Perens and his cohorts are applying the rules of communist economics to this projects requirements. How many of the end users they hope for are participating in this requirements and design phase? Why even bother calling it USER Linx?
They should take a look at how a good project involves it's target users. http://www.intellij.net
they can be a part of the fashion cycle. In 10 years when there's no such thing as an ugly beige case, someone will start selling marked-up ugly beige cases calling them "retro".
I dont get it, isnt linux desktops an obvius goal? CVS might be the immediate goal, but why shouldnt linux desktop be the ultimate goal?
I think the first reson someone gets into Open Source is for their own benifit. They want a choice. Then maybe they want to give something back to the community. I think the last thing on many people's minds is to dominate some arbitrary market. Why focus on the desktop? The embedded market is huge. Why doesn't Perens forget about the desktop and focus on embedded. Or why not just tablet computers or PDAs?
If the majority of desktops stay non-free, wouldnt Free software have failed? Not at all. Freedom has always been about having the right to choose. Anyone can choose Linux/BSD/OpenOffice/Mozilla right now. Hence Free software is already a success.
Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian.
That's nice. What makes him think we all have the same goals? Or should?
There are tons of people who contribute to GNU/Linux/OpenSource without the intent or goal of having Linux on more desktops. Maybe their intent was to learn how to use CVS.
I looked around the website and they don't really explain how important a priority stability is. They do have a QA "project", but they also say they want to "Be on the leading edge of open source technology..."
I take it we're not talking OpenBSD/Debian-stable level of reliability. That's fine. But what's the goal? Will this stuff be/directly/ used by RedHat, or is there a "polishing" step?
In the strict sense of the word free, everyone is always free and was always free. Anyone can attempt whatever they want, whenever they want. Often there are limiting factors that will predetermine the outcome of an attempt:
Although I am free to attempt to fly to Mars, my attempts will likely fail. In the same sense, a prisoner is free to attempt to leave.
I think the type of freedom you speak of is the right for someone to be free without others artificially imposing limiting factors. By the definition of what it means to govern, this has nothing to do with government. Or the USA. Or any sort of intervention.
Do 97% of the world's significant scientists come
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
When I saw this article, my first thought was this, which I noticed a while ago. As the website says, it falls into the "if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it" category.
Not only is this a dupe, its a dupe of a dupe! You say that like it's a bad thing. At least now we're almost guaranteed not to have to see it again.
Re:VS sucks
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There are some good Java IDEs, no doubt, but none of them can touch Visual Studio for, well, any single thing you could possibly want to do with an IDE.
So how does the RIAA prove it was me, or my wife, or whomever, at the keyboard?
I think when it's "Average Joe" vs. RIAA and and a swarm of lawyers determined to make examples out of people, the question is more like: Holy s**t, how f*****d am I?
Really think about it. Are you going to represent yourself in court, where your defense will be "prove it was me"? Or are you going to shell out the cash for a good defense? Or settle out of court?
>Actually, the other languages do make progress in that direction.
Oh, absolutely. I agree 100%. My sarcasm intentionally was based on truth.
Basically what I was saying (which is certainly not my own discovery) is that the semantics of Lisp/Scheme/Other Lisp Dialects move "language features" into the realm of the developer (as opposed to the language designers). Plus there is the bonus of being able to operate on the program itself. And for these reasons, pretty much any feature somone is planning to add to a language has either been done in Lisp a long time ago, or is easy to add without acually redesigning the language.
Take Java (which I work with daily) as a complete opposite. You want a new feature? AOP, generics, etc, you^H^H^H the people at Sun have to oficially redesign the language.
Slashdot Mirror
Perens and his cohorts are applying the rules of communist economics to this projects requirements. How many of the end users they hope for are participating in this requirements and design phase?
Why even bother calling it USER Linx?
They should take a look at how a good project involves it's target users. http://www.intellij.net
Interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to implement something like that for gcc.
Does it matter?. I'm sure it's patented.
but does it run on Windows?
Umm. This is Apple's business model.
They are the Gap of computing.
They'll probably be the ones selling retro-beige boxes.
they can be a part of the fashion cycle.
In 10 years when there's no such thing as an ugly beige case, someone will start selling marked-up ugly beige cases calling them "retro".
Isn't that what really matters?
I'm sure we'll find out that this was just a misunderstanding, and bugs are already being fixed.
I dont get it, isnt linux desktops an obvius goal?
CVS might be the immediate goal, but why shouldnt linux desktop be the ultimate goal?
I think the first reson someone gets into Open Source is for their own benifit. They want a choice. Then maybe they want to give something back to the community. I think the last thing on many people's minds is to dominate some arbitrary market. Why focus on the desktop? The embedded market is huge. Why doesn't Perens forget about the desktop and focus on embedded. Or why not just tablet computers or PDAs?
If the majority of desktops stay non-free, wouldnt Free software have failed?
Not at all. Freedom has always been about having the right to choose. Anyone can choose Linux/BSD/OpenOffice/Mozilla right now. Hence Free software is already a success.
Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian.
That's nice. What makes him think we all have the same goals? Or should?
There are tons of people who contribute to GNU/Linux/OpenSource without the intent or goal of having Linux on more desktops. Maybe their intent was to learn how to use CVS.
I looked around the website and they don't really explain how important a priority stability is.
/directly/ used by RedHat, or is there a "polishing" step?
They do have a QA "project", but they also say they want to "Be on the leading edge of open source technology..."
I take it we're not talking OpenBSD/Debian-stable level of reliability. That's fine. But what's the goal? Will this stuff be
A good looking car is now much uglier.
An extrodinarily versatile piece of hardware is now an mp3 player.
*clap clap*
In the strict sense of the word free, everyone is always free and was always free. Anyone can attempt whatever they want, whenever they want. Often there are limiting factors that will predetermine the outcome of an attempt:
Although I am free to attempt to fly to Mars, my attempts will likely fail.
In the same sense, a prisoner is free to attempt to leave.
I think the type of freedom you speak of is the right for someone to be free without others artificially imposing limiting factors. By the definition of what it means to govern, this has nothing to do with government. Or the USA. Or any sort of intervention.
Read "Guns Germs and Steel" (as Bill Gates has ;p ) to understand why this may be the case.s .htm
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/gunsgerm
is to use IP over Carrier Pigeon.
Then the only remaining issue is number of pigeons.
You beat me to the Dynamism post.
When I saw this article, my first thought was this, which I noticed a while ago. As the website says, it falls into the "if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it" category.
Looks damn cool.
There's definitely a reason they're not hiring me as a web designer.
[i]Why is everyone so "blind" to this?[/i]
Because it weaves together technology/computer science, open source, history (of operating systems), and IP law.
There aren't many who can claim to experts in any of these fields, let alone all.
Some Slashdot readers may have the tech side covered, but 3 guesses as to why IBM isn't recruiting us as lawyers...
Not only is this a dupe, its a dupe of a dupe!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
At least now we're almost guaranteed not to have to see it again.
There are some good Java IDEs, no doubt, but none of them can touch Visual Studio for, well, any single thing you could possibly want to do with an IDE.
If you do any Java development try IntelliJ Idea.
Then come back and try saying that again.
Most people that make any significant contributions to their field do so before they're 30.
So how does the RIAA prove it was me, or my wife, or whomever, at the keyboard?
I think when it's "Average Joe" vs. RIAA and and a swarm of lawyers determined to make examples out of people, the question is more like:
Holy s**t, how f*****d am I?
Really think about it. Are you going to represent yourself in court, where your defense will be "prove it was me"? Or are you going to shell out the cash for a good defense? Or settle out of court?
I have lived in many parts of Canada and visited many more. Originally from, and currently in Toronto.
My only advice to you is:
Visit Montreal. Even at the expense of missing every other part of Canada. You will definately have a good time there.
Is this really a thermodynamics issue?
What about this:
Casimir effect
Helloooooo, "artists".
Guess what? You decide what you sell. You DON'T get to decide what we buy. WE DO.
Get it?
>Actually, the other languages do make progress in that direction.
Oh, absolutely. I agree 100%. My sarcasm intentionally was based on truth.
Basically what I was saying (which is certainly not my own discovery) is that the semantics of Lisp/Scheme/Other Lisp Dialects move "language features" into the realm of the developer (as opposed to the language designers). Plus there is the bonus of being able to operate on the program itself. And for these reasons, pretty much any feature somone is planning to add to a language has either been done in Lisp a long time ago, or is easy to add without acually redesigning the language.
Take Java (which I work with daily) as a complete opposite. You want a new feature? AOP, generics, etc, you^H^H^H the people at Sun have to oficially redesign the language.
*sarcasm*
Maybe in another 10 or 20 years ALL programming languages will be as powerful as Lisp.
Then 10 years after that, we can start passing around s-expressions instead of XML because "the data is the program".
Wow. The "future" looks grand.
*sarcasm*