Noone here wants to censor Mr. Raymond. But I believe that for a discussion to have any coherence one must stick to the main theme of said discussion. Mixing in your political agenda and shoving it down your audience's throats is quite rude at best. I don't like Mr. Stallman either for mixing programming and politics even more.
Let's restore some sanity here, programming is not a social or a political issue, even Open Software programming. It's a hobby for many and a job for some. Trying to wrap it in some sort of social package (Mr. Stallman & Freedom) or a political one (Mr. Raymond & libertarianism) is simply neglecting the focus of the discussion.
At least Mr. Stallman speaks for himself most of the time which cannot be said about Mr. Raymond. This is why Mr. Raymond comes under so much criticism most of the time he opens his mouth. He's not critisized for having his views but for pretending that those views represent some astonishing majority of those who describe themselves as 'hackers' (God, I'm beginning to hate this word thanks to Dr. Raymond). Digressing is OK but sneaking in your agenda into a public discussion and then claiming that you represent some group that's unrelated to the forementioned agenda is awful.
someone has to present us to the rest of the public.
Or do they? I beg to differ here. Why do we need to speak with a single voice or need any kind of leadership? I thought we were all great individualists who know how to conduct themselves. At least I do otherwise I would be in a sect somewhere praying to the trees instead of developing applications. We don't need a guru only those who can't think for themselves do!
Do car mechanics have their "voice of the community"? So why should we all speak a unanimous voice? I particularly differ with Mr. Raymond on most issues he chooses to talk about and when he uses expressions such as 'we the hackers' it makes my skin crawl. Not only is he self appointed he's actually helping to build stereotypes about people in the software industry.
Dear Mr. Raymond, programming is just a frigging job. It's not a religon, it's not a recipe for life your 'observations' are just rehashing old mantras such as "real programmers are born not made". We heard it all a million times now and don't want to hear it again. Beside it being stupid and flat it can be said of most professions. Good people in any job are hard to come by and coding is no different. It's just a job and a hobby and for most of us it's both. Nothing less, nothing more. Mixing it with your 'libertarianism' passion for guns or everything else results in a mixture that's hard to swallow and leaves a bad aftertaste too. What a lovely HydePark slashdot is:).
Couldn't agree with you more on this one. He has a recipe on what we should eat, drink, look like and even believe in!
Also his idea of mixing his Geeks with Guns together with the Linux expo. At least he could keep the two separate and I'd be very grateful if he can stick to talking of Open Source when he's asked to talk about FUCKING OPEN SOURCE! The bastard keeps on pushing his agenda all the time and it pisses me more and more. Rant over. Off to order my BSD CDs.
Re:I've read it. In fact I started out with it.
on
Who's Afraid Of C++?
·
· Score: 1
Almost every Linux distribution comes with GNU c++ installed so you can start compiliing straight away. All you have to know is how to use a text editor (for example NEdit to keep things simple) and then
c++ test.cxx -o test
And that's it. no more difficult than using the copy command to start with. One of the biggest problems for beginners is that the error messages seem misleading and often confuse them but that's another issue altogether.
Oh dear! It's slashdot at its worst again. Can all see lovers just go and read a different article please. All threads are getting so offtopic that I'd moderate them all down if I had the moderator's access at this time. If you don't fancy c++ the fine, piss of and go read something else. Nobody here needs your stupid jihad. When you become a more mature programmer (and a more mature person) you'll outgrow C at some point if you continue to develop. I too thought at some point that C++ was too difficult with its "obfuscated syntax" and its "rope to hang yourself with" but then I went to the real world and realised that serious people use C++ for very serious work and it's definitely possible to master it given enough experience.
It's almost like Unix you hate it until you truly start to understand it and it all 'falls into place'. Also remember that you don't have to use every single feature of the language in your code. You can learn the basics and build up on that. This is how I learned c++. It will take longer but then again it's the price of added flexibility. C++ encompasses more paradigms than just OO so it's not a true OO language that's true. But it's a very powerful language as such. Since 'hello world' will compile in c++ just the same it's no worse for learning than C.
So can you please post some comments on the book not language itself. Thank you.
I believe ActiveX and OLE require Win32API though.
In which case we're back to square one. We could have an interoperable component model without the embedding ability but we can use CORBA for that anyway. But to have embedding we need to introduce GUI toolkit dependency or take a (pottentially) big performance hit. Seems like a chicken and egg situation to me.
OLE and ActiveX are sets of interfaces for defining visual interaction over COM's object
Are they fully independent of the other WIN32 API then? What I'm trying to get at is how they managed to define the interaction in terms of interfaces without refering to things like screen coordinates etc. If they still do refer to GUI related things then the interfaces are not really generic because using pixels would break under things like berlin which use real life scaling for everything. I'm not arguing with your point, just being curious how MS solved this.
But when you get int the actuall phisycal component embedding you have to scratch your head how to represent such phisycal entities as the dimensions of a component in a gui independent manner. In other words you could launch a server to say display a gif image but that server will not be able to embed itself within the frame of the parent application which may be problematic when you design a componentised browser for example.
to happen to the OSS community since the conception of the Linux kernel. Why? Because it will allow reusability of components on an unprecedented level in the world of *nix. If MS can be given any credit for innovating it should go to their component architecture. Yes, I realise they didn't invent components but they were the first ones to push them on a system wide scale. This allowed them to reach new levels of software reusability. Well designed components are like plugins, if the interfaces are well thought out the benefits are far greater than the costs.
I'm not sure how much change will be required in both projects to support the new component architecture and how well the teams can cooperate to design this new component model. The main risk here being a slowdown in progress due to the design by commmittee effect kicking in. But all going well we just may have a grand unified component architecture for *nix, thanks to GNOME and KDE... Off to celebrate, bye!
I heard that the typical way of making money off of a console is to sell it below the production costs and make money selling the SDK to games developers.
Perhaps the opposite can also be made to work. Sell your console at a higher price than the competitors but have a bunch of cool games available for less. I mean these days the cost of a console is offset by the price of four console games! If someone offers a console that is reasonably priced but has games priced in a sensible range I will be tempted to purchase. So far my biggest gripe with consoles has been that the game offerings are mediocre in quality and outrageous in price (often twice the price of the PC port). I imagine they'll use opensource APIs for sound and graphics so the way for them to make money has to be from selling the hardware itself.
BTW. I have less to do with games programming than my name would imply:-).
You are not making sense to me I'm sorry. World domination? The only desktop? What the hell are you blabbing about? As far as I can see it's GNOME that are ramming their product down our throats. It's GNOME who set up several companies promising to deliver the desktop of the future. THEY have the blessing of Red Hat the biggest Linux player by several orders of magnitude. I feel that my freedom of choice is endangered by THEM and THEIR practices. They make the unnecessary political mess and breakdown of the morale in the community. I want to have KDE as a choice few years down the line but with RMS and his herd (pun intended) trolling against KDE I may well be deprived of this choice in the future. See the big picture and open your mind.
I don't know exactly which parts of their code will use Mozilla. It's pretty easy guess though isn't it? I don't know whether the licenses will be modified to allow the linking but it still won't be a truly free software desktop. Besides noone as yet showed any constructive evidence that QPL is incompatible with the GPL. I think TrollTech deserves our thanks for essentially giving away their (expensive) product to the community. Don't you?
As far as I know GNOME uses or will use mozilla code in their efforts. It surprises me that some are bashing KDE for using the QPL'd toolkit while everyone seems to be cool with GNOME ppl using MPLd code. Neither is a fully GPLed solution so what's the frigging noise about? Just curious.
They don't want to do the right thing, despite the fact that a lot of people are basically doing the work for them, because they don't care.
Or perhaps they are just sick and tired of listening to the moans of some zealots that claim to be mentors of some sort of community. I bet this is the case. They are just a bunch of enthusiasts that don't give a shit about licensing. If they did the'd be lawyers not programmers. All they want to do is give *nix a usable desktop (at last) and the payback they get is hostility and flame. Fucking hell of a community you have here fellas.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's restore some sanity here, programming is not a social or a political issue, even Open Software programming. It's a hobby for many and a job for some. Trying to wrap it in some sort of social package (Mr. Stallman & Freedom) or a political one (Mr. Raymond & libertarianism) is simply neglecting the focus of the discussion.
At least Mr. Stallman speaks for himself most of the time which cannot be said about Mr. Raymond. This is why Mr. Raymond comes under so much criticism most of the time he opens his mouth. He's not critisized for having his views but for pretending that those views represent some astonishing majority of those who describe themselves as 'hackers' (God, I'm beginning to hate this word thanks to Dr. Raymond). Digressing is OK but sneaking in your agenda into a public discussion and then claiming that you represent some group that's unrelated to the forementioned agenda is awful.
Or do they? I beg to differ here. Why do we need to speak with a single voice or need any kind of leadership? I thought we were all great individualists who know how to conduct themselves. At least I do otherwise I would be in a sect somewhere praying to the trees instead of developing applications. We don't need a guru only those who can't think for themselves do!
Do car mechanics have their "voice of the community"? So why should we all speak a unanimous voice? I particularly differ with Mr. Raymond on most issues he chooses to talk about and when he uses expressions such as 'we the hackers' it makes my skin crawl. Not only is he self appointed he's actually helping to build stereotypes about people in the software industry.
Dear Mr. Raymond, programming is just a frigging job. It's not a religon, it's not a recipe for life your 'observations' are just rehashing old mantras such as "real programmers are born not made". We heard it all a million times now and don't want to hear it again. Beside it being stupid and flat it can be said of most professions. Good people in any job are hard to come by and coding is no different. It's just a job and a hobby and for most of us it's both. Nothing less, nothing more. Mixing it with your 'libertarianism' passion for guns or everything else results in a mixture that's hard to swallow and leaves a bad aftertaste too. :).
What a lovely HydePark slashdot is
Also his idea of mixing his Geeks with Guns together with the Linux expo. At least he could keep the two separate and I'd be very grateful if he can stick to talking of Open Source when he's asked to talk about FUCKING OPEN SOURCE! The bastard keeps on pushing his agenda all the time and it pisses me more and more. Rant over. Off to order my BSD CDs.
c++ test.cxx -o test
And that's it. no more difficult than using the copy command to start with. One of the biggest problems for beginners is that the error messages seem misleading and often confuse them but that's another issue altogether.
It's almost like Unix you hate it until you truly start to understand it and it all 'falls into place'. Also remember that you don't have to use every single feature of the language in your code. You can learn the basics and build up on that. This is how I learned c++. It will take longer but then again it's the price of added flexibility. C++ encompasses more paradigms than just OO so it's not a true OO language that's true. But it's a very powerful language as such. Since 'hello world' will compile in c++ just the same it's no worse for learning than C.
So can you please post some comments on the book not language itself. Thank you.
In which case we're back to square one. We could have an interoperable component model without the embedding ability but we can use CORBA for that anyway. But to have embedding we need to introduce GUI toolkit dependency or take a (pottentially) big performance hit. Seems like a chicken and egg situation to me.
Are they fully independent of the other WIN32 API then? What I'm trying to get at is how they managed to define the interaction in terms of interfaces without refering to things like screen coordinates etc. If they still do refer to GUI related things then the interfaces are not really generic because using pixels would break under things like berlin which use real life scaling for everything. I'm not arguing with your point, just being curious how MS solved this.
But when you get int the actuall phisycal component embedding you have to scratch your head how to represent such phisycal entities as the dimensions of a component in a gui independent manner. In other words you could launch a server to say display a gif image but that server will not be able to embed itself within the frame of the parent application which may be problematic when you design a componentised browser for example.
If MS can be given any credit for innovating it should go to their component architecture. Yes, I realise they didn't invent components but they were the first ones to push them on a system wide scale. This allowed them to reach new levels of software reusability. Well designed components are like plugins, if the interfaces are well thought out the benefits are far greater than the costs.
I'm not sure how much change will be required in both projects to support the new component architecture and how well the teams can cooperate to design this new component model. The main risk here being a slowdown in progress due to the design by commmittee effect kicking in. But all going well we just may have a grand unified component architecture for *nix, thanks to GNOME and KDE... Off to celebrate, bye!
Cheers,
Matt
Perhaps the opposite can also be made to work. Sell your console at a higher price than the competitors but have a bunch of cool games available for less. I mean these days the cost of a console is offset by the price of four console games! If someone offers a console that is reasonably priced but has games priced in a sensible range I will be tempted to purchase. So far my biggest gripe with consoles has been that the game offerings are mediocre in quality and outrageous in price (often twice the price of the PC port). I imagine they'll use opensource APIs for sound and graphics so the way for them to make money has to be from selling the hardware itself.
BTW. I have less to do with games programming than my name would imply :-).
You are not making sense to me I'm sorry. World domination? The only desktop? What the hell are you blabbing about? As far as I can see it's GNOME that are ramming their product down our throats. It's GNOME who set up several companies promising to deliver the desktop of the future. THEY have the blessing of Red Hat the biggest Linux player by several orders of magnitude. I feel that my freedom of choice is endangered by THEM and THEIR practices. They make the unnecessary political mess and breakdown of the morale in the community. I want to have KDE as a choice few years down the line but with RMS and his herd (pun intended) trolling against KDE I may well be deprived of this choice in the future. See the big picture and open your mind.
I don't know exactly which parts of their code will use Mozilla. It's pretty easy guess though isn't it? I don't know whether the licenses will be modified to allow the linking but it still won't be a truly free software desktop. Besides noone as yet showed any constructive evidence that QPL is incompatible with the GPL. I think TrollTech deserves our thanks for essentially giving away their (expensive) product to the community. Don't you?
As far as I know GNOME uses or will use mozilla code in their efforts. It surprises me that some are bashing KDE for using the QPL'd toolkit while everyone seems to be cool with GNOME ppl using MPLd code. Neither is a fully GPLed solution so what's the frigging noise about? Just curious.
I can have my totally free, politically correct dancing hamsters.