Well, I'm told that John Grisham started his career by self-publishing his first books, and selling them from the trunk of his car at fairs and flea markets. Self-promotion is the root of all success...
And perhaps people will pay me directly, if they believe my book worthy.
So I'm publishing a book in a few weeks via my website, complete with full-color plates (artwork by my talented wife), and a story written exactly the way I want it, without the interference (or grammatical safety net!) of an editor. The complete book will be available under exactly the same terms as a paper book -- you can give it away, make copies for your friends, or print it out, all without paying me a dime.
BUT, I'll also have a honor-based online payment system; for less than the cost of a typical paperback, people who enjoy the book can pay for it. They are not required to pay me -- it is a matter of honor and ethics.
I don't expect most people to pay for what they download; if they simply enjoy the book, pass it on to friends, read it to their kids -- that will be victory (in a different sense.) What I'm giving people is an honest chance to compensate me, the author, for my work, if they deem it worthy.
How many times have you bought a paperback, found it unreadable, and put it on the shelf unfinished or dissatisfied? How often does a pretty cover conceal a lousy book? It happens often enough for me, especially when buying a new science fiction or fantasy book. Wouldn't it be better if you could read the book first, and then only pay the authors whose work you considered worthy?
Perhaps I'm too optimistic about people; if nothing else, this will be an interesting experiment in publishing and human relations.
I watched the movie a couple of nights ago on DvD. Highly recommended.
I've lived in several places that used hand-counted paper ballots -- mostly small towns in Colorado and Nevada. Make your mark, drop the paper in the box, and come back in the evening or early morning to see the results tacked to the front door of the court house.
Given the huge unemployed population, the number of retirees in Florida (where circumstances have caused me to unhappily live these days), I can not understand why they won't use paper ballots and human labor.
But then again, we Americans do tend to worship technology; the media bombards us with images of the latest and greatest, as if not having a PDA or a new car is the lowest of lows. I ignore such drivel, but it does seem to influence the buying habits of most people.
I wonder where the PowerPC chip will fall in all of this...
Because Apple provides focus and direction for developers, Mac applications (generally) behave in expected and "natural" ways. Consistency and simplcity make users happy.
Windows suffers from verbosity, backward compatability, and mixed metaphors. What works in one Windows application may not work in another -- even if the two applications were developed as parts of a single package, like Microsoft Office. There are too many ways to do things: different menu commands, keystrokes, and GUI components lead to confusion.
Linux GUIs are, sad to say, even worse than Windows. No one imposed a look-and-ffel guideline on Linux, so apps run an behave differently depending on the whims of individual developers and teams. Even worse, Linux GUIs tend to focus on cloning Windows, instead of boldly trying to be better. What we get are incredibly inconsistent applications that have no consistency or common thread of operation.
Put The Gimp, Abiword, and Evolution on the desktop simultaneously, and you can see very divergent philosophies in operation. This isn't a knock against the developers of these fine application -- it is a recognition that the chaotic Linux community lacks the cohesion that Apple can bring to Aqua.
Give users a clean, clear, easy operating system, and they'll drop Windows like a rock. So why hasn't Apple conquered the world? Because their product is too damned expensive. Windows could be "defeated" if the Linux community were to produce a high-quality, consistent GUI with a quality set of application -- for free. The question is, are we too individualistic to work together as a community?
Because Apple provides focus and direction for developers, Mac applications (generally) behave in expected and "natural" ways. Consistency and simplcity make users happy. Windows sufferes from verbosity, backward compatability, and mixed metaphors. What works in one Windows application may not work in another -- even if the two applications were developed as parts of a single package, like Microsoft Office. There are too many ways to do things: different menu commands, keystrokes, and GUI components lead to confusion. Linux GUIs are, sad to say, even worse than Windows. No one imposed a look-and-ffel guideline on Linux, so apps run an behave differently depending on the whims of individual developers and teams. Even worse, Linux GUIs tend to focus on cloning Windows, instead of boldly trying to be better. What we get are incredibly inconsistent applications that have no consistency or common thread of operation. Put The Gimp, Abiword, and Evolution on the desktop simultaneously, and you can see very divergent philosophies in operation. This isn't a knock against the developers of these fine application -- it is a recognition that the chaotic Linux community lacks the cohesion that Apple can bring to Aqua. Give users a clean, clear, easy operating system, and they'll drop Windows like a rock. So why hasn't Apple conquered the world? Because their product is too damned expensive. Windows could be "defeated" if the Linux community were to produce a high-quality, consistent GUI with a quality set of application -- for free. The question is, are we too individualistic to work together as a community?
I smell hypocrisy.
...and so is usability. Quite a bit of work has been done with "unreliable" Microsoft Windows because it is "usable" in ways Linux is not.
Or, to put it another way: It doesn't matter how reliable Linux is if it can't do the job -- and quality fonts are required by graphic artists, publishers, authors, and people who prefer a professional-looking system.
Creating clear, scalable, attractive fonts is neither easy nor cheap -- and the people who care about and need quality fonts are users, not programmers. Given that free software is driven by the needs of technocrats and not by the desires of users, there is little likelihood that high-quality "free" fonts will emerge.
The technocrats argue that "making fonts can't be that hard" and "just whip some out in the Gimp", betraying their ignorance. Technocrats won't stand for a non-programmer making such "it's easy" comments about writing a complex application, but they hypocritically think they are so wise as to belittle the complexities of designing quality fonts (or user interfaces, or whatever else isn't considered "elite" enough for their full understanding).
Microsoft is not stupid; it has identified weakenesses in free software, and is exploiting one (the lack of fonts) to its advantage. People in graphic arts or publishing have no interest in free software because it, quite frankly, does not care about them.
The Mac, which has excellent font support, proves that this is not an issue of free-versus-Microsoft or Unix-versus-Windows; clearly, the Unix-based OS/X provides the kind of font support that users need. The reason for good fonts on the Mac is motivation: Apple cares about meeting the needs of graphic artists and publishers.
The downfall of free software is its elitist and myopic attitude. Microsoft knows this, and can use its power to provide the "niceties" (like quality fonts) that free developers ignore.
Everything GNU is predicated on the gcc compilers -- which makes a major release of the compiler very pertinent to anyone who cares about free software.
And given that gcc 3.2 is released specifically for Linux and BSD distro developers, I'd say it's kinda important. ;)
If the lady does not share your beliefs about social justice, there may be a rocky road ahead. If you find diamonds ethically unacceptable (which they are, in my view), then any woman you marry should respect your feelings.
As an old married, I recommend doing what's in your heart, and forget the dammed rules imposed by a commercial society.
My marriage didn't have an auspicious chart. I proposed in the wrong place, both of us were out of work at the time, her parents hated me, an old boyfriend was harrassing her, and she was 7 years older than I -- a true recipe for disaster. We couldn't afford "good" rings, so we bought a couple of $10 silver rings in a mall, found a free minister, and were married outdoors at the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs.
We've been happily married for 20 years. We don't wear our rings; our bond is something stronger than a simple band of metal. The best spouse is one who sticks with you through he|| and high water, just as you stick with her.