Please read the text carefully. IBM makes this available for developers to port and test their software on IBM mainframes + Linux combination. This will reduce bugs for IBM and they can sell more of these machines especially to busineeses. It looks like having the ability to run linux on this machines is very valuable for businesses and IBM want more software to be compatible with their machines.
Most important features on the labtop is weight and battery life. period. Ibook kicks inspirons ass easily.
You didn't mention the main difference that apple ibooks doesn't come windows installed on them.
I guess the problem might be that there are multiple levels of perl knowledge. Perl is huge, so most people don't learn half of perl offers. (In C, you mostly need to know 90% of C before starting to code) It is understandable that they won't understand code written by true perl hackers using all the fancy features available in Perl. And it applies the way around in an opposite way as you noted.
No, they are pretty good consulting company all over US (Handling the mainframes and its security of Wells Fargo Bank for example). I can't answer why they use AOL, why they don't care about security. It is just email, do they really care much about security. Maybe they should.
So, we can see that streatypes not always represent everybody's needs.
Your comments might be true Depending on your background!!!
You can write perl programs in C way but that just doesn't make perl easy to learn. That is not why people are trying to learn.
I was a C programmer (not a professional one), and I began reading programming perl (edition 2) and unfortunately it became totally confusing when it began throwing regular expressions around in the first chapter. I stopped looking at perl for about three months then I get a simpler book. Ones I understand ideas such as regexs, split - join,grep, map, push, pop, etc. I began feeling comfortable and I didn't even need to look at books much anymore. If you came from unix background and if you know other scripting languages such as shell, awk, etc. you might not have the same experience. Or if you know python, php or anything along those lines, perl is not difficult to learn. And it is also true vice versa. If you know perl, it isn't much hard to learn other scripting langages. Just learn the syntax of them and go..
I knew a consulting firm who has forced its employees to use AOL three years ago. I can see why. The company doesn't need to invest any money for the infrastructure. You have a simple and consistant interface for both internet connection and email (especially if your employees are travelling a lot). Your stupid employees has less chance of screwing things. The email is kept at the server and multiple computers easily can be used to access it. There is aol instant messenger coming with the package. The company doesn't need to buy an expensive IM solution and teach it to it employees. You don't need to have a lot of internet experience to use AOL software. It is more reliable than hotmail. At least you are paying for it.
Somebody commented that AOL mail software misses some features. That is not true. It does some things differently but it doesn't miss any crucial features (there is a send button)
So, the bottom line is, it saves a lot of headaches for a company and it works.
Nautilus is a great software. It can crash, etc. but I look forward having version 2 of it. I think nautilus developers got it right. It is intuitive. It is the tool that has the potential bringing the newbies to linux. Don't underestimate what has Eazel done. Don't forget how much money Microsoft spent to design their file manager (not the coding, but the design).
Well, easy is a relative concept. Learning Perl is at least an order of magnitude easier than learning C, C++, Java, or Assembly. But this doesn't mean that you can become a perl wizard in three days.
And because you can write some small perl scripts that are doing some cool stuff (which would have taken several thousands of lines code in C) doesn't mean that you learned perl (as most people think).
>Uhm, that's a little bit narrow-minded IMHO.
>At least, you should throw in also the ability
>for people other than the original author to
>quickly understand what the code does, how it
>does it and change its behaviour according to
>the new requirements.
Do you really mean that it is not possible to write readable code in perl??? I think that is a bit narrow minded.
A common misconception:"Perl is easy to learn"
No, not really. It is not an easy to learn language for C programmers or new programmers. For C programmers there is a conceptual barrier that they need to pass to get the feel of the scripting languages.
The power of perl comes from that; ones you master perl, it is easy (and fun) to write programs.
I aggree that the perl documentation is not completely newbie friendly, and it probably shouldn't. It is one of the most useful language documentation by the way. It helped me a lot, especially the Perl FAQ's.
There are books like "Learning Perl" for learning perl. If you try to learn perl from the book "Programming Perl", which is a language reference, you obviously hit a stone wall at fifth page or so.
Even though the government website made all patents online, Dolpheon probably can charge for better searching and datamining of the patent database. There is quite a bit data there and quality of search results are important. Especially for a patent database search is the most important part of it. Maybe google can do something about this. All patents have references to other patents. Google should be able to apply their link weighting algorithm here, and they might make some money out of this.
Hmm. I don't remember if v3 had circle tools or not. Latest version (7.0) has circle tools and much more, but I would prefer the simplicity of v3 though.
Re:What about Gnome closed apps? [Re:Good riddance
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
The whole discussion is funny. I am saying that the earth is round; and then you insist that gravity indeed exists.
I found it hopeless.
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
That is true and I am not saying QT is expensive or bad quality. But in this situation the obvious choice would be MSVC and MFC platform considering the windows user share. MSVC comes with a nice environment and quality compiler.
Even if you buy QT, for windows development you need to buy other stuff you mentioned.
QT is a good option for big companies to port their products to linux (opera, Borlands'delphi, etc.).
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
exactly my point.
>It ensures that there is a small barrier to
>entry for people thinking of making shareware programs.
Good for linux at the current stage.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Speak for yourself, don't make general comments.
>1. You don't have to use QT to make a closed source application.
Yes that is why I am saying this is one of the reasons why GTK and Gnome shouldn't be discontinued. Remember that the original meesage of this thread wants to get rid of gnome and wants everybody to develop for KDE. And I was sayng this as one of the reasons, not the only reason.
And I am no talking about toolkits. The platform (gnome) is also important. For example if somebody installs my program, I want it appear on the start menu, drag&drop, etc. etc. So it is a package of easy development.
>2. You don't have to use QT to make a closed
>source KDE application.
Yes, you can even write your own toolkit from scratch. We have seen Atheos developped by just one person in couple of years. How hard it should be to develop better toolkit than QT? No it doesn't work that way, isn't it. Again you are being theoretical, not practical.
>3. Any app that isn't going to easily make $1200 ( 100 copies at $20 each minus media costs )
>should be given away in source form so it can be brought up to the standard of viable shareware.
Again speak for yourself. That is just stupid to say that everybody should release the sourcecode. Is Internet Explorer a shareware, no it is a freeware. Do they release the source code. Do they have to? That choice is not yours, whoever developped the software decides to release the code.
>4. If you want to sell a closed source product for profit then pay for the privilege.
In that case, I would be developping for windows. Here we are talking about linux and making it more popular on the desktop.
>4b. It's pure hypocrisy to demand free stuff when you won't give anything away.
Yeah right.. How stupid are the BSD guys. On the second note, I am not demanding anything, I am just thinking that it is a good thing for linux, so it is a good thing for free software. So there is demand and supply and no hypocrisy.
>5. I think the Linux desktop will be better off
>if we can stall for another year or 2 the
>arrival of lots of crummy little binary only shareware.
I love winzip on windows. I wouldn't mind to have a binary only version of it on linux two-three years ago. And why do you care about this small but useful utilities being binary or open source. grow up. It is better to have them than not to have them.
And on the other side, are you saying that a student from its dorm cannot create a world class software. If so, think twice.
>Have you been to tocows lately? The freeware generally has better quality in most categories.
of course, that is why linux dominates in the desktop area.
Again, I gave one of the reasons why gnome is important for linux to gain popularity in desktop area. Your comments doesn't add up a bit to it or discuss anything I originally stated.
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, those are good theoretical arguments but they don't work in real world. If you are linux with 3-4% desktop share, and if you want to attract developpers, you need to give something back.
On another note, people might not mind not making money out of their shareware products, but they mind if they pay $2k and not make money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think /usr is on a read only disk.
Please read the text carefully. IBM makes this available for developers to port and test their software on IBM mainframes + Linux combination. This will reduce bugs for IBM and they can sell more of these machines especially to busineeses. It looks like having the ability to run linux on this machines is very valuable for businesses and IBM want more software to be compatible with their machines.
Most important features on the labtop is weight and battery life. period. Ibook kicks inspirons ass easily.
You didn't mention the main difference that apple ibooks doesn't come windows installed on them.
If egroups.com implementation has taken 180,000 lines of python; then they are doing something wrong (Or they are writing too many comments).
> Computer control of things by
> reading the muscles directly.
Hand is part of your body, although not a muscle. As far as I know Joysticks can directly read your hand movements.
This has been already done.
I guess the problem might be that there are multiple levels of perl knowledge. Perl is huge, so most people don't learn half of perl offers. (In C, you mostly need to know 90% of C before starting to code) It is understandable that they won't understand code written by true perl hackers using all the fancy features available in Perl. And it applies the way around in an opposite way as you noted.
No, they are pretty good consulting company all over US (Handling the mainframes and its security of Wells Fargo Bank for example). I can't answer why they use AOL, why they don't care about security. It is just email, do they really care much about security. Maybe they should.
So, we can see that streatypes not always represent everybody's needs.
Your comments might be true Depending on your background!!!
You can write perl programs in C way but that just doesn't make perl easy to learn. That is not why people are trying to learn.
I was a C programmer (not a professional one), and I began reading programming perl (edition 2) and unfortunately it became totally confusing when it began throwing regular expressions around in the first chapter. I stopped looking at perl for about three months then I get a simpler book. Ones I understand ideas such as regexs, split - join,grep, map, push, pop, etc. I began feeling comfortable and I didn't even need to look at books much anymore. If you came from unix background and if you know other scripting languages such as shell, awk, etc. you might not have the same experience. Or if you know python, php or anything along those lines, perl is not difficult to learn. And it is also true vice versa. If you know perl, it isn't much hard to learn other scripting langages. Just learn the syntax of them and go..
I knew a consulting firm who has forced its employees to use AOL three years ago. I can see why. The company doesn't need to invest any money for the infrastructure. You have a simple and consistant interface for both internet connection and email (especially if your employees are travelling a lot). Your stupid employees has less chance of screwing things. The email is kept at the server and multiple computers easily can be used to access it. There is aol instant messenger coming with the package. The company doesn't need to buy an expensive IM solution and teach it to it employees. You don't need to have a lot of internet experience to use AOL software. It is more reliable than hotmail. At least you are paying for it.
Somebody commented that AOL mail software misses some features. That is not true. It does some things differently but it doesn't miss any crucial features (there is a send button)
So, the bottom line is, it saves a lot of headaches for a company and it works.
Nautilus is a great software. It can crash, etc. but I look forward having version 2 of it. I think nautilus developers got it right. It is intuitive. It is the tool that has the potential bringing the newbies to linux. Don't underestimate what has Eazel done. Don't forget how much money Microsoft spent to design their file manager (not the coding, but the design).
>I've written far more lines than I care to think about in C, C++, ...
Just guessing; maybe that's the reason why you have a problem with starting up with perl. You just need to learn the Perl way of doing things.
And how long did it take you to learn C or C++?
Well, easy is a relative concept. Learning Perl is at least an order of magnitude easier than learning C, C++, Java, or Assembly. But this doesn't mean that you can become a perl wizard in three days.
And because you can write some small perl scripts that are doing some cool stuff (which would have taken several thousands of lines code in C) doesn't mean that you learned perl (as most people think).
>Uhm, that's a little bit narrow-minded IMHO.
>At least, you should throw in also the ability
>for people other than the original author to
>quickly understand what the code does, how it
>does it and change its behaviour according to
>the new requirements.
Do you really mean that it is not possible to write readable code in perl??? I think that is a bit narrow minded.
A common misconception:"Perl is easy to learn"
No, not really. It is not an easy to learn language for C programmers or new programmers. For C programmers there is a conceptual barrier that they need to pass to get the feel of the scripting languages.
The power of perl comes from that; ones you master perl, it is easy (and fun) to write programs.
I aggree that the perl documentation is not completely newbie friendly, and it probably shouldn't. It is one of the most useful language documentation by the way. It helped me a lot, especially the Perl FAQ's.
There are books like "Learning Perl" for learning perl. If you try to learn perl from the book "Programming Perl", which is a language reference, you obviously hit a stone wall at fifth page or so.
I second this
Even though the government website made all patents online, Dolpheon probably can charge for better searching and datamining of the patent database. There is quite a bit data there and quality of search results are important. Especially for a patent database search is the most important part of it. Maybe google can do something about this. All patents have references to other patents. Google should be able to apply their link weighting algorithm here, and they might make some money out of this.
Hmm. I don't remember if v3 had circle tools or not. Latest version (7.0) has circle tools and much more, but I would prefer the simplicity of v3 though.
The whole discussion is funny. I am saying that the earth is round; and then you insist that gravity indeed exists.
I found it hopeless.
paint shop pro 3
No they didn't. Not in my installation.
Embrace and extend!
That is true and I am not saying QT is expensive or bad quality. But in this situation the obvious choice would be MSVC and MFC platform considering the windows user share. MSVC comes with a nice environment and quality compiler.
Even if you buy QT, for windows development you need to buy other stuff you mentioned.
QT is a good option for big companies to port their products to linux (opera, Borlands'delphi, etc.).
exactly my point.
>It ensures that there is a small barrier to
>entry for people thinking of making shareware programs.
Good for linux at the current stage.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Speak for yourself, don't make general comments.
>1. You don't have to use QT to make a closed source application.
Yes that is why I am saying this is one of the reasons why GTK and Gnome shouldn't be discontinued. Remember that the original meesage of this thread wants to get rid of gnome and wants everybody to develop for KDE. And I was sayng this as one of the reasons, not the only reason.
And I am no talking about toolkits. The platform (gnome) is also important. For example if somebody installs my program, I want it appear on the start menu, drag&drop, etc. etc. So it is a package of easy development.
>2. You don't have to use QT to make a closed
>source KDE application.
Yes, you can even write your own toolkit from scratch. We have seen Atheos developped by just one person in couple of years. How hard it should be to develop better toolkit than QT? No it doesn't work that way, isn't it. Again you are being theoretical, not practical.
>3. Any app that isn't going to easily make $1200 ( 100 copies at $20 each minus media costs )
>should be given away in source form so it can be brought up to the standard of viable shareware.
Again speak for yourself. That is just stupid to say that everybody should release the sourcecode. Is Internet Explorer a shareware, no it is a freeware. Do they release the source code. Do they have to? That choice is not yours, whoever developped the software decides to release the code.
>4. If you want to sell a closed source product for profit then pay for the privilege.
In that case, I would be developping for windows. Here we are talking about linux and making it more popular on the desktop.
>4b. It's pure hypocrisy to demand free stuff when you won't give anything away.
Yeah right.. How stupid are the BSD guys. On the second note, I am not demanding anything, I am just thinking that it is a good thing for linux, so it is a good thing for free software. So there is demand and supply and no hypocrisy.
>5. I think the Linux desktop will be better off
>if we can stall for another year or 2 the
>arrival of lots of crummy little binary only shareware.
I love winzip on windows. I wouldn't mind to have a binary only version of it on linux two-three years ago. And why do you care about this small but useful utilities being binary or open source. grow up. It is better to have them than not to have them.
And on the other side, are you saying that a student from its dorm cannot create a world class software. If so, think twice.
>Have you been to tocows lately? The freeware generally has better quality in most categories.
of course, that is why linux dominates in the desktop area.
Again, I gave one of the reasons why gnome is important for linux to gain popularity in desktop area. Your comments doesn't add up a bit to it or discuss anything I originally stated.
Yes, those are good theoretical arguments but they don't work in real world. If you are linux with 3-4% desktop share, and if you want to attract developpers, you need to give something back.
On another note, people might not mind not making money out of their shareware products, but they mind if they pay $2k and not make money.