Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks.
on
QT 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
So don't use it. But don't whine about it. If it's not "free" (whatever that means under your criteria) - then don't use it. That's also a freedom, eh?
It's hard when everyone is sitting on the same floor of the same building - it must certainly be a *lot* harder under the distributed development model.
Ultimately, while development can, in certain cases, be done in a vacuum, QA cannot (and should not). It's by nature a collaborative and interactive process.
I have nothing but respect for the few (good) QA engineers I've worked with.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why "Joe Simian" is so phsyched over dropping "Windoze" and jumping to "that Linux thing".
You either want "Joe Simian" or you don't, dude. There's no middle ground. And until you and your friends get over things like these, you sure as hell ain't gettin' him.
Hey pen, here's a great example of why you should keep your wisdom to yourself. If we follow your logic, the Linux kernel mailing list host should drop Apache and mySQL. Ironic, isn't it?
Really, really. I won't add to the many good comments about the topic, but let me say this: if you don't know what you're doing (and from your questions I assume you don't), invest a bit of money and hire a good architect for a couple of weeks. Not only will he/she answer your questions, but will probably get you started on a good design and a decent implementation.
I've designed infrastructure and application-level systems that use.NET and happily meet your requirements (MSMQ is not scalable? Huh?), and then some. So yes, to answer all your question, it works. But if you don't know what you're doing it's very simple to fuck it up, regardless of whether you're using Microsoft products or not.
Coming here (!) and asking questions about whether or not a given Microsoft product is viable seems to me like a losing proposition. FWIW, most professionals that work with Microsoft technologies are far more willing to admit shortcomings in those products and suggest alternatives, something that the/. crowd seems incapable of. So at least if you hire someone in the know you won't get BS left and right.
Please spare us the editorial comment. In yesterday's article, Dave Turner specifically bemoaned the fact that CowboyNeal had not double-checked his facts and just went ahead and posted. The story submitter then apologized to Dave for going "sensational", which is apparently the only way to get a story through the "editors" nowadays, with the exception of anything that remotely smells of "M$" or the RIAA.
So I think an apology to the FSF (and your readers) is in order.
Did anyone else think of, "don't use IIS"? Maybe this isn't so secure after all...
No, I didn't think of that, not specifically. Let's see. What does IIS have to do with this? What does the topic of the article and web server security have to do with this?
You've never seen an Apache server barf with mySQL and "too busy" errors? Perhaps the bandwidth is a more important consideration. Yes. For example, eBay uses IIS. Have you ever heard of eBay being borked? I haven't. Ditto for Dell.com, Microsoft.com and all the other high-traffic sites out there that use IIS.
Now, I'd recommend returning to whatever rock you crawled from under and staying there. Your useless and off-topic attempts at lame humour are a waste of brain cells.
What you're saying is that you don't like the term as applied to the GPL, but that doesn't mean the term as applied to the behavior of the license in this particular case is not accurate.
Yes, it doesn't "spread". Yes, I need to make a conscious decision to use it. In this PARTICULAR case however, it behaves virally because the people who used it thought they were OK and now the rest of THEIR code is GPLed and they're screwed. Or so I read it. Ergo, the LGPL "infected" their code. Is it more palatable if I use quotes around the terms?
I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.
"Link"? I've never read any such "drivel", that's my interpretation of the facts, as I see them. You're welcome to your own.
is to make proprietary (not commercial) software irrelevant, not to outlaw it.
That's an interesting way to put it, I suppose. In any case, I hardly implied that Stallman wanted to "outlaw" anything - thank $deity that he doesn't have and won't have that power any time soon.
If you find any such fanaticism on the FSF's site, I'll eat my hat.
I find enough fanaticism 'round here, thanks.
The FSF has always been about choice
The "blob" that I see making up "free software" and "open source", which includes the FSF, has always been about "join us or die", it seems to me. Again, YMMV.
GPL is all about giving authors commercial opportunities
I hope you kept a straight face while writing that.
In short, quit trolling. It's tiresome reading your smug posts which are actually, for the most part, devoid of content.
Here's another idea - why don't you fuck off and die? You're more than welcome to post *your* tiresome blabber and I'm perfectly capable of ignoring it. Surely that's not beyond your intellectual capabilities.
Well, fair enough. Maybe the problem is that it is applied as an adjective (which is not really accurate), instead of as a description of the behavior it displays in certain situations, like this one.
If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.
I always thought he was encouraging software to be free
You "thought"? I "thought" you were telling people to "shut up" and go "read what Richard Stallman has to say". You "thought"?
Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'.
Indeed, that's what I'd say. But people (perhaps like you) have somehow taken that and extended it to software, for some weird reason. BTW, although attributed to RMS, that quote is actually from Stewart Brand, who was one of the founders of the EFF.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?
Read my post again. Slowly.
I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him
Boy, you are a confused little one, aren't you? So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.
I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters
Uh, d00d, it looks *exactly* like Windows XP. What was XP copied from, pray tell? That link is nothing but hysterical blabber, as it was when I first saw it a few years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
This one looks like a winner!
So don't use it. But don't whine about it. If it's not "free" (whatever that means under your criteria) - then don't use it. That's also a freedom, eh?
<BillMurrayVoice>... dogs and cats, living together... </BillMurrayVoice>
You are so 1337.
That's from the folks that bring us the Duke Nukem games. C'mon. Let's give credit where credit's due.
Yes, but Draw was one the the things that legitimized Windows 3.x, along with Aldus PageMaker and a few other "seminal" apps.
Ultimately, while development can, in certain cases, be done in a vacuum, QA cannot (and should not). It's by nature a collaborative and interactive process.
I have nothing but respect for the few (good) QA engineers I've worked with.
Understand not a word you said.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why "Joe Simian" is so phsyched over dropping "Windoze" and jumping to "that Linux thing".
You either want "Joe Simian" or you don't, dude. There's no middle ground. And until you and your friends get over things like these, you sure as hell ain't gettin' him.
Hey pen, here's a great example of why you should keep your wisdom to yourself. If we follow your logic, the Linux kernel mailing list host should drop Apache and mySQL. Ironic, isn't it?
I've designed infrastructure and application-level systems that use .NET and happily meet your requirements (MSMQ is not scalable? Huh?), and then some. So yes, to answer all your question, it works. But if you don't know what you're doing it's very simple to fuck it up, regardless of whether you're using Microsoft products or not.
Coming here (!) and asking questions about whether or not a given Microsoft product is viable seems to me like a losing proposition. FWIW, most professionals that work with Microsoft technologies are far more willing to admit shortcomings in those products and suggest alternatives, something that the /. crowd seems incapable of. So at least if you hire someone in the know you won't get BS left and right.
So get some help.
What does your rant have to do with the question at hand?
Please spare us the editorial comment. In yesterday's article, Dave Turner specifically bemoaned the fact that CowboyNeal had not double-checked his facts and just went ahead and posted. The story submitter then apologized to Dave for going "sensational", which is apparently the only way to get a story through the "editors" nowadays, with the exception of anything that remotely smells of "M$" or the RIAA.
So I think an apology to the FSF (and your readers) is in order.
Did anyone else think of, "don't use IIS"? Maybe this isn't so secure after all...
No, I didn't think of that, not specifically. Let's see. What does IIS have to do with this? What does the topic of the article and web server security have to do with this?
You've never seen an Apache server barf with mySQL and "too busy" errors? Perhaps the bandwidth is a more important consideration. Yes. For example, eBay uses IIS. Have you ever heard of eBay being borked? I haven't. Ditto for Dell.com, Microsoft.com and all the other high-traffic sites out there that use IIS.
Now, I'd recommend returning to whatever rock you crawled from under and staying there. Your useless and off-topic attempts at lame humour are a waste of brain cells.
Wow, I don't remember saying that.
anything left? no? glad to hear.
Don't mention it.
Yes, it doesn't "spread". Yes, I need to make a conscious decision to use it. In this PARTICULAR case however, it behaves virally because the people who used it thought they were OK and now the rest of THEIR code is GPLed and they're screwed. Or so I read it. Ergo, the LGPL "infected" their code. Is it more palatable if I use quotes around the terms?
I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.
What part of "I thought it was OK and now it isn't and now I'm fucked" can you not relate to the term "viral"? Enlighten me.
"Link"? I've never read any such "drivel", that's my interpretation of the facts, as I see them. You're welcome to your own.
is to make proprietary (not commercial) software irrelevant, not to outlaw it.
That's an interesting way to put it, I suppose. In any case, I hardly implied that Stallman wanted to "outlaw" anything - thank $deity that he doesn't have and won't have that power any time soon.
If you find any such fanaticism on the FSF's site, I'll eat my hat.
I find enough fanaticism 'round here, thanks.
The FSF has always been about choice
The "blob" that I see making up "free software" and "open source", which includes the FSF, has always been about "join us or die", it seems to me. Again, YMMV.
GPL is all about giving authors commercial opportunities
I hope you kept a straight face while writing that.
In short, quit trolling. It's tiresome reading your smug posts which are actually, for the most part, devoid of content.
Here's another idea - why don't you fuck off and die? You're more than welcome to post *your* tiresome blabber and I'm perfectly capable of ignoring it. Surely that's not beyond your intellectual capabilities.
I don't read it that way, sorry.
and BTW have you ever considered being polite?
I've tried it a few times, but now I routinely use words like "assmonkey". It makes me feel like I'm in control.
Thanks for asking tho.
You don't really understand, do you?
Can you show me an example of Stallman EXTENDING commercial software, much less EMBRACING it?
No, you don't.
Thanks for playing.
Hahaha!! OMG, that is so insightful and funny. "sonny"? Hahahaha!! You're killing me!
Well, fair enough. Maybe the problem is that it is applied as an adjective (which is not really accurate), instead of as a description of the behavior it displays in certain situations, like this one.
How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software obsolete.
If you can come up with a rationalization of how this is different to wanting commercial (or "propietary") software to disappear, I'm all ears.
I always thought he was encouraging software to be free
You "thought"? I "thought" you were telling people to "shut up" and go "read what Richard Stallman has to say". You "thought"?
Stallman was talking about software, not 'information'.
Indeed, that's what I'd say. But people (perhaps like you) have somehow taken that and extended it to software, for some weird reason. BTW, although attributed to RMS, that quote is actually from Stewart Brand, who was one of the founders of the EFF.
How in the hell does the GPL 'extend' and 'embrace' commercial software?
Read my post again. Slowly.
I think the reason the quality is so good is because people listen to him
Boy, you are a confused little one, aren't you? So what you're saying is that Linux is good because the people who write it listen to things like these? Heh.
I personally think that 'assmonkey', like 'fucktard', is an accurate description of most Slashdot posters
Yes, I think that's a fairly accurate assesment.
It's OK to cry, really.