Many people don't get this. It doesn't matter if it was better or not.
We'll never know, will we? They won, after all.
Consider how long it took for IE to become accepted. Netscape had most of the market for a long, long time - it was only when the 4.0 browsers came along that things started to change. Netscape 4.x is pretty bad. IE 4 was nasty (Active Desktop! Ugh) but not nearly as nasty. And people started to switch.
Why do you continue to gloss over the fact that it also requires that someone find it worthwhile to pay you for your efforts?
Sure, that's another pre-requisite. That doesn't take away my entitlement, though. The issue I have is that you wrote "You're not *entitled* to earn a living programming". My response is that yes, I am. Whether I am actually capable of doing so is a completely different question.
since I'm explicitly stating that I believe removing or alleviating the chilling effect that these regulations have on the software industry would promote progress, in that context my analogy stands.
You misunderstood me. Let's assume that patents and copyrights hinder progress. Okay, fine. But you said that modern farming practices are far superior to archaic practices. Those modern practices involve he use of patents and copyrights. Therefore you cannot use that analogy as an example of where lack of patents and copyrights has fostered progress. Pretty simple, really.
I happily respect your viewpoint, although I think it is incorrect, but I dislike your emotionally-charged and flat-out-wrong use of language. It is a politician's cheap trick, and makes you appear stupid.
It is those arrogant idiots that I hate. I hate the people that do something incorrectly and then *correct* someone who does do it correctly.
I think you misunderstood me. Not even Linus Torvalds claims that there is a "correct" way to pronounce his software ("Hello, my name is Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux as "Linux"). Have a look at this linux.com poll for a reasonable survey of people, including the reference to Linus saying that he doesn't care how it's pronounced.
You are claiming that you magically know more about how to pronounce software than its creator. What was that about not being arrogant?
>You're entitled to try to make a living programming.
Defintion debate. Look at the dictionary definition of "entitled". It means "to qualify for". There's nothing about anyone owing you anything - not the Governent. Not society. I am entitled to make a living programming, but entitlement comes with pre-requisites - including the qualification that I be a good programmer. Check your definitions. My original assertion stands: I am entitled to make a living programming.
The question of whether patents and copyright is beneficial or detrimental to the computing world is an interesting one, but it's got sod-all to do with your rather crazy farming analogy. In fact, it's the opposite: in the "good old days" a lot more farming knowledge was shared around then nowadays, in the era of genetically modified crops, high-tech growth treatments, and pesticides. In the brave new world of modern farming that you attempted to relate to the software industry, patents and copyright play a bigger part than ever!
I get really annoyed when I see analogies like the above - they're obviously wrong, they obviously don't make any sense at all, and yet people take them seriously!
Anyway, to get to the "topic": annoying as this might seem, patents and software copyrights *have* promoted progress. As I type this, I am working using a windowing environment (originally proprietary tech), using a graphical user interface consisting of clickable buttons, scrollbars and menus (all proprietary), in a window manager that aims to emulate NextStep. The music I am listening to is compressed using patented technology, and the Free Software alternative was produced *specifically* to produce something that can be used instead of it.
It's a cliche, but a lot of Free Software *is not* innovative. RMS started GNU explicity to create a "similar, but free" Unix. Alfredo started Window Maker because he liked NextStep. Xiphophorous started work on Ogg almost on the day that MP3's legality became dubious. Opera's multiple document interface comes courtesy Qt, but originally comes from Microsoft, as does a lot of the impetus for the design of the browser itself. XFree was writted because X11 was proprietary. Miguel started Gnome because he liked Microsoft's code and interface. Etc, etc.
These are all great programs, and I love using them. But they are *not* innovations. At best, they are inspired replications.
On the other hand, software patents *are* out of control. They *do* need better regulation. People are patenting some crazy stuff.
But they're not going to go away, and I hope they never do.
- I am entitled to make a living as a hire-wire acrobat - I am entitled to make a living as a professional football player - I am entitled to make a living as a neurologist.
The problem you have is that you've somehow forgotten that "entitlement" always comes with pre-requisites. I am entitled to make a living as a one-string violinist; It is perfectly legal for me to do so, and if I am particularly good at it I may even be able to make a decent amount of money. But this is where "entitlement" stops.
A dictionary definition of "entitled" (from dict in debian:-) defines it as "to give a claim to; to qualify for". There's nothing about the Government or anyone else owing anything to you. Your definition doesn't make sense.
As someone who has been using Linux for seven years and who based his pronounciation of its name from the sample of Linus' voice included in earlier (current?) Red Hat installations, I'd just like to say that you're the worst type of idiot - an arrogant idiot.
That's a pretty strange thing to say. Of course I am entitled to make a living programming, which is what you're really talking about. I agree with you that lots of programmers are arrogant and anti-social, but that's got nothing to do with their entitlement to make a living programming.
What's I'm not entitled to a ridiculous salaray without putting in the requisite amount of work, but surely we all already knew that?
That's the complete opposite of what the GNU project is about!
The whole point of free software is so that *more* people, not fewer, can have access to the code to maintain and enhance it. Orders of magnitude more people look at the Linux kernel than they do at the NT kernel, for example, simply because it's there, inviting study.
I disagree with the GNU philosophy, but having people like you misrepresent it to mean "There will be fewer programmers, and they won't have as much to eat" is really inviting criticism.
While I'm not really qualified to answer your question properly,
I can point out that the beauty of being able to compile your
own kernel is you can select the processor for which to
optimise, and you can also turn on or off things that
newer architectures support, such as high memory and
MTTRs. If the kernel didn't have support for these things
at all, then yes, you would be being hampered by "compatibility".
Since these things are selected at compile-time, you can include
them with no performance loss.
I know this is a late reply so no-one cares, but I agree with you - people *are* having problems mapping languages onto the CLR, which was apparently designed with statically-typed languages in mind. I wasn't claiming that it was a workable idea.;)
Oh, yeah, X blows Windows away, except for the standard printing architecture, the single widget toolkit (argue for choice all you like, but as far as I'm concerned having up to 5 competing toolkits all visible on my desktop is horrible), the raw speed of the windowing environment (Windows is a whole lot more responsive than X on Linux on my machine, although I would much prefer if the reverse were true), a single sound API (Linux has oss, esound and a variety of other more or less workalikes), even simple things like ABILITY TO CHANGE COLOUR DEPTH ON THE FLY. I love Linux and use it exclusively, but compared with Windows, X is a dog.
MIT shared memory is for transferring pixmaps. SMA does the same. These don't remove the actual problem step, which is the marshalling and demarshalling of X messages. NFI about DRI, that could be the way to go for all I know.
Actually that is exactly what Plex86 and VMware do. Bochs and the x86 core in MAME are different because the program is designed to run on non-x86 architectures.
You are correct that you cannot completely virtualise an x86 PC. However, most instructions can be virtualised. The ones that can't require special handling - so one of the things that makes VMware complicated (and slower than you'd otherwise expect) is that it has to pre-parse code and insert handlers for those particular instructions.
The plex86 page has a lot of useful information on this.
Can you get it to stop spewing email everywhere? I'm hoping this is a configurable option, but at least some idiot sysadmins set that program to send email to the *recipient* (rather than the sender or the admin) when it finds a virus-infected mail. Which is just great when that recipient's a high-volume mailing list...
Re:COULD be exceedingly useful
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
That's strange, *I* thought the motorised Razors hadn't caught on because they sound like an attack fleet of killer lawnmowers, they're ugly and they look stupid.
Certainly the example screenshot looks really, really terrible. I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind, perhaps some kind of clock ala osx, etc.
I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.
This really misses the point. The fact that the GPL allows this is one of many reasons why it's so attractive. If people don't take advantage of the good things the GPL allows, then there's no point using the GPL in the first place.
Case in point here: Qt is also available under the QPL, which basically requires you to open your source code. If that was all people wanted to do, then they wouldn't have pushed for a GPL version of same code. The fact that Troll Tech dual licenses is proof that they recognise all the potential that a GPL-licensed Qt has for their business, and yet they did it anyway.
The whole point is, if you use the GPLed Qt, then you are obliged to GPL your code. Troll Tech obviously does not think their business customers will be prepared to do this. They certainly thought about it long enough - there was a huge delay between the (in my opinion misguided) outcry over the QPL and the dual-licensing of Qt.
Re:I switched from Gtk-- to Qt
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 1
With QT you MUST use the GPL... unless you pay Troll Tech an arbitrary, although currently quite reasonable sum.
No, that's incorrect. Qt is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL, meaning that all you need to do is open your source code and use the QPL licensed version.
No, that's incorrect. Qt is dual QPL/GPL. The QPL is basically "release your source", ie a much more permissive license than the GPL (because it means I can BSD-license my code)
From tests that I've run, pthread_create is actually faster then fork on UP systems
Well obviously - fork() has to do more work. Have a look at the man page for clone(), specifically the CLONE_VM option. This is not set for fork(), which means that the kernel has to create new page table entries for the child process, and actually copy memory when the process dirties those pages. It is however set for pthread_create, which means no duplicating of PTEs and thus faster execution time.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider how long it took for IE to become accepted. Netscape had most of the market for a long, long time - it was only when the 4.0 browsers came along that things started to change. Netscape 4.x is pretty bad. IE 4 was nasty (Active Desktop! Ugh) but not nearly as nasty. And people started to switch.
You're not money-grubbing enough. How about anyone can view, but only subscribers can sell / buy ;-)
Can you get any more arrogant than that!?
;-)
I don't see what Linus' hypocrisy has to do with anything.
And if the guy could'nt care less about how Linux is pronounced, then why the fuck would he release an au file in the first place
Presumably for the same reason he seems to do most things - someone pestered him.
Bullshit.
There is no such thing as "proper" pronounciation, and to claim otherwise is arrogance.
Why do you continue to gloss over the fact that it also requires that someone find it worthwhile to pay you for your efforts?
Sure, that's another pre-requisite. That doesn't take away my entitlement, though. The issue I have is that you wrote "You're not *entitled* to earn a living programming". My response is that yes, I am. Whether I am actually capable of doing so is a completely different question.
since I'm explicitly stating that I believe removing or alleviating the chilling effect that these regulations have on the software industry would promote progress, in that context my analogy stands.
You misunderstood me. Let's assume that patents and copyrights hinder progress. Okay, fine. But you said that modern farming practices are far superior to archaic practices. Those modern practices involve he use of patents and copyrights. Therefore you cannot use that analogy as an example of where lack of patents and copyrights has fostered progress. Pretty simple, really.
I happily respect your viewpoint, although I think it is incorrect, but I dislike your emotionally-charged and flat-out-wrong use of language. It is a politician's cheap trick, and makes you appear stupid.
It is those arrogant idiots that I hate. I hate the people that do something incorrectly and then *correct* someone who does do it correctly.
I think you misunderstood me. Not even Linus Torvalds claims that there is a "correct" way to pronounce his software ("Hello, my name is Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux as "Linux"). Have a look at this linux.com poll for a reasonable survey of people, including the reference to Linus saying that he doesn't care how it's pronounced.
You are claiming that you magically know more about how to pronounce software than its creator. What was that about not being arrogant?
>You're entitled to try to make a living programming.
Defintion debate. Look at the dictionary definition of "entitled". It means "to qualify for". There's nothing about anyone owing you anything - not the Governent. Not society. I am entitled to make a living programming, but entitlement comes with pre-requisites - including the qualification that I be a good programmer. Check your definitions. My original assertion stands: I am entitled to make a living programming.
The question of whether patents and copyright is beneficial or detrimental to the computing world is an interesting one, but it's got sod-all to do with your rather crazy farming analogy. In fact, it's the opposite: in the "good old days" a lot more farming knowledge was shared around then nowadays, in the era of genetically modified crops, high-tech growth treatments, and pesticides. In the brave new world of modern farming that you attempted to relate to the software industry, patents and copyright play a bigger part than ever!
I get really annoyed when I see analogies like the above - they're obviously wrong, they obviously don't make any sense at all, and yet people take them seriously!
Anyway, to get to the "topic": annoying as this might seem, patents and software copyrights *have* promoted progress. As I type this, I am working using a windowing environment (originally proprietary tech), using a graphical user interface consisting of clickable buttons, scrollbars and menus (all proprietary), in a window manager that aims to emulate NextStep. The music I am listening to is compressed using patented technology, and the Free Software alternative was produced *specifically* to produce something that can be used instead of it.
It's a cliche, but a lot of Free Software *is not* innovative. RMS started GNU explicity to create a "similar, but free" Unix. Alfredo started Window Maker because he liked NextStep. Xiphophorous started work on Ogg almost on the day that MP3's legality became dubious. Opera's multiple document interface comes courtesy Qt, but originally comes from Microsoft, as does a lot of the impetus for the design of the browser itself. XFree was writted because X11 was proprietary. Miguel started Gnome because he liked Microsoft's code and interface. Etc, etc.
These are all great programs, and I love using them. But they are *not* innovations. At best, they are inspired replications.
On the other hand, software patents *are* out of control. They *do* need better regulation. People are patenting some crazy stuff.
But they're not going to go away, and I hope they never do.
Let's look at it another way.
:-) defines it as "to give a claim to; to qualify for". There's nothing about the Government or anyone else owing anything to you. Your definition doesn't make sense.
- I am entitled to make a living as a hire-wire acrobat
- I am entitled to make a living as a professional football player
- I am entitled to make a living as a neurologist.
The problem you have is that you've somehow forgotten that "entitlement" always comes with pre-requisites. I am entitled to make a living as a one-string violinist; It is perfectly legal for me to do so, and if I am particularly good at it I may even be able to make a decent amount of money. But this is where "entitlement" stops.
A dictionary definition of "entitled" (from dict in debian
As someone who has been using Linux for seven years and who based his pronounciation of its name from the sample of Linus' voice included in earlier (current?) Red Hat installations, I'd just like to say that you're the worst type of idiot - an arrogant idiot.
That's a pretty strange thing to say. Of course I am entitled to make a living programming, which is what you're really talking about. I agree with you that lots of programmers are arrogant and anti-social, but that's got nothing to do with their entitlement to make a living programming.
What's I'm not entitled to a ridiculous salaray without putting in the requisite amount of work, but surely we all already knew that?
That's the complete opposite of what the GNU project is about!
The whole point of free software is so that *more* people, not fewer, can have access to the code to maintain and enhance it. Orders of magnitude more people look at the Linux kernel than they do at the NT kernel, for example, simply because it's there, inviting study.
I disagree with the GNU philosophy, but having people like you misrepresent it to mean "There will be fewer programmers, and they won't have as much to eat" is really inviting criticism.
Thank you. You saved my half an hour of reading. ;-)
While I'm not really qualified to answer your question properly,
I can point out that the beauty of being able to compile your
own kernel is you can select the processor for which to
optimise, and you can also turn on or off things that
newer architectures support, such as high memory and
MTTRs. If the kernel didn't have support for these things
at all, then yes, you would be being hampered by "compatibility".
Since these things are selected at compile-time, you can include
them with no performance loss.
I know this is a late reply so no-one cares, but I agree with you - people *are* having problems mapping languages onto the CLR, which was apparently designed with statically-typed languages in mind. I wasn't claiming that it was a workable idea. ;)
You've completely missed the point of .Net, which is that it supports any language which can be compiled into the CLR.
Oh, yeah, X blows Windows away, except for the standard printing architecture, the single widget toolkit (argue for choice all you like, but as far as I'm concerned having up to 5 competing toolkits all visible on my desktop is horrible), the raw speed of the windowing environment (Windows is a whole lot more responsive than X on Linux on my machine, although I would much prefer if the reverse were true), a single sound API (Linux has oss, esound and a variety of other more or less workalikes), even simple things like ABILITY TO CHANGE COLOUR DEPTH ON THE FLY. I love Linux and use it exclusively, but compared with Windows, X is a dog.
MIT shared memory is for transferring pixmaps. SMA does the same. These don't remove the actual problem step, which is the marshalling and demarshalling of X messages. NFI about DRI, that could be the way to go for all I know.
Actually that is exactly what Plex86 and VMware do. Bochs and the x86 core in MAME are different because the program is designed to run on non-x86 architectures.
You are correct that you cannot completely virtualise an x86 PC. However, most instructions can be virtualised. The ones that can't require special handling - so one of the things that makes VMware complicated (and slower than you'd otherwise expect) is that it has to pre-parse code and insert handlers for those particular instructions.
The plex86 page has a lot of useful information on this.
>Scanmail by TrendMicro works nicely for me
Can you get it to stop spewing email everywhere? I'm hoping this is a configurable option, but at least some idiot sysadmins set that program to send email to the *recipient* (rather than the sender or the admin) when it finds a virus-infected mail. Which is just great when that recipient's a high-volume mailing list...
That's strange, *I* thought the motorised Razors hadn't caught on because they sound like an attack fleet of killer lawnmowers, they're ugly and they look stupid.
Certainly the example screenshot looks really, really terrible. I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind, perhaps some kind of clock ala osx, etc.
:)
Unfortunately I'm running Linux atm...
I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.
This really misses the point. The fact that the GPL allows this is one of many reasons why it's so attractive. If people don't take advantage of the good things the GPL allows, then there's no point using the GPL in the first place.
Case in point here: Qt is also available under the QPL, which basically requires you to open your source code. If that was all people wanted to do, then they wouldn't have pushed for a GPL version of same code. The fact that Troll Tech dual licenses is proof that they recognise all the potential that a GPL-licensed Qt has for their business, and yet they did it anyway.
The whole point is, if you use the GPLed Qt, then you are obliged to GPL your code. Troll Tech obviously does not think their business customers will be prepared to do this. They certainly thought about it long enough - there was a huge delay between the (in my opinion misguided) outcry over the QPL and the dual-licensing of Qt.
With QT you MUST use the GPL... unless you pay Troll Tech an arbitrary, although currently quite reasonable sum.
No, that's incorrect. Qt is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL, meaning that all you need to do is open your source code and use the QPL licensed version.
No, that's incorrect. Qt is dual QPL/GPL. The QPL is basically "release your source", ie a much more permissive license than the GPL (because it means I can BSD-license my code)
I'm interested in trying this, but I'm running XFS on my / - does anyone know about how well the patches work with XFS, if at all?
From tests that I've run, pthread_create is actually faster then fork on UP systems
Well obviously - fork() has to do more work. Have a look at the man page for clone(), specifically the CLONE_VM option. This is not set for fork(), which means that the kernel has to create new page table entries for the child process, and actually copy memory when the process dirties those pages. It is however set for pthread_create, which means no duplicating of PTEs and thus faster execution time.