Let's see. VB.NET and C# are probably 99% identical. A VB programmer switching to C# needs to learn (for no good reason) case sensitivity and obscure notation with curly braces and semicolons that they don't need to learn in VB.NET. Now, why, exactly, should a VB programmer use C# rather than VB.NET?
Re:Does adding every ingredient make it better?
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
No. C was designed as a structured assembler for an obsolete DEC PDP and makes no bones about being anything else. Now, of course, if you aren't using it as an assembler for a DEC PDP then perhaps you are using the wrong tool for the job.
Ah, when asked to defend the indefensible (C's insane design) instead declare yourself an expert and attack the person raising the issue as " lazy and/or incompetent".
The problems cited are language problems. Yes, you can do workarounds and never create a bug but a competent language should make it easier to write bug-free code not add land mines to swagger over.
hope I don't have to explain why I hate VB if only on very first sight
Perhaps you should since there's nothing inherent to VB that doesn't solve exactly the problems you were citing (accurately) about C and most C derivatives.
Re:Does adding every ingredient make it better?
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
I think that's actually:
The Good: PL/AS
The Bad: C
The Ugly: C++
LANGUAGES SHOULD NOT BE DEBATED BY THEIR STANDARD LIBRARIES.
Spoken like a true C bigot. An equally good case could be made (and should be made) that the wildly inconsistant and incompatible libraries in C (and other "small language/lots of libraries" languages) that result from hundreds on uncoordinated libs adopted with no review make the languages unlearnable and needlessly difficult to use. They also create versioning hell and the built-up folklore becomes the basis of compatibility rather than best implementation.
While the "C-style" languages became popular, they really are not inherently the right choices.
Sub Main() Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!") End Sub
End Module
Re:Does adding every ingredient make it better?
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely correct. That a language could be developed in the late 1960s that had no native concept of a string or a fixed length input buffer is quite insane. That it could be "improved" in the 1980s without fixing that is even more insane. Of course, the best insanity was Netscape coming out with LiveScript (later renamed JavaScript) in the mid 1990s and not correctly handling the Y2K date math.
If, as your argument requires, the IP has no inherent value then erasing the book (or, say, replacing a looseleaf version's pages with blank paper) would not be damage since nothing of value was changed and the same would apply to the hard drive.
If Intellectual Property theft isn't really theft because IP isn't really property, then Intellectual Property damage isn't really damage because IP isn't really property.
If you really feel that IP ownership is bogus then this malware isn't really a problem because at worst it only destroys your Intellectual Property and not anything of real value. So, anybody who takes this off their computer doesn't really believe that IP doesn't have actual value and thus admits that IP theft really is theft.
Very simple. I read the whole 3 paragraph article rather than just the one sentence call-out and didn't mix hostnames and sites.
If you read the report you'll see that the Linux switchers were listed as 16.5K sites and 5%. (The actual quote is "5% (16.5K) to be migrations from Linux" Combine that with 42% being sites that chose Windows Server 2003 rather than Linux and you get the 131,000 estimate. And that's not counting the other 5,500 that switched from other Unix-like systems (BSD & SUN).
Actually, it's something like 16,000+ sites that have switched from Linux to Windows Server 2003 in July and August in the commercial hosting environments that Netcraft tracks. Combine that with over 131,000 Windows Server 2003 website installations that Netcraft reports were not upgrades from anything and you end up with almost 150,000 new non-Linux websites in two months.
Now, considering that hosting companies are notorious about not switching underlying systems until they're sure they can support the new product, your "statistical noise" or PHB analysis is, at best, wishful thinking.
Simply put, harsh sentences are not a deterrent to crime. Nobody (well, nobody short of Mafia lieutenants) does a crime thinking they'll get convicted even for a short sentence. They do the crime thinking that they won't get caught.
What DOES act as a deterrent is sure and swift conviction of the guilty and sure and swift exoneration of the innocent but that would involve spending money on training and staffing police departments and it would involve no longer basing promotions of police and district attorneys on convictions but rather by providing financial and promotion disincentives for overturned convictions.
Let's put it in perspective, Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at any Speed" about the Chevrolet Corvair's swing axle suspension. Of course, by the time he wrote it, the Corvair was no longer using that suspension but Ralph took the credit for "changing the auto industry". You bought into it enough to give him credit for fixing the Pinto which was shipped broken by your "up to safety standards" auto industry almost 20 years after Ralph "fixed it".
Oh, and to use your auto analogy, the equivalent for Microsoft's actions with Blaster would be:
A defect is found in a few Fords
Ford issues a fix before anybody has the fault show up
Ford goes door to door to every owner's house and every business' garage and offers to fix the defect for free
Some of the owners refuse to let the defect get fixed despite the Ford repair crew waiting in their front yard 24/7 for a couple of months
After months of the owners' refusal in fixing the defect, it breaks
The owners who repeatedly refused the free repair then yell at Ford
We lock away criminals in prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. It is the only this that separates our prisons (at least the ones not in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) from the chambers of the Inquisition.
ROX is indeed an interesting UI similar to some very clever work done 20 years ago on PCs that never got acceptance. With any luck, maybe people will actually use this implementation. Now, how do we get a major distribution to use it as the default desktop?
Ah yes, another posting from the "if you don't care about the exact feature set I like you're an artless dweeb" crowd is posted.
Here, I'll say it slowly. If the Linux offers less of what the users want then they'd be idiots to use it. Telling them that they shouldn't want what you don't offer is not only arrogant and abrasive, it's also a great way to kill any interest in them using it.
Now, we're all happy you've found a tool that you think is so perfect that everybody who doesn't use it is an idiot who should change everything in their life to be just like you so they'd appreciate it. Good for you. On the other hand, bad for Linux.
You miss the important part of the point so I'll bold it for you...
Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows.
Different without being better is not an incentive.
A clone is, at best, no better.
A clone is, usually, not as good.
Choice is bad. Monoculture is good. To beat windows you have to become like windows etc. etc. yada yada yada..
And that is precisely why Linux isn't taken seriously for users.
There IS no choice in Linux and it IS a Monoculture. The "choices" are between one half-finished clone of Windows and another half-finished clone of Windows. Given those choices, users will pick the finished original version of Windows. And they do by the millions while Slashdotters repeatedly debate whether one half-finished clone is better than the other half-finished clone or whether being "free" requires you to use both half-finished clones along with two or three other quarter-finished clones.
To beat windows you have to become better than Windows rather than "really just as good for all the things I think matter". But that takes innovation, thought and disciplined design rather than wasting huge amounts of talent cloning the Windows UI and pasting it on a cloned Unix core.
There have been 5 versions of the Windows UI in the 18 years that Windows has been around:
Windows 1.x - initial UI
Windows 2.x - Overlapping Windows
Windows 3.x - Program Manager shell
Windows 4.x - Windows 9X - taskbar/Start button
Windows 5.x - Windows XP/2003 - Simplified UI
All the other changes have been minor tweaks or optional enhancements like the IE4 desktop integration of web content. (There actually IS a reason for those Windows version numbers)
Let's not forget that (IMO) the "competition" between KDE and Gnome, for example, helps to drive innovation in both; Who the hell wants the Linux Desktop to stagnate like some others?
But in reality, the Linux desktops are stagnant.
The only time any "innovation" occurs is when either Microsoft comes up with changes to their desktop and then, as if by magic, KDE and Gnome "compete" by rushing to see which of them can "innovate" by making an exact duplicate of the Microsoft innovation first.
It's sad that in all these years of Linux, this topic comes up each year or so and the debate always becomes a fight between:
We should have a single standard desktop that looks exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil
We should all be Free to choose between multiple desktops... that all look exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil
Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows. But that would require innovation rather than blindly following the leader while chanting "I'm an individual" and we know that never happens.
A critical difference was that in Polaroid v Eastman Kodak, Polaroid could get the courts to stop future development, production and distribution of infringing products including the film/developer necessary for continued use of the products by the consumers. Kodak then paid all the end users a bounty for turning in their existing infringing cameras which were quickly turning into paperweights.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see. VB.NET and C# are probably 99% identical. A VB programmer switching to C# needs to learn (for no good reason) case sensitivity and obscure notation with curly braces and semicolons that they don't need to learn in VB.NET. Now, why, exactly, should a VB programmer use C# rather than VB.NET?
No. C was designed as a structured assembler for an obsolete DEC PDP and makes no bones about being anything else. Now, of course, if you aren't using it as an assembler for a DEC PDP then perhaps you are using the wrong tool for the job.
Ah, when asked to defend the indefensible (C's insane design) instead declare yourself an expert and attack the person raising the issue as " lazy and/or incompetent".
The problems cited are language problems. Yes, you can do workarounds and never create a bug but a competent language should make it easier to write bug-free code not add land mines to swagger over.
hope I don't have to explain why I hate VB if only on very first sight
Perhaps you should since there's nothing inherent to VB that doesn't solve exactly the problems you were citing (accurately) about C and most C derivatives.
I think that's actually: The Good: PL/AS The Bad: C The Ugly: C++
LANGUAGES SHOULD NOT BE DEBATED BY THEIR STANDARD LIBRARIES.
Spoken like a true C bigot. An equally good case could be made (and should be made) that the wildly inconsistant and incompatible libraries in C (and other "small language/lots of libraries" languages) that result from hundreds on uncoordinated libs adopted with no review make the languages unlearnable and needlessly difficult to use. They also create versioning hell and the built-up folklore becomes the basis of compatibility rather than best implementation.
While the "C-style" languages became popular, they really are not inherently the right choices.
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!")
End Sub
End Module
Absolutely correct. That a language could be developed in the late 1960s that had no native concept of a string or a fixed length input buffer is quite insane. That it could be "improved" in the 1980s without fixing that is even more insane. Of course, the best insanity was Netscape coming out with LiveScript (later renamed JavaScript) in the mid 1990s and not correctly handling the Y2K date math.
If, as your argument requires, the IP has no inherent value then erasing the book (or, say, replacing a looseleaf version's pages with blank paper) would not be damage since nothing of value was changed and the same would apply to the hard drive.
If Intellectual Property theft isn't really theft because IP isn't really property, then Intellectual Property damage isn't really damage because IP isn't really property.
If you really feel that IP ownership is bogus then this malware isn't really a problem because at worst it only destroys your Intellectual Property and not anything of real value. So, anybody who takes this off their computer doesn't really believe that IP doesn't have actual value and thus admits that IP theft really is theft.
Very simple. I read the whole 3 paragraph article rather than just the one sentence call-out and didn't mix hostnames and sites.
If you read the report you'll see that the Linux switchers were listed as 16.5K sites and 5%. (The actual quote is "5% (16.5K) to be migrations from Linux" Combine that with 42% being sites that chose Windows Server 2003 rather than Linux and you get the 131,000 estimate. And that's not counting the other 5,500 that switched from other Unix-like systems (BSD & SUN).
Actually, it's something like 16,000+ sites that have switched from Linux to Windows Server 2003 in July and August in the commercial hosting environments that Netcraft tracks. Combine that with over 131,000 Windows Server 2003 website installations that Netcraft reports were not upgrades from anything and you end up with almost 150,000 new non-Linux websites in two months.
Now, considering that hosting companies are notorious about not switching underlying systems until they're sure they can support the new product, your "statistical noise" or PHB analysis is, at best, wishful thinking.
Simply put, harsh sentences are not a deterrent to crime. Nobody (well, nobody short of Mafia lieutenants) does a crime thinking they'll get convicted even for a short sentence. They do the crime thinking that they won't get caught.
What DOES act as a deterrent is sure and swift conviction of the guilty and sure and swift exoneration of the innocent but that would involve spending money on training and staffing police departments and it would involve no longer basing promotions of police and district attorneys on convictions but rather by providing financial and promotion disincentives for overturned convictions.
Let's put it in perspective, Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at any Speed" about the Chevrolet Corvair's swing axle suspension. Of course, by the time he wrote it, the Corvair was no longer using that suspension but Ralph took the credit for "changing the auto industry". You bought into it enough to give him credit for fixing the Pinto which was shipped broken by your "up to safety standards" auto industry almost 20 years after Ralph "fixed it".
Oh, and to use your auto analogy, the equivalent for Microsoft's actions with Blaster would be:
A defect is found in a few Fords
Ford issues a fix before anybody has the fault show up
Ford goes door to door to every owner's house and every business' garage and offers to fix the defect for free
Some of the owners refuse to let the defect get fixed despite the Ford repair crew waiting in their front yard 24/7 for a couple of months
After months of the owners' refusal in fixing the defect, it breaks
The owners who repeatedly refused the free repair then yell at Ford
I've generally found that people making fun of "18 year old virgins" are, themselves, 20+ year old virgins.
We lock away criminals in prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. It is the only this that separates our prisons (at least the ones not in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) from the chambers of the Inquisition.
ROX is indeed an interesting UI similar to some very clever work done 20 years ago on PCs that never got acceptance. With any luck, maybe people will actually use this implementation. Now, how do we get a major distribution to use it as the default desktop?
Wow. A couple of things were stolen from Windows shareware and MacOS. Gee. How innovative and compelling. Again, if it isn't better then it is worse.
Ah yes, another posting from the "if you don't care about the exact feature set I like you're an artless dweeb" crowd is posted.
Here, I'll say it slowly. If the Linux offers less of what the users want then they'd be idiots to use it. Telling them that they shouldn't want what you don't offer is not only arrogant and abrasive, it's also a great way to kill any interest in them using it.
Now, we're all happy you've found a tool that you think is so perfect that everybody who doesn't use it is an idiot who should change everything in their life to be just like you so they'd appreciate it. Good for you. On the other hand, bad for Linux.
You miss the important part of the point so I'll bold it for you...
Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows.
Different without being better is not an incentive.
A clone is, at best, no better.
A clone is, usually, not as good.
Is that really too hard for you to grasp?
Choice is bad. Monoculture is good. To beat windows you have to become like windows etc. etc. yada yada yada..
And that is precisely why Linux isn't taken seriously for users.
There IS no choice in Linux and it IS a Monoculture. The "choices" are between one half-finished clone of Windows and another half-finished clone of Windows. Given those choices, users will pick the finished original version of Windows. And they do by the millions while Slashdotters repeatedly debate whether one half-finished clone is better than the other half-finished clone or whether being "free" requires you to use both half-finished clones along with two or three other quarter-finished clones.
To beat windows you have to become better than Windows rather than "really just as good for all the things I think matter". But that takes innovation, thought and disciplined design rather than wasting huge amounts of talent cloning the Windows UI and pasting it on a cloned Unix core.
- Windows 1.x - initial UI
- Windows 2.x - Overlapping Windows
- Windows 3.x - Program Manager shell
- Windows 4.x - Windows 9X - taskbar/Start button
- Windows 5.x - Windows XP/2003 - Simplified UI
All the other changes have been minor tweaks or optional enhancements like the IE4 desktop integration of web content. (There actually IS a reason for those Windows version numbers)But in reality, the Linux desktops are stagnant.
The only time any "innovation" occurs is when either Microsoft comes up with changes to their desktop and then, as if by magic, KDE and Gnome "compete" by rushing to see which of them can "innovate" by making an exact duplicate of the Microsoft innovation first.
It's sad that in all these years of Linux, this topic comes up each year or so and the debate always becomes a fight between:
- We should have a single standard desktop that looks exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil
- We should all be Free to choose between multiple desktops... that all look exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil
Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows. But that would require innovation rather than blindly following the leader while chanting "I'm an individual" and we know that never happens.A critical difference was that in Polaroid v Eastman Kodak, Polaroid could get the courts to stop future development, production and distribution of infringing products including the film/developer necessary for continued use of the products by the consumers. Kodak then paid all the end users a bounty for turning in their existing infringing cameras which were quickly turning into paperweights.