Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"!
Anti-RIAA choice of words is hardly inflammatory, at least on slashdot. The first pro-RIAA guy to show up should be bitch-slapped for -20 karma, though I suppose such a mentality would have accumulated any karma at all, or read/. for that matter.
What they should try doing is participating with the community rather than trying to harvest/divide it. Ship perl, python, apache...
MSFT has already hired the IronPython developer. Possibly to get more OSS people developing for.NET, dunno. But, it is still MSFT money going towards code that is released as open source. The best part us that in OSS, it does't matter where the money is coming from.
Frankly, I would rather get.NET job than a Java Job these days, if I was looking for one. No matter how much I hate MSFT, a stagnant, stubborn and arrogant technology like Java is even more annoying.
I know people who politically and religiously believe that all forms of violence against groups are evil.
Evil as in Microsoft? Evil as in SCO? Evil as in evil spirits? Evil as in assholes?
People who think in terms of good/evil as far as philosophy goes probably need to refine their philosophy a bit more. Evil is an useful abstraction for dealing with people like Darl McBride, but not necessarily of deeper value as philosophical concept.
I believe that it is wrong as well, but my human fallacies will lead me to accept wrongdoing as a solution to wrongdoing.
Belief in concepts like wrongdoing is a human fallacy as well. In the world of energy and particles, there are no "emotions", or "wrongdoings". It's a human fallacy to be concerned about dying in the first place - be it your own death, the death of a loved one or the death of an enemy.
Why does every phone maker nowadays insist on cramming as much as possible in cellphones? Can't they just leave a phone a phone?
Well, they do. Just buy a model that is not a smartphone. They are dirt cheap these days.
The margin, however, will be in the phones with most features (and higher prices). Only a few ultra-chic models of "dumb" phones have sufficient margins.
The person/organization that finds prior art should also be rewarded, say, by $500/patent from the pockets of the company holding the patent. Killing frivolous patents could become a nice way for competent kinds to earn some money.
most python people i know have never seen ruby. and half the ones who haven't seen it haven't even heard of it. if only one in four has actually used it, which would be an overestimate,
It probably is. Most pythonistas probably read the documents, and realize that the language is not the "right stuff". Too much amateurism and popularity whoring for its own good.
however python claims to be OOP, yet half the base library is comprised of functions like intval( "1" ), whereas in ruby it's a thought off the other way around, as a function on an object (oop) "1".to_i
It doesn't make Python less OO. Python library is just implemented with realization that functions are more intuitive for some things. That makes a lot more sense than forcing everything into methods. Of course Python could have used methods for everything, but that's just not optimal for the flow of code.
Functional approach to libraries is one the things I absolutely love in Python. It just works for me (and many others, apparently). You should realize that most design decisions in Python are there for a good reason, and it's *not* because Python's OO was somehow lacking. I have adamant trust in the core Python developers, which is more than I can say for core Ruby developers that seem to have made several completely idiotic design decisions just to please perl migrators. Manuals in broken english don't reinforce my confidence either.
if you're using a poorly implemented oop language just to get the dynamic features of a scripting language, why not go with a first-class oop language rather than getting yesterday's scraps.
Indeed. Why settle for the second best when you can have the snake and eat it too?
if i have to pass self to every single member function, that's bolted on
It's a conscious design decision that makes the system more elegant. "Explicit is better than implicit". Of course it would be trivial to circumvent this by writing a preprocessor, but it's not considered a good idea.
if i have to prepend and append __ to special object functions everywhere, that's bolted on.
No, it's just a decision to call the methods that. It's just a naming convention. It has no relationship with whether OOP is implemented through functional constructs or not.
in this case i'm defining foo, passing foo as a parameter to bar, and calling foo then returning it's return value. i'm not sure how first-class you can get, but that's pretty first-class to me.
Well, you could do:
def f(x):
def g(y):
return x+y
return g
myfunc = f(1) print myfunc(3) # prints 4
to this day, python still lacks many of the oop and functional (lisp like) features of ruby.
What are those features, apart from "blocks"? And functional != lisp-like, BTW.
guess what, i have used python. it's the language that is lacking, not ruby.
When did you use it? Modern Python is quite different from, say, 1.5.2 or even 2.1. Ruby had the upper hand in language features before 2.2, but that's gone.
modern "windows" renders linux irrelevant too i'm sure, yet we persevere because linux is a better operating system.
I would rather compare Ruby vs. Python with FreeBSD vs. Linux. In fact, that's a surprisingly good analogue.
where have i lied?
It's the wording, and speaking of "bolted on OOP". It is simply not true, and a standard part of Ruby rhetoric.
if you'd broaden your horizons and actually dive into ruby maybe you'd understand why the few of us loyal to it hold it so dear.
I understand very well why rubyistas hold ruby so dear - it's exactly the same reasons as with Python. The languages are more similar than they are different, which kinda undermines the less mature/popular choice. It's FreeBSD vs. Linux again.
I believe ruby is like that. along with scheme, OCaml, Haskell, and other hacker languages that require discipline and free thinking to adopt and appreciate.
Ok, Ruby is perhaps different in that way. Appreciation of Python didn't require discipline at all for me, it hit me pretty much instantly. As would have Ruby, if I hadn't "been there, done that" with Python before.
how about something more important, like integrated OOP. nothing's worse than claiming to be heavily object oriented, that has a bolted on OOP model.
OMG, not the Ruby cliche again.
Python is not by any stretch less OO than Ruby. Having first class functions is not a liability, it's a strength. Object model is not bolted on Python - everything in Python is an object.
python reminds me so much of windows. everyone uses it, because it's all they know exists.
Ruby people go to great lengths to attack Python at every opportunity. For the most part this appears to be because modern Python renders Ruby pretty much irrelevant. Ruby is not really better than Python as a language, period. Ruby is better than Perl, and pretty much equivalent to Python on all linguistic accounts, but loses royally on maturity, community and industrial popularity.
Offset that with the fact that most Rubyistas that talk crap about Pythonistas don't really have experience with Python, but merely reiterate the misunderstandings of other Rubyistas. Repeating a lie often enough doesn't make it true - it makes for mediocre advocacy that might catch a few clueless perl refugees, but isn't going to work for "great hackers" which is the topic of today.
So you actually expect the 1337 kids to *buy* adult movies? I wouldn't be surprised if those very kids have access to this thing called "internet", where free adult content is not in short supply...
IIRC, China has seen the source code to Microsoft Windows, whereas the U.S. government hasn't.
They can't compile the source code they have seen and install it on the computers of an offending government, which I believe is the crux of the matter here.
SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar
Really? Just wait, I read somewhere that Microsoft is going to need some Unix(tm)(r)(patent pending) technology to replace all those open source parts of Microsoft(r) Services For Unix(r). I'm pretty sure Microsoft is not going to mind if the price is a little bit higher than the going rate.
I can't think of one offhand, even Microsoft by implication is their enemy, (if a friend of a friend is now an enemy of your friend, they are your enemy too, no?)
And wouldn't Microsoft love to be considered their enemy...
Too bad for them, it's not happening. Microsoft is their friend and sponsor (along with Sun), and any evidence to the opposite is quite probably fabricated. Microsoft could even sue SCO, while being in friendly terms in the backrooms. SCO execs, Canopy group and other scumbags cash on in this charade, hardly caring what happens to SCO-the-company (which has been doomed for a while now).
This case must be pursued all the way to the front door of Microsoft. Once SCO is dead, this is far from over. Otherwise, MSFT could sponsor various little companies with promise of riches for their execs, while itself remaining untarnished.
And God spake: "Let there be hell!" and thus the C programming language was born.
In fact, if you study the history more carefully, you'll find that God only licensed some thought patterns and algorithms from SCO Group. God still has to abide by the licensing conditions stated therein.
"In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was copyright (R) of SCO Group"
Indeed. Almost all of the whining regarding Gnome could generally be rendered moot by just switching to KDE. Gnome has a clearly stated direction, and people who disagree with it (I do, but mostly because I use the pathetic 1024x768 resolution while Gnome seems to target higher with their gigantic toolbars) can as well keep on using KDE.
Gnome has a multi-year strategy, which compromises some functionality today but will pay off with time. Meanwhile, just use KDE. Users don't generally need to suffer because of Qt licensing because they are just that, users.
If you want root access so bad then root the box yourself since you know Linux inside and out.
True. Rooting the box is pretty much trivial if you have direct physical access.
OTOH, rooting your own computer is not going to buy you friendly-points with IT support staff, esp. if they are anal-retentive about their imaginary position in power.
Slashdot Mirror
I have always thought that version control (file histories, branching and atomic changes) would be nice to have at the file system level.
Sounds like a job for an SVN plugin for Reiser4 file system. Anyone doing one already?
I bet Michael Bolton is going to $profit$, not to forget contemporary hip hop and Britney Spears.
Some day, all of these evil p2p sharing kiddies will come visit you in the nursing home.
"Err... what did you say I was leaning on? Let me adjust that IV for you, it seems to be misplaced..."
Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"!
/. for that matter.
Anti-RIAA choice of words is hardly inflammatory, at least on slashdot. The first pro-RIAA guy to show up should be bitch-slapped for -20 karma, though I suppose such a mentality would have accumulated any karma at all, or read
What they should try doing is participating with the community rather than trying to harvest/divide it. Ship perl, python, apache...
.NET, dunno. But, it is still MSFT money going towards code that is released as open source. The best part us that in OSS, it does't matter where the money is coming from.
.NET job than a Java Job these days, if I was looking for one. No matter how much I hate MSFT, a stagnant, stubborn and arrogant technology like Java is even more annoying.
MSFT has already hired the IronPython developer. Possibly to get more OSS people developing for
Frankly, I would rather get
I know people who politically and religiously believe that all forms of violence against groups are evil.
Evil as in Microsoft? Evil as in SCO? Evil as in evil spirits? Evil as in assholes?
People who think in terms of good/evil as far as philosophy goes probably need to refine their philosophy a bit more. Evil is an useful abstraction for dealing with people like Darl McBride, but not necessarily of deeper value as philosophical concept.
I believe that it is wrong as well, but my human fallacies will lead me to accept wrongdoing as a solution to wrongdoing.
Belief in concepts like wrongdoing is a human fallacy as well. In the world of energy and particles, there are no "emotions", or "wrongdoings". It's a human fallacy to be concerned about dying in the first place - be it your own death, the death of a loved one or the death of an enemy.
This is has honestly been the only reason that I still boot up in Windows.
Linux has several alternatives for the same functionality.
Why does every phone maker nowadays insist on cramming as much as possible in cellphones? Can't they just leave a phone a phone?
Well, they do. Just buy a model that is not a smartphone. They are dirt cheap these days.
The margin, however, will be in the phones with most features (and higher prices). Only a few ultra-chic models of "dumb" phones have sufficient margins.
Need. Breath. Vision. Dimming.
The person/organization that finds prior art should also be rewarded, say, by $500/patent from the pockets of the company holding the patent. Killing frivolous patents could become a nice way for competent kinds to earn some money.
most python people i know have never seen ruby. and half the ones who haven't seen it haven't even heard of it. if only one in four has actually used it, which would be an overestimate,
It probably is. Most pythonistas probably read the documents, and realize that the language is not the "right stuff". Too much amateurism and popularity whoring for its own good.
however python claims to be OOP, yet half the base library is comprised of functions like intval( "1" ), whereas in ruby it's a thought off the other way around, as a function on an object (oop) "1".to_i
It doesn't make Python less OO. Python library is just implemented with realization that functions are more intuitive for some things. That makes a lot more sense than forcing everything into methods. Of course Python could have used methods for everything, but that's just not optimal for the flow of code.
Functional approach to libraries is one the things I absolutely love in Python. It just works for me (and many others, apparently). You should realize that most design decisions in Python are there for a good reason, and it's *not* because Python's OO was somehow lacking. I have adamant trust in the core Python developers, which is more than I can say for core Ruby developers that seem to have made several completely idiotic design decisions just to please perl migrators. Manuals in broken english don't reinforce my confidence either.
if you're using a poorly implemented oop language just to get the dynamic features of a scripting language, why not go with a first-class oop language rather than getting yesterday's scraps.
Indeed. Why settle for the second best when you can have the snake and eat it too?
if i have to pass self to every single member function, that's bolted on
It's a conscious design decision that makes the system more elegant. "Explicit is better than implicit". Of course it would be trivial to circumvent this by writing a preprocessor, but it's not considered a good idea.
if i have to prepend and append __ to special object functions everywhere, that's bolted on.
No, it's just a decision to call the methods that. It's just a naming convention. It has no relationship with whether OOP is implemented through functional constructs or not.
in this case i'm defining foo, passing foo as a parameter to bar, and calling foo then returning it's return value. i'm not sure how first-class you can get, but that's pretty first-class to me.
Well, you could do:
def f(x):
def g(y):
return x+y
return g
myfunc = f(1)
print myfunc(3) # prints 4
to this day, python still lacks many of the oop and functional (lisp like) features of ruby.
What are those features, apart from "blocks"? And functional != lisp-like, BTW.
guess what, i have used python. it's the language that is lacking, not ruby.
When did you use it? Modern Python is quite different from, say, 1.5.2 or even 2.1. Ruby had the upper hand in language features before 2.2, but that's gone.
modern "windows" renders linux irrelevant too i'm sure, yet we persevere because linux is a better operating system.
I would rather compare Ruby vs. Python with FreeBSD vs. Linux. In fact, that's a surprisingly good analogue.
where have i lied?
It's the wording, and speaking of "bolted on OOP". It is simply not true, and a standard part of Ruby rhetoric.
if you'd broaden your horizons and actually dive into ruby maybe you'd understand why the few of us loyal to it hold it so dear.
I understand very well why rubyistas hold ruby so dear - it's exactly the same reasons as with Python. The languages are more similar than they are different, which kinda undermines the less mature/popular choice. It's FreeBSD vs. Linux again.
I believe ruby is like that. along with scheme, OCaml, Haskell, and other hacker languages that require discipline and free thinking to adopt and appreciate.
Ok, Ruby is perhaps different in that way. Appreciation of Python didn't require discipline at all for me, it hit me pretty much instantly. As would have Ruby, if I hadn't "been there, done that" with Python before.
how about something more important, like integrated OOP. nothing's worse than claiming to be heavily object oriented, that has a bolted on OOP model.
OMG, not the Ruby cliche again.
Python is not by any stretch less OO than Ruby. Having first class functions is not a liability, it's a strength. Object model is not bolted on Python - everything in Python is an object.
python reminds me so much of windows. everyone uses it, because it's all they know exists.
Ruby people go to great lengths to attack Python at every opportunity. For the most part this appears to be because modern Python renders Ruby pretty much irrelevant. Ruby is not really better than Python as a language, period. Ruby is better than Perl, and pretty much equivalent to Python on all linguistic accounts, but loses royally on maturity, community and industrial popularity.
Offset that with the fact that most Rubyistas that talk crap about Pythonistas don't really have experience with Python, but merely reiterate the misunderstandings of other Rubyistas. Repeating a lie often enough doesn't make it true - it makes for mediocre advocacy that might catch a few clueless perl refugees, but isn't going to work for "great hackers" which is the topic of today.
So you actually expect the 1337 kids to *buy* adult movies? I wouldn't be surprised if those very kids have access to this thing called "internet", where free adult content is not in short supply...
IIRC, China has seen the source code to Microsoft Windows, whereas the U.S. government hasn't.
They can't compile the source code they have seen and install it on the computers of an offending government, which I believe is the crux of the matter here.
I wouldn't mind, never found enough willpower to watch a whole episode.
MacGyver in space is just too much.
SCO can't afford to have a protracted fracas with BayStar
Really? Just wait, I read somewhere that Microsoft is going to need some Unix(tm)(r)(patent pending) technology to replace all those open source parts of Microsoft(r) Services For Unix(r). I'm pretty sure Microsoft is not going to mind if the price is a little bit higher than the going rate.
And I bet there won't be too much rotting flesh left on that carcass when they're done feeding.
The carcass never had any flesh to feed on in the first place.
I can't think of one offhand, even Microsoft by implication is their enemy, (if a friend of a friend is now an enemy of your friend, they are your enemy too, no?)
And wouldn't Microsoft love to be considered their enemy...
Too bad for them, it's not happening. Microsoft is their friend and sponsor (along with Sun), and any evidence to the opposite is quite probably fabricated. Microsoft could even sue SCO, while being in friendly terms in the backrooms. SCO execs, Canopy group and other scumbags cash on in this charade, hardly caring what happens to SCO-the-company (which has been doomed for a while now).
This case must be pursued all the way to the front door of Microsoft. Once SCO is dead, this is far from over. Otherwise, MSFT could sponsor various little companies with promise of riches for their execs, while itself remaining untarnished.
Or so they think.
you do know that you can change the size of the toolbar right?
How? Yet another gconf hack? I've tried looking for the toolbar size configuration option in nautilus, but didn't find it.
Also, hopefully you do know that Fedora's version of Gnome is not representative of "real" gnome.
I've been using Debian for a while now, and actually prefer the Fedora version of Gnome (mostly a question of themes, probably).
it doesn't ask what would have happened had it all been patented, back in the day.
Simple - it would be dead. Just like the WWW if it were patented. Or Linux (well, not patented but placed under proprietary license).
And God spake: "Let there be hell!" and thus the C programming language was born.
In fact, if you study the history more carefully, you'll find that God only licensed some thought patterns and algorithms from SCO Group. God still has to abide by the licensing conditions stated therein.
"In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was copyright (R) of SCO Group"
Maybe he should try KDE instead?
Indeed. Almost all of the whining regarding Gnome could generally be rendered moot by just switching to KDE. Gnome has a clearly stated direction, and people who disagree with it (I do, but mostly because I use the pathetic 1024x768 resolution while Gnome seems to target higher with their gigantic toolbars) can as well keep on using KDE.
Gnome has a multi-year strategy, which compromises some functionality today but will pay off with time. Meanwhile, just use KDE. Users don't generally need to suffer because of Qt licensing because they are just that, users.
I have no idea if the fork will succeed, but at least he's putting his money (time, code, effort) where his mouth has been.
;-).
I guess you mean he's putting his money where his mouth *is*. Your version appears to have unfortunate freudian connotations
If you want root access so bad then root the box yourself since you know Linux inside and out.
True. Rooting the box is pretty much trivial if you have direct physical access.
OTOH, rooting your own computer is not going to buy you friendly-points with IT support staff, esp. if they are anal-retentive about their imaginary position in power.