Umm, Sun's C compiler kicks the hell out of gcc, at least on SPARC architecture (recent). It's faster, and produces much smaller binaries, especially in regards to C++ (ugh) programs.
While these are important, they are also fairly well documented and picked up in a book, right?
Well documented? Yep. Does that mean that any CS masters or above student can grasp the concept of writing a simple server using the TCP protocol (well documented!) and select? Nope. Lots of things are documented. It doesn't mean that people can just pick them up. Most grad students that I know can't really code. But they can do theory. My beef with that is, theory is all well and good (I know my fair share), but if you don't have the skills to implement the theory, what good does the theory get? I want to do (and do) useful things.
A lot of the arguments so far here seem to present the fact that programmers are a dime a dozen, and anyone can just pick up a book and begin to code. That's pretty funny. Clicking a few wizard boxes doesn't make you a programmer. Nor does mucking around a little bit with a 20 line perl cgi script. A real programmer uses the right tool for the job, and knows how to use said tool effectively. That's NOT something you get out of a book, and hence not something that everyone can learn.
Um, one word: price. They didn't make the "ultra" sparcs have ide drives and pci buses because they are better than SCSI and S-BUS, respectively. They wanted to get more sparcs on the desktop, and dropping the price (and crippling the systems, in my book) was a good way to do that.
You know, it figures that some good press for FreeBSD gets into slashdot, and half of the idiot posters either put the OS or the movie down, because dammit, IT WASN'T LINUX!!
Cripes.
When are idiots like these going to learn that just because the OS name isn't Linux that it doesn't suck. I myself am happy just using Unix, whether it is *BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc... some of you idiots are beginning to sound like Microsoft advocates ("Everything but our OS SUCKS!!!").
Screw world domination for any platform, I'm glad I have a choice.
Heh... It needs to be ported to other OS's ASAP... I'd love to use it, but I don't run Linux. I don't know if this is something that could run under linux emulation or not (FreeBSD, that is).
Seriously people, why in all that is holy should Linux be made so everyone can run it? Clearly, not everyone is capable of running a Unix clone, so let them have windows, or Mac OS, or Be. I don't want every tom dick and harry running an a Unix clone OS when they can barely understand Windows. If you have to spend more than 10 minutes explaining to them that AOL is NOT the internet, putting them in front of Unix (Linux) is not something I want to deal with. I mean, it's all about choice, right? Or is it about the vaunted "World domination"? Some of you have to make up your mind. But linux will most certainly dry up becuase grandma, along with aunt Jane and uncle Jim, are not running it...
Don't always think that everyone has to run linux, because that is most certainly not the case. We certainly don't make cars so that every tom dick and harry can think they are a mechanic...
In the end, I really don't care, 'cause I use FreeBSD.
I, for one, refuse to accept the notion that we cannot invent an interface which includes both the power of the Unix paradigm (tool combination) and the rich presentation abilities of a GUI (it's only current strongpoint). There is something better to be created, but we as an industry and as an academic community have grossly neglected this area.
Umm, that already exists: run X, and start popping up Xterms. There ya go. Works for me anyways
Umm, your argument has a basic flaw. It doesn't matter a bit, not one whit, that the FSF had a "dream" of a complete system. I sincerely doubt that Linus looked at the FSF, and said "Wow, look at all these tools. Maybe I'll write a kernel to use them with! Then the FSF can complete their dream!". You people have to wake up here.
The FSF had a dream. They started developing the HURD. Linux comes in, works pretty well, and slaps on the GNU tools. years pass, and all of a sudden the FSF starts wanting people to call it "GNU/Linux". Why? Check the status of the HERD, and I believe that you will find your answer...
Well, I'd call it Linux to his face, and I would have done so if I was there. Linus created his operating system, pure and simple. The fact that the GNU tools were used (as per the compiler and other stuff), and then later involved with the OS is irrelevant. Someone will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I highly doubt that Linus's intent with Linux was to be the "missing piece" of the GNU puzzle.
I still think Stallman's just has his undies in a bundle 'cause the HURD is no where near to useable yet, and with Linux, he got beat to the line.
If your B condition is met, your A condition is moot..org domains were/are for personal/non-profit groups,.com for commercial groups, and.net for ISP's and the like. Thing is, we have too many morons registering personal domain names under.com, and too many idiotic companies bitching if they can't get their own name under.org and/or.net.
Life would be better if common sense were more in demand...
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was under some obligation to respond to everything you said...
On top of that...while I can understand pragmatism in software (it can be easily argued that there are more important moral questions, however much it may impact my life), I often get the feeling that this is part and parcel of a larger attitude of pure pragmatism. I could be wrong of course, it's difficult to judge people based on 5-line posts on/. or O'Reilly's site.;-) But if you don't understand why some sort of ethical basis for action is necessary..then I repeat my comment: I'm sorry.
Anytime you want to be less patronizing, I'll be waiting. First off, as you said, there are FAR more pressing issues than deciding the morality of software choices. But you seem to be saying that there are ethics involved when choosing software, and I think you are on crack for saying that. Sounds like RMS in his more zealous moments... There are no ethics involved when choosing software, whether free, open, or proprietary. None. It is not immoral to buy some proprietary software when it is heads and tails above the rest. It is not immoral to buy some proprietary software when it is the worst of the software (that's just stupid.) There just aren't any morals involved whatsoever. It's fscking software, not a debate on the morals of porn.
And you *totally* missed my point about users vs creators. The GPL is an assertion of the rights of the creator of a piece of software to ensure that it is used in the way he or she intended. And even in the mindset that this is a moral issue, no-one, even RMS, is going to come around and *force* you to GPL your software (except for some very misguided people)--persuade, argue, cajole, perhaps.
If the GPL is so damned free, and so good, can I, as a creator of a piece of software, remove the software that I originally placed under GPL if I decided to sell it later on? No you say? Not too free then, is it. Does the GPL allow me to sell my software at all (beyond the price of the medium of distribution)? What? No again? I don't really see how it is protecting my rights then...
> But for me, the choice of proprietary or Open > Source software is purely a pragmatic one.
I'm sorry.
What?! What in the world is wrong with making the choice between free or open source or proprietary a sensible choice? Must everyone just outright choose open sourced or free software based on someone else's morals? Give me a freaking break. If I want to choose the best software, I'll choose the best software, whether it be proprietary or not. Most non-zealots probably would too.
As for the rights of users vs. the rights of creators, I'm sorry, but if I write a piece of code, and you want to use it, either you abide by the license that I decide to put it under, or write an implementation yourself, or tough shit. In this instance (you may feel its selfish, but tough), my rights are what I want protected, not some joe schmoe out there who is just looking to get something for nothing.
I hope that post was a joke, otherwise I would hate to see written proof of how stupid people are becoming.
One more time, THE NSA IS NOT THE SAME AS NSI!!! ONE IS A US GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE OTHER HANDLES DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS FOR CERTAIN TOP LEVEL DOMAINS! NSI IS A BUSINESS!!
Umm, IBM wasn't using SQL Server 7.0, like the oracle challenge states...
As another note, for that it only took 128 Xeon processors, not too cheap in its own right. Finally the Sun or SGI solution will be a hell of a lot more stable...
Well, yes, RMS deserves his place in history. the kicker is he FUCKING HAS IT. Everybody and their mother's brother knows who the hell he is, and who/what GNU is. RMS just has his undies in a bundle because the HURD didn't get out the door before Linux did. It is called Linux because that is what Linus wanted to call it (after Freax). Everthing else came after. If the underlying OS was really such a pittance, as some of you GNU zealots claim, then one would have to conjecture that some other kernel would have come out sooner. Yet there is the HURD, still sitting on release 0.2 for forever... Not such a trivial addition, even if it looks that way when comparing lines of code (a rather stupid comparision anyways.)
Some of you people have way too much time on your hands to be bickering over this. Let RMS call it what he wants. Everyone with sense will just call it Linux, 'cause that's the way it is. There is just one caveat: All you "gnulix" idiots ought to be kicked in the head.
Yeah, really, all you GNOME/KDE users ought to quit flaming one another over silly useless things like GNOME and KDE. All they do is eat up more horsepower anyways...
So there. thppppppp!
Note: all flames go to/dev/null, because I figure you *HAVE* to have something better to do than to continue flamewars and backbiting about GNOME and KDE, and which one is better/more free/better looking/better license etc...
Heh, I'd be willing to help, but apparently, the only OS's in existance are Linux and Microsoft versions...
One day, I envision most GPL'd software being released with non-linux specific code. But it may be a cold day in hell before that happens... (Oh look, it's 33 degrees....)
The real point is that with a little careful planning, OS-specific code can be greatly reduced, modularized, or even eliminated, making porting easier. I shouldn't have to look at the source code, and realize that it will take far more time than it is probably worth to port over, and that I have other things demanding my time (like writing that compiler, or working with NACHOS. Or working, or writing essays. Or posting on/.:)
Just remember that there are other free OS's out there (HURD, *BSD), and that just becuase you are running solaris or something else, doesn't mean you can't contribute.
Yeah, FreeBSD is dead, which *EXACTLY* why yahoo, cdrom.com, and hotmail are all using it, and why 3.1 just got released. Cripes. Some of you morons really need to get out into the world a little more...
...code-named COOL (C++ object oriented language), that brings COM+ support to C++ developers
Yeah... I thought C++ was already an OO language. Hmph, silly me.
"It makes C++ programming simpler. We like Java-the-language because it is simple -- and simpler than C++ -- but there has to be ways to make that easier," Leake said. "Can we not take the things that are wonderful about C++ and marry them with an easier model?"
Ok, not starting a language war, there isn't anything good about C++. Second, how easy do they have to make it? You already can click a few wizard buttons and produce code in VC++ for god's sake. How much easier does it have to be?
I really do find all of this funny. Microsoft, being unable to propriaterize (ugh) Java, is actling like the little spoiled brat that we all knew at one time or another, and going home. Unfortunately for Microsoft, by the time they get COOL off the ground, Java will be even more entrenched. And while I hate java, I do realize it's potential, and that cross platform is good.
Just goes to show how the monopolistic giant acts when they can't control something (Oh my god! something adhering to a set of standards set by a governing body! Hell NO! we can't have that!). Here's to hoping that COOL get's laughed out of the market, and COM+ with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, Sun's C compiler kicks the hell out of gcc, at least on SPARC architecture (recent). It's faster, and produces much smaller binaries, especially in regards to C++ (ugh) programs.
well documented and picked up in a book, right?
Well documented? Yep. Does that mean that any CS masters or above student can grasp the concept of writing a simple server using the TCP protocol (well documented!) and select? Nope. Lots of things are documented. It doesn't mean that people can just pick them up. Most grad students that I know can't really code. But they can do theory. My beef with that is, theory is all well and good (I know my fair share), but if you don't have the skills to implement the theory, what good does the theory get? I want to do (and do) useful things.
A lot of the arguments so far here seem to present the fact that programmers are a dime a dozen, and anyone can just pick up a book and begin to code. That's pretty funny. Clicking a few wizard boxes doesn't make you a programmer. Nor does mucking around a little bit with a 20 line perl cgi script. A real programmer uses the right tool for the job, and knows how to use said tool effectively. That's NOT something you get out of a book, and hence not something that everyone can learn.
Um, one word: price. They didn't make the "ultra" sparcs have ide drives and pci buses because they are better than SCSI and S-BUS, respectively. They wanted to get more sparcs on the desktop, and dropping the price (and crippling the systems, in my book) was a good way to do that.
(start sarcasm)
Yeah, because we all know that solaris is EVIL, and that the PC architecture is SO MUCH BETTER than that of a Sun machine.
(end sarcasm)
cripes...
Cripes.
When are idiots like these going to learn that just because the OS name isn't Linux that it doesn't suck. I myself am happy just using Unix, whether it is *BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc... some of you idiots are beginning to sound like Microsoft advocates ("Everything but our OS SUCKS!!!").
Screw world domination for any platform, I'm glad I have a choice.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think Kirk McKusik created it.
BACK TO GOPHER!!!
Heh... It needs to be ported to other OS's ASAP... I'd love to use it, but I don't run Linux. I don't know if this is something that could run under linux emulation or not (FreeBSD, that is).
Ugh... you code in Scheme for *pleasure*? I didn't think those two words could go together...
gads that language sucks roadkill
Don't always think that everyone has to run linux, because that is most certainly not the case. We certainly don't make cars so that every tom dick and harry can think they are a mechanic...
In the end, I really don't care, 'cause I use FreeBSD.
Umm, that already exists: run X, and start popping up Xterms. There ya go. Works for me anyways
The FSF had a dream. They started developing the HURD. Linux comes in, works pretty well, and slaps on the GNU tools. years pass, and all of a sudden the FSF starts wanting people to call it "GNU/Linux". Why? Check the status of the HERD, and I believe that you will find your answer...
Wow... good post.
Well, I'd call it Linux to his face, and I would have done so if I was there. Linus created his operating system, pure and simple. The fact that the GNU tools were used (as per the compiler and other stuff), and then later involved with the OS is irrelevant. Someone will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I highly doubt that Linus's intent with Linux was to be the "missing piece" of the GNU puzzle.
I still think Stallman's just has his undies in a bundle 'cause the HURD is no where near to useable yet, and with Linux, he got beat to the line.
Life would be better if common sense were more in demand...
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was under some obligation to respond to everything you said...
On top of that...while I can understand pragmatism in software (it can be easily argued that there are more important moral questions, however much it may impact my life), I often get the feeling that this is part and parcel of a larger attitude of pure pragmatism. I could be wrong of course, it's difficult to judge people based on 5-line posts on /. or O'Reilly's site. ;-) But if you don't understand why some sort of ethical basis for action is necessary..then I repeat my comment: I'm sorry.
Anytime you want to be less patronizing, I'll be waiting. First off, as you said, there are FAR more pressing issues than deciding the morality of software choices. But you seem to be saying that there are ethics involved when choosing software, and I think you are on crack for saying that. Sounds like RMS in his more zealous moments... There are no ethics involved when choosing software, whether free, open, or proprietary. None. It is not immoral to buy some proprietary software when it is heads and tails above the rest. It is not immoral to buy some proprietary software when it is the worst of the software (that's just stupid.) There just aren't any morals involved whatsoever. It's fscking software, not a debate on the morals of porn.
And you *totally* missed my point about users vs creators. The GPL is an assertion of the rights of the creator of a piece of software to ensure that it is used in the way he or she intended. And even in the mindset that this is a moral issue, no-one, even RMS, is going to come around and *force* you to GPL your software (except for some very misguided people)--persuade, argue, cajole, perhaps.
If the GPL is so damned free, and so good, can I, as a creator of a piece of software, remove the software that I originally placed under GPL if I decided to sell it later on? No you say? Not too free then, is it. Does the GPL allow me to sell my software at all (beyond the price of the medium of distribution)? What? No again? I don't really see how it is protecting my rights then...
> Source software is purely a pragmatic one.
I'm sorry.
What?! What in the world is wrong with making the choice between free or open source or proprietary a sensible choice? Must everyone just outright choose open sourced or free software based on someone else's morals? Give me a freaking break. If I want to choose the best software, I'll choose the best software, whether it be proprietary or not. Most non-zealots probably would too.
As for the rights of users vs. the rights of creators, I'm sorry, but if I write a piece of code, and you want to use it, either you abide by the license that I decide to put it under, or write an implementation yourself, or tough shit. In this instance (you may feel its selfish, but tough), my rights are what I want protected, not some joe schmoe out there who is just looking to get something for nothing.
I hope that post was a joke, otherwise I would hate to see written proof of how stupid people are becoming.
One more time, THE NSA IS NOT THE SAME AS NSI!!! ONE IS A US GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE OTHER HANDLES DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS FOR CERTAIN TOP LEVEL DOMAINS! NSI IS A BUSINESS!!
Umm, IBM wasn't using SQL Server 7.0, like the oracle challenge states...
As another note, for that it only took 128 Xeon processors, not too cheap in its own right. Finally the Sun or SGI solution will be a hell of a lot more stable...
wheee...
Well, yes, RMS deserves his place in history. the kicker is he FUCKING HAS IT. Everybody and their mother's brother knows who the hell he is, and who/what GNU is. RMS just has his undies in a bundle because the HURD didn't get out the door before Linux did. It is called Linux because that is what Linus wanted to call it (after Freax). Everthing else came after. If the underlying OS was really such a pittance, as some of you GNU zealots claim, then one would have to conjecture that some other kernel would have come out sooner.
Yet there is the HURD, still sitting on release 0.2 for forever... Not such a trivial addition, even if it looks that way when comparing lines of code (a rather stupid comparision anyways.)
Some of you people have way too much time on your hands to be bickering over this. Let RMS call it what he wants. Everyone with sense will just call it Linux, 'cause that's the way it is. There is just one caveat: All you "gnulix" idiots ought to be kicked in the head.
Yeah, really, all you GNOME/KDE users ought to quit flaming one another over silly useless things like GNOME and KDE. All they do is eat up more horsepower anyways...
/dev/null, because I figure you *HAVE* to have something better to do than to continue flamewars and backbiting about GNOME and KDE, and which one is
So there. thppppppp!
Note: all flames go to
better/more free/better looking/better license etc...
Heh, I'd be willing to help, but apparently, the only OS's in existance are Linux and Microsoft versions...
/. :)
One day, I envision most GPL'd software being released with non-linux specific code. But it may be a cold day in hell before that happens... (Oh look, it's 33 degrees....)
The real point is that with a little careful planning, OS-specific code can be greatly reduced, modularized, or even eliminated, making porting easier. I shouldn't have to look at the source code, and realize that it will take far more time than it is probably worth to port over, and that I have other things demanding my time (like writing that compiler, or working with NACHOS. Or working, or writing essays. Or posting on
Just remember that there are other free OS's out there (HURD, *BSD), and that just becuase you are running solaris or something else, doesn't mean you can't contribute.
Whee, that was fun.
Yeah, FreeBSD is dead, which *EXACTLY* why yahoo, cdrom.com, and hotmail are all using it, and why 3.1 just got released. Cripes. Some of you morons really need to get out into the world a little more...
No, that was before, during the whole Catholic-Protestant thing.
There are freaks and morons in all countries, just larger countries have larger numbers of them. Sheesh.
Yeah... I thought C++ was already an OO language. Hmph, silly me.
"It makes C++ programming simpler. We like Java-the-language because it is simple -- and simpler than C++ -- but there has to be ways to make that easier," Leake said. "Can we not take the things that are wonderful about C++ and marry them with an easier model?"
Ok, not starting a language war, there isn't anything good about C++. Second, how easy do they have to make it? You already can click a few wizard buttons and produce code in VC++ for god's sake. How much easier does it have to be?
I really do find all of this funny. Microsoft, being unable to propriaterize (ugh) Java, is actling like the little spoiled brat that we all knew at one time or another, and going home. Unfortunately for Microsoft, by the time they get COOL off the ground, Java will be even more entrenched. And while I hate java, I do realize it's potential, and that cross platform is good.
Just goes to show how the monopolistic giant acts when they can't control something (Oh my god! something adhering to a set of standards set by a governing body! Hell NO! we can't have that!). Here's to hoping that COOL get's laughed out of the market, and COM+ with it.