Ringing Endorsement
on
Ruby In Practice
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"[If] you need to hook up your jabber server to a message queue that will spawn workers that interact with RESTful web services exposing indexed logs to twitter by tomorrow, then this book is a 10."
I think you have comprehensively explained why I don't want to read this book.
The whole of the Mozilla code tree is tied into a framework called XPCOM. It is a Cross-Platform reimplementation of Microsoft's COM. The XPCOM influence is extremely pervasive throughout the whole of the Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbid/Sunbird/Gecko code trees.
WebKit would not fit in very well with the existing ecosystem because it does not tie into the XPCOM framework which is used to tie all of the Mozilla group's projects together. A lot of the potential performance benefits of moving to WebKit would be lost because of all the bridging between WebKit and XPCOM that would be required.
I'd advise that you find out who was in charge of the liquidation of the company, and approach them. They would be in charge of the assets. See if they were sold on. If the liquidator still has possesion of them, offer a modest sum ($100 or something) to buy the rights to it off them. The liquidator will probably just pocket the money anyway.
If someone bought the rights when the company was liquidated, see if the liquidator will tell you who, and approach them.
mLAN is already supported by MacOS. You noted that mLAN uses Firewire, which has been built into Macs for years. You can plug mLAN devices straight into a Firewire port.
Sounds more like Apple have built TosLink into Macs. Roll on 5.1 Surround Sound out of the DVD Player!
Mac OS X uses all the same open-source components as open-source OSs use for serving, ergo, Mac OS X is no lesser a server OS than Linux or FreeBSD or any other OS which uses the same components. No?
What worries me most is Apple's sense of priorities. They seem quite happy for someone to re-implement QuickTime for Linux as a third-party, yet they sue someone who creates a skin that looks like Aqua.
Does Apple think that colourful buttons are more valuable intellectual property than their video layer which they've spent the last 10 years developing?
Not that I mind QT for Linux, but the point stands. They'd rather have people buy a Mac for the shiny interface than the powerful graphics tools, or other _real_ technological assets.
I'm an Apple fiend, but sometimes the bods at Apple really leave me wondering...
The contract market is perfectly healthy.
The IR35 legislation clamps down on people who should be employees but are contracted by their employers so that the employers are obliged to pay the same benefits.
If you are a true contract developer (short-mid term) there's no problem. Set up a limited company, make you and your wife/account directors, and then set up a website and sell little bits and bobs on your website (even if you don't make any money off of it.)
There's no problem.
What percentage of the gross consumer marketplace do the Geeks of which you all speak so highly (and, admittedly, I am one) make up?
I'd reckon it's a pretty small number. Therefore, what geeks might want (customisable GUI, etc.) is pretty irrelevant because the majority of the marketplace wouldn't exactly be won over by the ability to change their user interface.
MacOS X gives developers everything that Linux gives them. Developers who need to port X applications can install Xtools, an X window server that lives alongside Aqua and makes X applications integrate seemlessly, or soon they'll be able to use Xdarwin (or perhaps, Xaqua), an XFree86 open-source X server that will do the same thing for free.
There is the full GNU toolset, ProjectBuilder (which, with Cocoa, whips the ass of everything I've used on Linux to date.) Once Apple address the problem with incompatibilities due to the lack of the widely-used libdl (which ought to be addressed in a forthcoming release of gnu libtool) we'll all be laughing. You'll be able to run most any open-source you want on MacOS X.
Of course, many of the criticisms Apple takes are criticisms based on the Public Beta. It's got quite a few flaws, and Apple are probably wondering whether released OS X PB did them more harm than good.
MacOS X on Intel, if such a thing were to come to fruition, would be a serious, serious contender. All those corporates who are rolling out Linux on their general office machines would likely die to move to OS X Intel (or rather, X86) because of the astronomically huge sys-admin benefits MacOS X has. NetInfo management allows for a centralised repository of networking, user and group information which is second-to-none. The MacOS interface team has years of experience in making productive UIs. Aqua perhaps has a little too much colour for some tastes, but that doesn't detract from it's usability. Anyone can make fancy coloured buttons if they want, so it's pretty ill-reasoned to say that MacOS X is just a candy-coloured pile of doo. Quite the contrary can be said for anyone who uses it.
The Linux community might get somewhere if they dump X11 and use something more lightweight. Gnome and KDE over-hyped, and are consistently chasing MacOS and Windows in terms of functionality. When it comes to everyday work (development, office work, graphics, audio) I can easily lose a Linux user on any configuration of Athlon/Intel just because of the Mac's more fluid user experience.
As for Servers, that's comparing Apples to Oranges (pun intended =), but in a sense it's not, and the arguments against MacOS X as a server are seriously flawed. MacOS X is based on a core unit, Darwin, that is basically a slightly modified combination of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and it can keep up there with the big boys when it comes to your server work. We have Darwin on a dual-processor G4 here serving up QuickTime streams by the hundred and it can handle the load over the Built-In Gigabit ethernet with ease (lets see that in your $700 PC!)
What hampers Apple's wide-spread acceptance is a cheap CPU box to sell to the masses. Doubt you'll see that, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll buy three!
What do they do exactly?
"[If] you need to hook up your jabber server to a message queue that will spawn workers that interact with RESTful web services exposing indexed logs to twitter by tomorrow, then this book is a 10."
I think you have comprehensively explained why I don't want to read this book.
Thank you sir, for your service to humanity!
Peace prize? They plainly haven't been reading the LKML at the Nobel Institute...
The whole of the Mozilla code tree is tied into a framework called XPCOM. It is a Cross-Platform reimplementation of Microsoft's COM. The XPCOM influence is extremely pervasive throughout the whole of the Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbid/Sunbird/Gecko code trees.
WebKit would not fit in very well with the existing ecosystem because it does not tie into the XPCOM framework which is used to tie all of the Mozilla group's projects together. A lot of the potential performance benefits of moving to WebKit would be lost because of all the bridging between WebKit and XPCOM that would be required.
I'd advise that you find out who was in charge of the liquidation of the company, and approach them. They would be in charge of the assets. See if they were sold on. If the liquidator still has possesion of them, offer a modest sum ($100 or something) to buy the rights to it off them. The liquidator will probably just pocket the money anyway.
If someone bought the rights when the company was liquidated, see if the liquidator will tell you who, and approach them.
mLAN is already supported by MacOS. You noted that mLAN uses Firewire, which has been built into Macs for years. You can plug mLAN devices straight into a Firewire port.
Sounds more like Apple have built TosLink into Macs. Roll on 5.1 Surround Sound out of the DVD Player!
Mac OS X uses all the same open-source components as open-source OSs use for serving, ergo, Mac OS X is no lesser a server OS than Linux or FreeBSD or any other OS which uses the same components. No?
What worries me most is Apple's sense of priorities. They seem quite happy for someone to re-implement QuickTime for Linux as a third-party, yet they sue someone who creates a skin that looks like Aqua.
Does Apple think that colourful buttons are more valuable intellectual property than their video layer which they've spent the last 10 years developing?
Not that I mind QT for Linux, but the point stands. They'd rather have people buy a Mac for the shiny interface than the powerful graphics tools, or other _real_ technological assets.
I'm an Apple fiend, but sometimes the bods at Apple really leave me wondering...
The contract market is perfectly healthy. The IR35 legislation clamps down on people who should be employees but are contracted by their employers so that the employers are obliged to pay the same benefits. If you are a true contract developer (short-mid term) there's no problem. Set up a limited company, make you and your wife/account directors, and then set up a website and sell little bits and bobs on your website (even if you don't make any money off of it.) There's no problem.
What percentage of the gross consumer marketplace do the Geeks of which you all speak so highly (and, admittedly, I am one) make up? I'd reckon it's a pretty small number. Therefore, what geeks might want (customisable GUI, etc.) is pretty irrelevant because the majority of the marketplace wouldn't exactly be won over by the ability to change their user interface. MacOS X gives developers everything that Linux gives them. Developers who need to port X applications can install Xtools, an X window server that lives alongside Aqua and makes X applications integrate seemlessly, or soon they'll be able to use Xdarwin (or perhaps, Xaqua), an XFree86 open-source X server that will do the same thing for free. There is the full GNU toolset, ProjectBuilder (which, with Cocoa, whips the ass of everything I've used on Linux to date.) Once Apple address the problem with incompatibilities due to the lack of the widely-used libdl (which ought to be addressed in a forthcoming release of gnu libtool) we'll all be laughing. You'll be able to run most any open-source you want on MacOS X. Of course, many of the criticisms Apple takes are criticisms based on the Public Beta. It's got quite a few flaws, and Apple are probably wondering whether released OS X PB did them more harm than good. MacOS X on Intel, if such a thing were to come to fruition, would be a serious, serious contender. All those corporates who are rolling out Linux on their general office machines would likely die to move to OS X Intel (or rather, X86) because of the astronomically huge sys-admin benefits MacOS X has. NetInfo management allows for a centralised repository of networking, user and group information which is second-to-none. The MacOS interface team has years of experience in making productive UIs. Aqua perhaps has a little too much colour for some tastes, but that doesn't detract from it's usability. Anyone can make fancy coloured buttons if they want, so it's pretty ill-reasoned to say that MacOS X is just a candy-coloured pile of doo. Quite the contrary can be said for anyone who uses it. The Linux community might get somewhere if they dump X11 and use something more lightweight. Gnome and KDE over-hyped, and are consistently chasing MacOS and Windows in terms of functionality. When it comes to everyday work (development, office work, graphics, audio) I can easily lose a Linux user on any configuration of Athlon/Intel just because of the Mac's more fluid user experience. As for Servers, that's comparing Apples to Oranges (pun intended =), but in a sense it's not, and the arguments against MacOS X as a server are seriously flawed. MacOS X is based on a core unit, Darwin, that is basically a slightly modified combination of FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and it can keep up there with the big boys when it comes to your server work. We have Darwin on a dual-processor G4 here serving up QuickTime streams by the hundred and it can handle the load over the Built-In Gigabit ethernet with ease (lets see that in your $700 PC!) What hampers Apple's wide-spread acceptance is a cheap CPU box to sell to the masses. Doubt you'll see that, though.