There is Pippy, Python for Palm, and rumors of a Perl for Palm (both are supported on CE).
Perhaps, though, making a rock-solid Parrot-for-Palm would be a way to get a good implmentation of both languages for Palm. The developers could share with each other, and the OS-specific routines could be held in common (accessed via specific "header files" (modules, etc.)).
You know, I've never thought much of HP's support. I've called about an issue,and they ask, "What sort of RAM." If it's not HP branded RAM, they won't talk to you. There servers look cheap, and are put together poorly. They do goofy things to standard (reference DLT1), and, well, are cheesy.
Compaq's support is better, and they seem to have their act more together when it comes to high end technologies (clustering, Data Center Server, etc.). Still, it leaves something to be desired relative to other vendors.
Hopefully, this merger will mean that Compaq's server line takes over HP's NetServer, and not the other way around!
OK, you take a company that has a theme park that starves its animals, owns a network that cancels quality television ("Sports Night" and "Cupid", to name two), appeals to the lowest common denomeantor, puts out historically inacurate Titanic Clones ("Pearl Harbor"), and now, they rip off other's work (after vigorously defending their own trademarks). Hmmmmm...
Growing up, we went through three diesel cars: a Volvo station wagon, a GMC Suburban (with a 40 gallon tank), and a used '83 Olds I drove in college. All were good cars. We could go from my hometown in southwest Louisiana to Atlanta (about 500+ mi) on one tank in the Suburban.
Diesel is better suited, though, for interstate driving. It likes to get to a fairly high speed and stay there. Acceleration sucked! Light turns green, and you SLAM on the gas. Car looks around for a moment, then says "oh! You were talking to me!" and goes!
Pumps are not on every corner, but I never had to go out of my way to find one.
I think one realistic note is that UNIX in general has been billed as either:
A Server Operating System
A High-End Operating System
An Operating System Designed by People who Know Computers for People Who Know Computers, and not the Masses
Think for a moment: UNIX has been around thirty years. Yet there really isn't a major market for UNIX as a general purpose desktop. As a server application--definitely. As a workstation OS for CADD/CAM, graphics, etc.--sure.
Linux is basically UNIX, so it seems to both benefit and suffar from that which is ascribed to it.
Problem is, desktop space is not geeks, engineers, scientists, etc. It's not people who need to know estoic bits of command line knowledge, or need to telnet into their system. It's not people who, once educated to save early and often, can't afford a quick bounce once in a while.
Desktop space is secretaries, accountants, managers, parents, teachers and others who do not, as a primary job function (or even interest) know and love computers. To them, it is just a tool. Many know how to get into their word processing and check their e-mail, and that's about it. I have seen more than a few that, if you MOVE AN ICON, spend a day trying to figure out "what you did to their computer." Add an inocuous piece of software, and any problem, no matter how unrelated, is attributed to "that guy who came and messed with my computer."
For those folks, who make up the majority of desktop space, Linux is just something "computer geeks" play with. True, many will argue that Linux is better/more stable/less evil/cooler/neater/etc. that alternatives, but, an OS that has no applications is basically sucking electricity and little else. Even DOS is stable when sitting idle.
And thus it becomes chicken or egg. Until there is demand for applications, people won't write many for Linux--only the ones that "scratch their itch." Until there are applications that provide the greater functionality and ease of use than what's out there, there will not be a reaon to switch.
Will there be a Linux desktop? Perhaps. It will probably require an effort similar to Linux itself--someone writing a large chuck of it, then many more adding all the various features, until, one day, you have a package. The, it will take putting together a cohesive and consistent package that can be easily installed.
Until the, it will remain something that just "those computer geeks" use.
Though sometimes I wonder if that is what is wanted...
I don't see why not. I think you'd wind up with someone who can demonstrate an ability to do good code. And, I'm a big proponent of giving back to something you believe in
As others have mentioned, make sure their contract agreement doesn't limit their ability to do Open Source work.
However, I think you should make sure that both sides enter with their eyes wide open. Basically, the programmer could find themselves working in an environment they aren't comfortable. They might, for instance, be forced to develop on a platform they don't like, using a development tool they do not perfer. So long as the attitude is, "Hey, it's a living" and not "this SUCKS!" it should be OK.
A side benefit, if I were an open source advocate (and I do not claim to be), would be to "spread the gospel" to this company. If nothing else, versions for alterante operating systems may be developed. Even though I don't fall into the "alterante operating system user" category, I think it's a good thing.
If a comany (not just MS) were to deliberately put in a back door, or if they could not be relied upon to prevent deliberate security breaches (such as a back door), people woudl stop buying their software. No revenue hurts them.
I also suspect that, in the case of deliberate tampering, someone would find a way to sue them despite the EULA.
OK, let's say I use open source. How do I know there isn't a back door? I could, if I had the expertise and the time, go through every line of code, and verify that none of the 69,000 developers working on it didn't put a backdoor in. I dare say in most situations, that is impractical. It means that even the smallest installation requires someone with some knowledge of OS development and C code.
With a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
OK, let's say I use open source. How do I know there isn't a back door? I could, if I had the expertise and the time, go through every line of code, and verify that none of the 69,000 developers working on it didn't put a backdoor in. I dare say in most situations, that is impractical. It means that even the smallest installation requires someone with some knowledge of OS development and C code.
With a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
On the other hand, Open Source does, at least, give you the option of checking it out. I suppose neither side has an advantage.
Remember, this is the National Areonautics and Space Administration. Working on advances in flight is part of their charter--not just going to Mars (which, too, is a goal). Further, providing practical applications for their technology is a whole additional discipline (and not just velcro).
An unmanned craft that uses solar power for long duration flight has thousands of applications:
Watching crops (as we see here) to improve yields, etc.
The Obvious: Breaking in to a System=Hacking=Illegal
The Less Obvious: "I can break into your system. Give me $XXX,XXX.xx and I'll show you how to stop it!" Sounds vaugely like some protection scam
Demonstrates Sour Grapes
Somehow, it comes off as arrogant. I can't quite put my finger on why.
On first read, it sounded like anti-MS bigottry. OTOH, like everything, if you don't keep up with your patches, you're screwed no matter what the platform
At the end of the day, it is simply not the professional way to do it.
My advice would be to not do anything. Add "security audit" to your next presentation to your clients and move on.
One more thing to keep in mind: Just because you show them the flaw doesn't mean that they have to do any business with you. You can run your "tests," and indicate this is where they are week. They can look at it, thank you for your input, and politely show you the door. Next thing you know, your competitor is performing a full security audit, and tightening down the ship.
Why would the do this? Any number of reasons. Mostly, I think it would be a lack of trust in a company that would engage in a practice that could, at best, be described as immature and irresponsible.
You know, I have to agree--there are times when computers aren't right. I am hoping for a new palmtop to replace an older one, but, for most notetaking, journalling, and general merriment, I am a proponent of a pad and a fountain pen.
OK, I collect them (even have pieces that are over a hundred years old), but the warm feel of ink is something that cannot be duplicated by a thin stylus and grafiti.
"Police today pulled over Jane Deaux on I-75. She was charged with copyright infringement when she could not prove she had not received proper authoriation from the music industry to sing along with the radio. Music Industry spokeman I. P. Freely was quoted as saying that sing-along piracy was costing the music industry 'billions of dollars daily.'"
I agree that technology is something that is not dependent on age. Of course, that also means I can be a guru at 17, 27, or 37.
On the other hand, having experience with a diverse set of technologies can be important, even if the technologies are extinct. Knowing a diverse set of systems can mean an ability to see "best-of-breed" solutions. That is why someone who played with a Commodore 64 might bring something to the table even today, doing web page design.
But I think there is something more. For the most part, my company hires people strait off campus as opposed to people who already have jobs. This has advantages and disadvantages. In any event, several times over the summer, I see a new group of campus hires coming in the door. And, I am reminded of myself at that age (even if it was only eight years ago).
While these new folks are among the best the most competative universities have to offer, and most have excellent technical skills, there is something missing that actual, real-world experience misses. Some examples:
Cannot handle touchy interoffice/client political stuff with approrpaite tact and diplomicy
Some are "cowboys:" doing things without thinking it through (with disasterous consequences)
Aren't good about documetentation, updating managers, etc.
Require more intervention from management
They lack project planning skills
I'm not saying that everyone a the beginning lacks all of these skills, but there is definitely a growth that occurs over the years. I can see it in myself. If you are just entering the work force, find one of those touchy-feely HR "soft skills" test (a behavoir interview. This sort of interview asks questions like "Tell me about a time you lead a team..." Fill it out today. Wait five years. Fill it out again, and compare the answers.
You will see that you didn't have to strect for some answers, and have learned a lot. This, in addition to web page development and UNIX shell scripting, is experience. And it tends to be liner with age. And, in turn, generates respect, because you have demonstrated you can handle the total situation, not just part of it.
It is a common saying that "respect has to be earned." There is truth to it--you really do have to pay your dues, no matter how good you are.
I recognize that, when I started this thread, it may have come across as a troll. This was not my intent, and I apolgize to those who felt this was the case.
I did know that 2.even were "production" releases; 2.odd, development. I assumed that 2.x.y was a patch, a service pack. I assumed a.x upgrade (from, say, 2.2 to 2.4) was a major change. I remember going to 2.0 meant that a lot of libraries had to be recompiled, and had the same impression when I tried 2.2. I assumed 2.4.1 would be the first major patchset to the kernel--as opposed to downloading a major bunch of source to build out a new kernel, a smaller patch could be applied. It was pointed out that there was a bit more going (functionality, etc.) on which I was not aware of. mea maximu culpa. The same has happened with NT service packs, though not as obvoiusly.
Some have pointed out my 2.4 release date estimate was off--sorry. This year has just flown!
I think, if I do say so myself, that this was an insightful thread for me. What did I learn? First, the fact that it is free can matter. I had a hard time believing that, but I see how making a ship date can have an impact.
I think, one lesson I could also offer: all the Linux advocate rhetoric that goes around leaves an impression of arrogance. One point that always comes out in materials praising Linux is that quick turn around of patches was a plus. "You have the code--you can even create the patch yourself" almost seems to be the credo of its fans.
At the same time, any time a patch or service pack for Windows NT comes out, I have seen more than a few articals, here and elsewhere, that comment on the fact that a patch was required, etc. It leaves many with the impression I had, that of a double standard.
Why am I pointing this out? Until today, the logic behind distinction was never clear to me. It was always "Linux does it: good--it's free. MS does it--bad! They charge." Now, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand it better.
You know, I thought 2.4 came out just last week. If MS were to release an OS upgrade, then, a week or two later, released a patch/hotfix/etc., there would be all sorts of discussion about how they never release the good stuff, how evil it is, etc.
When the open source community does it, they speak so highly about being able to react to bugs. It is a Good Thing.
I think that either you need to take the stance that producing patches rapidly and often is a good thing, or an indicator of the software being bad in the first place, be it Windows or Linux or other. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, though, making a rock-solid Parrot-for-Palm would be a way to get a good implmentation of both languages for Palm. The developers could share with each other, and the OS-specific routines could be held in common (accessed via specific "header files" (modules, etc.)).
Hmmmmm....
You know, I've never thought much of HP's support. I've called about an issue,and they ask, "What sort of RAM." If it's not HP branded RAM, they won't talk to you. There servers look cheap, and are put together poorly. They do goofy things to standard (reference DLT1), and, well, are cheesy.
Compaq's support is better, and they seem to have their act more together when it comes to high end technologies (clustering, Data Center Server, etc.). Still, it leaves something to be desired relative to other vendors.
Hopefully, this merger will mean that Compaq's server line takes over HP's NetServer, and not the other way around!
- Based (loosely) on one of the creators of the genre
- One kick-ass female hero (Rebecca Fogg)
- Steampunk feel
Really, this is probably my current favorite SciFi on TV. Perhaps third (behind "West Wing," and "Sports Night" reruns). Cheers, CharlesOK, you take a company that has a theme park that starves its animals, owns a network that cancels quality television ("Sports Night" and "Cupid", to name two), appeals to the lowest common denomeantor, puts out historically inacurate Titanic Clones ("Pearl Harbor"), and now, they rip off other's work (after vigorously defending their own trademarks). Hmmmmm...
Oh, yeah...
Diesel is better suited, though, for interstate driving. It likes to get to a fairly high speed and stay there. Acceleration sucked! Light turns green, and you SLAM on the gas. Car looks around for a moment, then says "oh! You were talking to me!" and goes!
Pumps are not on every corner, but I never had to go out of my way to find one.
- A Server Operating System
- A High-End Operating System
- An Operating System Designed by People who Know Computers for People Who Know Computers, and not the Masses
Think for a moment: UNIX has been around thirty years. Yet there really isn't a major market for UNIX as a general purpose desktop. As a server application--definitely. As a workstation OS for CADD/CAM, graphics, etc.--sure.Linux is basically UNIX, so it seems to both benefit and suffar from that which is ascribed to it.
Problem is, desktop space is not geeks, engineers, scientists, etc. It's not people who need to know estoic bits of command line knowledge, or need to telnet into their system. It's not people who, once educated to save early and often, can't afford a quick bounce once in a while.
Desktop space is secretaries, accountants, managers, parents, teachers and others who do not, as a primary job function (or even interest) know and love computers. To them, it is just a tool. Many know how to get into their word processing and check their e-mail, and that's about it. I have seen more than a few that, if you MOVE AN ICON, spend a day trying to figure out "what you did to their computer." Add an inocuous piece of software, and any problem, no matter how unrelated, is attributed to "that guy who came and messed with my computer."
For those folks, who make up the majority of desktop space, Linux is just something "computer geeks" play with. True, many will argue that Linux is better/more stable/less evil/cooler/neater/etc. that alternatives, but, an OS that has no applications is basically sucking electricity and little else. Even DOS is stable when sitting idle.
And thus it becomes chicken or egg. Until there is demand for applications, people won't write many for Linux--only the ones that "scratch their itch." Until there are applications that provide the greater functionality and ease of use than what's out there, there will not be a reaon to switch.
Will there be a Linux desktop? Perhaps. It will probably require an effort similar to Linux itself--someone writing a large chuck of it, then many more adding all the various features, until, one day, you have a package. The, it will take putting together a cohesive and consistent package that can be easily installed.
Until the, it will remain something that just "those computer geeks" use.
Though sometimes I wonder if that is what is wanted...
As others have mentioned, make sure their contract agreement doesn't limit their ability to do Open Source work.
However, I think you should make sure that both sides enter with their eyes wide open. Basically, the programmer could find themselves working in an environment they aren't comfortable. They might, for instance, be forced to develop on a platform they don't like, using a development tool they do not perfer. So long as the attitude is, "Hey, it's a living" and not "this SUCKS!" it should be OK.
A side benefit, if I were an open source advocate (and I do not claim to be), would be to "spread the gospel" to this company. If nothing else, versions for alterante operating systems may be developed. Even though I don't fall into the "alterante operating system user" category, I think it's a good thing.
I also suspect that, in the case of deliberate tampering, someone would find a way to sue them despite the EULA.
With a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
With a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
On the other hand, Open Source does, at least, give you the option of checking it out. I suppose neither side has an advantage.
An unmanned craft that uses solar power for long duration flight has thousands of applications:
- Watching crops (as we see here) to improve yields, etc.
- Watch crops, for DEA-type purposes
- Monitor large areas of forests for fires
- Loiter over an enemy target
- Provide radio relay
Just to name a few.Plus, I am a fan of really, really good coffee.
- The Obvious: Breaking in to a System=Hacking=Illegal
- The Less Obvious: "I can break into your system. Give me $XXX,XXX.xx and I'll show you how to stop it!" Sounds vaugely like some protection scam
- Demonstrates Sour Grapes
- Somehow, it comes off as arrogant. I can't quite put my finger on why.
- On first read, it sounded like anti-MS bigottry. OTOH, like everything, if you don't keep up with your patches, you're screwed no matter what the platform
- At the end of the day, it is simply not the professional way to do it.
My advice would be to not do anything. Add "security audit" to your next presentation to your clients and move on.One more thing to keep in mind: Just because you show them the flaw doesn't mean that they have to do any business with you. You can run your "tests," and indicate this is where they are week. They can look at it, thank you for your input, and politely show you the door. Next thing you know, your competitor is performing a full security audit, and tightening down the ship.
Why would the do this? Any number of reasons. Mostly, I think it would be a lack of trust in a company that would engage in a practice that could, at best, be described as immature and irresponsible.
You know, I have to agree--there are times when computers aren't right. I am hoping for a new palmtop to replace an older one, but, for most notetaking, journalling, and general merriment, I am a proponent of a pad and a fountain pen. OK, I collect them (even have pieces that are over a hundred years old), but the warm feel of ink is something that cannot be duplicated by a thin stylus and grafiti.
"Police today pulled over Jane Deaux on I-75. She was charged with copyright infringement when she could not prove she had not received proper authoriation from the music industry to sing along with the radio. Music Industry spokeman I. P. Freely was quoted as saying that sing-along piracy was costing the music industry 'billions of dollars daily.'"
On the other hand, having experience with a diverse set of technologies can be important, even if the technologies are extinct. Knowing a diverse set of systems can mean an ability to see "best-of-breed" solutions. That is why someone who played with a Commodore 64 might bring something to the table even today, doing web page design.
But I think there is something more. For the most part, my company hires people strait off campus as opposed to people who already have jobs. This has advantages and disadvantages. In any event, several times over the summer, I see a new group of campus hires coming in the door. And, I am reminded of myself at that age (even if it was only eight years ago).
While these new folks are among the best the most competative universities have to offer, and most have excellent technical skills, there is something missing that actual, real-world experience misses. Some examples:
- Cannot handle touchy interoffice/client political stuff with approrpaite tact and diplomicy
- Some are "cowboys:" doing things without thinking it through (with disasterous consequences)
- Aren't good about documetentation, updating managers, etc.
- Require more intervention from management
- They lack project planning skills
I'm not saying that everyone a the beginning lacks all of these skills, but there is definitely a growth that occurs over the years. I can see it in myself. If you are just entering the work force, find one of those touchy-feely HR "soft skills" test (a behavoir interview. This sort of interview asks questions like "Tell me about a time you lead a team..." Fill it out today. Wait five years. Fill it out again, and compare the answers.You will see that you didn't have to strect for some answers, and have learned a lot. This, in addition to web page development and UNIX shell scripting, is experience. And it tends to be liner with age. And, in turn, generates respect, because you have demonstrated you can handle the total situation, not just part of it.
It is a common saying that "respect has to be earned." There is truth to it--you really do have to pay your dues, no matter how good you are.
I did know that 2.even were "production" releases; 2.odd, development. I assumed that 2.x.y was a patch, a service pack. I assumed a .x upgrade (from, say, 2.2 to 2.4) was a major change. I remember going to 2.0 meant that a lot of libraries had to be recompiled, and had the same impression when I tried 2.2. I assumed 2.4.1 would be the first major patchset to the kernel--as opposed to downloading a major bunch of source to build out a new kernel, a smaller patch could be applied. It was pointed out that there was a bit more going (functionality, etc.) on which I was not aware of. mea maximu culpa. The same has happened with NT service packs, though not as obvoiusly.
Some have pointed out my 2.4 release date estimate was off--sorry. This year has just flown!
I think, if I do say so myself, that this was an insightful thread for me. What did I learn? First, the fact that it is free can matter. I had a hard time believing that, but I see how making a ship date can have an impact.
I think, one lesson I could also offer: all the Linux advocate rhetoric that goes around leaves an impression of arrogance. One point that always comes out in materials praising Linux is that quick turn around of patches was a plus. "You have the code--you can even create the patch yourself" almost seems to be the credo of its fans.
At the same time, any time a patch or service pack for Windows NT comes out, I have seen more than a few articals, here and elsewhere, that comment on the fact that a patch was required, etc. It leaves many with the impression I had, that of a double standard.
Why am I pointing this out? Until today, the logic behind distinction was never clear to me. It was always "Linux does it: good--it's free. MS does it--bad! They charge." Now, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand it better.
When the open source community does it, they speak so highly about being able to react to bugs. It is a Good Thing.
I think that either you need to take the stance that producing patches rapidly and often is a good thing, or an indicator of the software being bad in the first place, be it Windows or Linux or other. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!