Re:Ubuntu books that don't focus on installation?
on
Ubuntu Linux for Non-Geeks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
So you didn't read the review of *this* book then?
"In the past, I have seen Linux books using well over 50 pages just to explain the installation process but Ubuntu is famed for its simple 6 step installation. *The next chapter is a very short* one which gives a good illustrated explanation of the steps needed to boot Ubuntu using the latest version of Ubuntu live CD (included with the book) and install the OS on the hard disk. "
You can use MySQL for free commercially if you abide by the GPL or whatever its OSS license is. It's just if you don't want to play OSS ball that you'll have a problem, but AFAIK SFU doesn't give you any source code to play with anyway so the point is moot.
I comment on embedded Linux/Windows or the QT/C# thing, but at least two of the examples are apples to oranges comparisons.
Cygwin vs SFU, surely with one you're paying for support and one you're not? I mean Cygwin was free without support last time I checked.
Again, "Red Hat Linux WS is $299. An OEM version of Windows XP Pro is ~$140.", well if you want RedHat for free you can have it for free, just recompiled by a 3rd party (CentOS). What's that, you want support? Does that XP Pro OEM disk include support? It doesn't? You surprise me!
"The software is developed by Crawley-based Formjet PLC, which includes the anti-virus developer Panda Software and Ability Software, maker of the Ability office suite."
There I have to disagree with you. Some apps will simply never have to scale much because of the type of functionality they offer. It sounds like you're describing 'enterprise' (a nebulous term at best I'll grant you) web-apps specifically.
Take phpBB for instance. It's not a bad application because it's written in PHP, or because it won't scale (although I suspect it will still handle a fairly heavy load with the right hardware), it's a bad app because it's it's badly designed and written.
A well designed PHP or Ruby (maybe not Rails specifically) app will be able to scale perfectly well. Sure there are features available in JEE that make scaling a lot easier to handle, but they're not essential for all apps.
>> Real code is code that functions over time and is maintainable.
I couldn't agree more, which was exactly why I made my original point about Rails having some (imho) bad design choices for those who want their app to grow over time and remain maintainable...
Er yes.. the OP compared PHP to RoR: "In any case: the problems with PHP. Additionally, RoR is a better paradigm for web based developement"
>> Now, RoR/Ruby are great for prototyping, but I personally wouldn't use either for production >> code. There's a whole slew of reasons why, but my last project had 35,000 concurrent users during >> peak usage, which should give a good indication of why both Ruby and RoR are insufficient.
Gosh your cock must be huge! Still, you seem to be basically agreeing with me here.
>> PHP? Ick! 30K LOCs? I personally saw a single java class with over 18KLOCs. Just one. out of >> over 1400. Again, last project. I'm very happy I'm no longer dealing with it.
I'm not suprised you're happy to be rid of it, it sounds like a fucking abortion. I'm well aware tht 30K LOCs isn't that big as applications go, which is why I clearly qualified my statement.
As for PHP being ick, well actually it's perfectly usable. Personally I prefer Java for web-apps, but I'm not going to wet myself over PHP just because it's not shiny. It has everything that I actually *need* to build a well structured OO app. I'd prefer to have namespaces and return hinting, but they're not deal breakers.
>> So PHP is fine for toy apps, but for real code, you'll need something more structured. If you >> disagree with this, talk to me after trying it.
Define real code mister macho. What specifically is PHP missing that's so vital?
>> In any case: the problems with PHP. Additionally, RoR is a better paradigm for web based developement, >> even though Ruby's still an interpreted script which has the same performance failings as PHP.
Hello? You're comparing an application framnework to a language...
RoR is great for small projects, but there are some fundamental design decisions that will cause headaches for larger projects.
My main concern with Rails and it's clones is how well they'll scale to larger apps. For small to medium (in terms of web-app sizes) apps they look like a good design, but I fear that, as you scale up, some of the design choices might start to bite.
In particular Active Record is a nice pattern for simpler models, if a little close to the DB for my liking, it's going to be a lot more difficult to manage when the model gets more complex.
Personally I'm not sure I really see the utility of taking advantage of the simplicity of Active Record when you're building a framework. It seems to me that the framework developer shouldn't be the one avoiding the hard work involved in creating some sort of implementation of the Data Mapper pattern. Once the framework is written it's actually easier for the end user to use in many circumstances. You can still get the advantages of convention over configuration with a Data Mapper, but with the option of altering your modeldb abstraction if you need to. You also don't have to subclass a specific parent object, so you can persist any class.
Another issue is putting all the actions for a model class within the controller. You can pretty rapidly end up having to deal with a massive file that's pretty unwieldy, even on a relatively small application.
Basically I do wonder whether the initial simplicity these frameworks offer in terms of getting up and started is worth the eventual trade-off you have to pay in terms of larger scale flexibility.
Personally I use PHP5, and you know what? If used properly it's fine. I have a moderately large codebase for a web-app (30 kloc excluding comments, whitespace and HTML), proper separation of layers, a Repository based object / relational mapping layer and a solid web framework.
Oh sorry I forgot, it's not Rails though is it? Must be shit.
I'm sorry but you're full of shit. You have to set a command line argument to even let Eclipse use 256 meg (which I do). I have eclipse open now and it's resident memory usage is 139meg on my 1gig system. It starts in less time than Thunderbird.
Java is excellent for large apps that need to be solid and need to be maintainable, enterprise apps basically, but even on the desktop it's perfectly capable of running as well as standard C/C++ apps. Eclipse is actually far more responsive for me than Mozilla's apps, and uses less memory too.
It's fine if you don't like Java, but that's not a a valid criticism in itself.
> I dont think anyone here would argue that MS makes good hardware, so far as > joysticks, mice and keyboards are concerned.
Me, I would. I run Linux as my primary OS (XP gets booted every few weeks), but I swear by MS optical mice, particularly the V3 Optical and the generic Intellimouse Optical. They have fantastic scan rates so they're very good for games, There are quite a few pro gamers that use the Intellimouse.
Slashdot Mirror
So you didn't read the review of *this* book then?
"In the past, I have seen Linux books using well over 50 pages just to explain the installation process but Ubuntu is famed for its simple 6 step installation. *The next chapter is a very short* one which gives a good illustrated explanation of the steps needed to boot Ubuntu using the latest version of Ubuntu live CD (included with the book) and install the OS on the hard disk. "
It's a 'googol'. Google is a trademark not a number ;)
You can use MySQL for free commercially if you abide by the GPL or whatever its OSS license is. It's just if you don't want to play OSS ball that you'll have a problem, but AFAIK SFU doesn't give you any source code to play with anyway so the point is moot.
or am I missing something?
I comment on embedded Linux/Windows or the QT/C# thing, but at least two of the examples are apples to oranges comparisons.
Cygwin vs SFU, surely with one you're paying for support and one you're not? I mean Cygwin was free without support last time I checked.
Again, "Red Hat Linux WS is $299. An OEM version of Windows XP Pro is ~$140.", well if you want RedHat for free you can have it for free, just recompiled by a 3rd party (CentOS). What's that, you want support? Does that XP Pro OEM disk include support? It doesn't? You surprise me!
Oops.. bad form replying to myself but I forgot to mention that they claim Office compatibility.
"The software is developed by Crawley-based Formjet PLC, which includes the anti-virus developer Panda Software and Ability Software, maker of the Ability office suite."
4 800
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
They are, very.
It's just less noticeable because the artists worked it into the visual style.
Have you noticed how low res the textures are in GT:SA? I for one would love to see GTA with higher 'resolution' models and textures.
To be fair, Rockstar claimed they were hitting the limit storage-wise with DVD for GTA, and there's no FMV in that...
Ah yes Slashdot, where pointing out which website we're reading is considered an insightful argument...
Well I think there's a middle ground too, and that that's a place that scripting languages are perfectly capable of fulfilling.
;)
Anyway, I guess we can leave it there while we're on relatively similar ground..
There I have to disagree with you. Some apps will simply never have to scale much because of the type of functionality they offer. It sounds like you're describing 'enterprise' (a nebulous term at best I'll grant you) web-apps specifically.
Take phpBB for instance. It's not a bad application because it's written in PHP, or because it won't scale (although I suspect it will still handle a fairly heavy load with the right hardware), it's a bad app because it's it's badly designed and written.
A well designed PHP or Ruby (maybe not Rails specifically) app will be able to scale perfectly well. Sure there are features available in JEE that make scaling a lot easier to handle, but they're not essential for all apps.
I think they mean UI clutter rather than clutter of the desktop 'surface'.
Again you seem to be implying that an application can't be a 'real' application unless it has a huge codebase or massive concurrency.
>> Real code is code that functions over time and is maintainable.
I couldn't agree more, which was exactly why I made my original point about Rails having some (imho) bad design choices for those who want their app to grow over time and remain maintainable...
>>RoR is a framework. Ruby is a language.
Er yes.. the OP compared PHP to RoR: "In any case: the problems with PHP. Additionally, RoR is a better paradigm for web based developement"
>> Now, RoR/Ruby are great for prototyping, but I personally wouldn't use either for production
>> code. There's a whole slew of reasons why, but my last project had 35,000 concurrent users during
>> peak usage, which should give a good indication of why both Ruby and RoR are insufficient.
Gosh your cock must be huge! Still, you seem to be basically agreeing with me here.
>> PHP? Ick! 30K LOCs? I personally saw a single java class with over 18KLOCs. Just one. out of
>> over 1400. Again, last project. I'm very happy I'm no longer dealing with it.
I'm not suprised you're happy to be rid of it, it sounds like a fucking abortion. I'm well aware tht 30K LOCs isn't that big as applications go, which is why I clearly qualified my statement.
As for PHP being ick, well actually it's perfectly usable. Personally I prefer Java for web-apps, but I'm not going to wet myself over PHP just because it's not shiny. It has everything that I actually *need* to build a well structured OO app. I'd prefer to have namespaces and return hinting, but they're not deal breakers.
>> So PHP is fine for toy apps, but for real code, you'll need something more structured. If you
>> disagree with this, talk to me after trying it.
Define real code mister macho. What specifically is PHP missing that's so vital?
>> In any case: the problems with PHP. Additionally, RoR is a better paradigm for web based developement,
>> even though Ruby's still an interpreted script which has the same performance failings as PHP.
Hello? You're comparing an application framnework to a language...
RoR is great for small projects, but there are some fundamental design decisions that will cause headaches for larger projects.
My main concern with Rails and it's clones is how well they'll scale to larger apps. For small to medium (in terms of web-app sizes) apps they look like a good design, but I fear that, as you scale up, some of the design choices might start to bite.
In particular Active Record is a nice pattern for simpler models, if a little close to the DB for my liking, it's going to be a lot more difficult to manage when the model gets more complex.
Personally I'm not sure I really see the utility of taking advantage of the simplicity of Active Record when you're building a framework. It seems to me that the framework developer shouldn't be the one avoiding the hard work involved in creating some sort of implementation of the Data Mapper pattern. Once the framework is written it's actually easier for the end user to use in many circumstances. You can still get the advantages of convention over configuration with a Data Mapper, but with the option of altering your modeldb abstraction if you need to. You also don't have to subclass a specific parent object, so you can persist any class.
Another issue is putting all the actions for a model class within the controller. You can pretty rapidly end up having to deal with a massive file that's pretty unwieldy, even on a relatively small application.
Basically I do wonder whether the initial simplicity these frameworks offer in terms of getting up and started is worth the eventual trade-off you have to pay in terms of larger scale flexibility.
Personally I use PHP5, and you know what? If used properly it's fine. I have a moderately large codebase for a web-app (30 kloc excluding comments, whitespace and HTML), proper separation of layers, a Repository based object / relational mapping layer and a solid web framework.
Oh sorry I forgot, it's not Rails though is it? Must be shit.
Stephen King's writing is atrocious. He may write good stories but his use of language is painful...
:(
laaaaaameneeeesssss
It'd help if you actually understood the issue.
MS is stopping *any* 3rd party security code from running, signed or un-signed, within the kernel.
The anti-virus vendors are essentially having to hack Vista to get their code to work.
Hmm, I can't see any video on that page.. Can someone who *can* tell me if it's embedded WMP or Flash? Or perhaps a download link I'm missing?
I'm sorry but you're full of shit. You have to set a command line argument to even let Eclipse use 256 meg (which I do). I have eclipse open now and it's resident memory usage is 139meg on my 1gig system. It starts in less time than Thunderbird.
Java is excellent for large apps that need to be solid and need to be maintainable, enterprise apps basically, but even on the desktop it's perfectly capable of running as well as standard C/C++ apps. Eclipse is actually far more responsive for me than Mozilla's apps, and uses less memory too.
It's fine if you don't like Java, but that's not a a valid criticism in itself.
> I dont think anyone here would argue that MS makes good hardware, so far as
> joysticks, mice and keyboards are concerned.
Me, I would. I run Linux as my primary OS (XP gets booted every few weeks), but I swear by MS optical mice, particularly the V3 Optical and the generic Intellimouse Optical. They have fantastic scan rates so they're very good for games, There are quite a few pro gamers that use the Intellimouse.
It's funny because you clearly don't know what you're talking about :)
For WMV? Really? Where does it get them from?