I screw around with my OS, because the default environment doesn't accomplish want I want accomplished. Forcing me to stick with the default environment means that I can't get my work done. The default environment doesn't do what I want it to do. Forcing me to stick with it is just as unproductive to me as forcing your mom to have to constanly "poke under the hood" in order to get her work done.
I agree with that completely, but I'm curious about why you said it. Are you attempting to imply the Macintosh forces you to stick with the default environment? This simply isn't true. Now, people who don't have the necessary knowledge to modify things are forced to stick with the default, but that's every bit as true with Linux as it is with the Macintosh. People with the know-how can make either look and work the way the want. Admittedly, the learning curve to do this on a Mac is steeper than on Linux, but that's the price you pay for making the baseline easier. The Macintosh has always demanded more of its programmers in order to make life easier for its users. I don't see the problem with this...
Each program is actually a directory that can contain configurations, multiple binaries, different language information, fonts, images, icons, etc. A.app file can be moved around like a file and take all of the required information with it.
Back when I was a Macintosh developer (starting in the reign of System 6.0.3 and ending at System 7.1), the Macintosh used forked files. Is this use of directories for apps in addition to, or a replacement for, forked files? I kinda liked forked files, but they could be a pain at times -- I can see how this would be a big improvement.
--
Re:Interesting that others have fingered a cause..
on
Acts Of The Apostles
·
· Score: 1
Other recent science articles have identified physiological changes in GWS victims. Given that, it's awfully hard to dismiss it as "no such thing". (That is, if you're being honest.) Umm, I don't believe there's no such thing as GWS, but it should be pointed out that placeboes can cause physiological changes in people. Given that, your evidence, although not completely insignificant, isn't terribly convincing either...
And, the likelihood of Apple making their GUI available, is the same as the likelihood of MS Office for KDE.
Not so. MS Office for KDE is quite a bit more likely, especially if there's an MS breakup but even if there isn't. MS is NOT utterly opposed to writing software for other platforms. They're not entirely stupid. If there becomes a significant market for it, it'll eventually happen...
Heh! I should tell my boss about it. He likes to open three Konsole windows while he's coding, and after opening them he very carefully resizes two of them so that none of them overlap. Sounds like WM would save him some time (if only the KDE team can be convinced to port to it...:)
What follows is an excerpt from "Programming as if People Mattered: Friendly Programs, Software Engineering, and Other Noble Delusions", by Nathaniel S. Borenstein.
The Andrew Window Manager
An interesting constrast to the UNIX success story is the less well known but far more typical tale of how the institutionalized greed of the men in suits managed to kill another promising piece of software, the Andrew Window Manager. In contrast to the UNIX story, which occupies a key role in the history of computer software, the Andrew Window Manager is nothing more than a footnote in that history, a minor story that has been quietly repeated many times without anyone ever seeming to learn anything from it.
The Andrew Window Manager (WM) is a program that, as its name implies, manages windows on a computer's screen. It was one of the first network-oriented window managers to run under the UNIX operating system on a scientific workstation with a bitmap display. It was fast, easy to use, and reasonably reliable. Among those who used this class of machine, it generated intense interest, and a steady stream of visitors came to its birthplace, Carnegie Melon University (CMU), to see it.
However, WM was not owned by CMU. It was developed as part of the Andrew Project, a joint venture of IBM and CMU. Part of the agreement that defined the joint venture stated that IBM would own the software, but that "reasonable" licensing arrangements would be available.
Unfortunately, there are many definitions of "reasonable." To a university, a licensing arrangement like the standard UNIX license was "reasonable." To IBM, such low-cost licensing sounded insane. While IBM and CMU argued over licensing arrangements, the people waiting for licenses got impatient.
One such group, from MIT, eventually gave up on WM entirely, and built their own window system instead. That system, which they called X Windows, has the traditional evolutionary relationship with its predecessor: it did everything WM could do, and more. Moreover, the MIT group managed to align itself with a multivendor consortium that funded the continued development of X Windows as a nonproprietary, easily licensed standard window system. Within a few years, IBM found that nobody even wanted to license WM any more, and that IBM was in danger of being entirely left out of an emerging standard. With little choice, IBM embraced the X Windows standard, and CMU began converting all of the Andrew application software from WM to X.
What is most notable here is that WM was a very promising and useful piece of software. It was ahead of its time, and many groups would have liked to pick it up, use it, and improve it. By trying to from the beginning to squeeze every possible penny out of it, IBM squeezed the life out of it instead. Good software needs to evolve, and it cannot evolve in the face of greedy licensing arrangements.
(but really, which would you rather have? I vote for beer)
I vote speech. I buy software all the time, I have no problem with paying for what I use. I'm happy to do so when the product is good. But it's annoying not having the source code to tinker with. I rather pay money for software that includes source that receive for no money software with no source...
Of course, if you'd asked me a few years ago when I had no money, I might have answered differently...:)
What happens if someone gets GPL'd software, then releases it to me under a different license
They can't. I have a copy of Microsoft Windows, but I can't license it to you under the terms of the BSD license. Or the GPL. In fact, I can't licence it to you at all! Why? It's not my code! I have to have ownership over the code in order to license it to anyone under any circumstances.
since I have never been bound by the GPL for this particular piece of software, couldn't I just release it under whatever license I wanted (in accordance with the license under which my GPL-violating friend gave me the software)?
Assuming the original software was released under the GPL and only under the GPL, then the GPL is the ONLY license its available to you under. By claiming you're not bound by the GPL, you are in fact claiming you have no license to the software at all, so in fact you're committing piracy.
Furthermore, if I was interrogated as to the identity of the GPL-violator from whom I got the software, would I be under any legal obligation to reveal it?
IANAL, but since under the circumstances you've described, you're in possession of stolen goods, I would assume the same rules apply as when cops find you in possession of physical hot merchandise, whatever those rules may be.
It seems to me this is a rather easy way of circumventing the GPL (and if it's not, you could always download the software in a country where software licenses don't apply and re-release it any way you like)
Within that country, perhaps, but not back into this one. You still don't have any license to the software, and by releasing it yourself under a different license you're probably committing fraud in addition to piracy...
Funny, that's exactly what made Babylon 5 different from most sci-fi shows. Most of them stink up a storm since they lack anything remotely resembling plot or character development...
Actually, that would be backwards. The way you're stating it, "Lara Croft is Angeline Jolie" would be correct if Croft was a persona created by Jolie. But since Croft has been around since before Jolie was slated for her role, the phrasing needs to be reversed. Croft is not a cybermanifestation of Jolie, Jolie is a physical manifestation of Croft. Thus, Jolie is Croft, not the other way around.
Actually, my friend's wife really digs Linux because of the penguins. It's true! She's got a penguin tee-shirt, one of those little stuffed penguins, penguin stickers,...
* The back button no longer functions as a history dropdown. This is a very convenient feature, and downright necessary when theprevious page has a redirect to the current page.
* A home button. I'm definitely not the first to comment about this.
Both of these are present on the "Go" menu on Netscape 4.72 (I know, since I always immediately turn of the toolbar on Netscape, since it contains NO feature that's not already present elsewhere, so it just wastes screen space). Does 6PR1 have a "Go" menu? Try that if it does.
Could be. That stupid waste of space called a toolbar is the first thing I turn off in both Netscape and IE. Why waste the screen space on buttons you have to drag you mouse halfway across the screen to get to and click on when the exact same functionality and more is available by simply right-clicking without moving the mouse? Millions of users would suddenly become far more productive and find their browser easier to use if they were forced to run with the toolbar off for a weeThen again, maybe it's my taste.k.
Excuse me? QT 2 what? You mean the MFC ripoff is better than...
Huh? In what way does the Qt API resemble the MFC API? MFC's API is a very thin layer over the Win32 API, it doesn't really abstract away from it at all. Thus, it's absolutely horid to work with. Whether Qt's API is great to work with or not is a matter of opinion, but you'd have to be brain dead to think it resembles the MFC API in any significant way. It's certainly not a rip-off of it. The look and feel may be, but the API isn't.
Though I'd agree that QT smells a bit better han MFC...
Not sure what this means, but I suspect you're babbling about the "look & feel" of the toolkits, which has nothing to do with what this thread was about: the API of the toolkits.
Hydrogen can not fuse with itself, it has only a proton, and so can not bond to another proton.
This is false. In fact, the proton-proton chain is the primary method of fusion powering our Sun. In the unstable nucleus formed by two fusing protons, one of them ends up emitting a positron, thus loosing its charge and becoming a neutron (it also emits a neutrino). The new deuterium nucleus then fuses with another proton, becoming 3He (He with only one neutron), and a gamma ray is emitted. Then two 3He nuclei fuse, forming ordinary He and emitting two protons.
...small object like the Moon has too little gravity to hold an atmosphere. Err, why? It's not like you need 1G to hold 1 atmosphere. Venus has slightly less gravity than Earth, but her air pressure is 90 atmospheres! Titan, one of Saturn's moons, is roughly the size of our moon, but it's atmosphere is 60% thicker than ours. Why, when we KNOW about moon-sized objects with thick atmospheres, do we say a moon-sized object has too little gravity to hold an atmosphere?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with that completely, but I'm curious about why you said it. Are you attempting to imply the Macintosh forces you to stick with the default environment? This simply isn't true. Now, people who don't have the necessary knowledge to modify things are forced to stick with the default, but that's every bit as true with Linux as it is with the Macintosh. People with the know-how can make either look and work the way the want. Admittedly, the learning curve to do this on a Mac is steeper than on Linux, but that's the price you pay for making the baseline easier. The Macintosh has always demanded more of its programmers in order to make life easier for its users. I don't see the problem with this...
--
Back when I was a Macintosh developer (starting in the reign of System 6.0.3 and ending at System 7.1), the Macintosh used forked files. Is this use of directories for apps in addition to, or a replacement for, forked files? I kinda liked forked files, but they could be a pain at times -- I can see how this would be a big improvement.
--
--
Not so. MS Office for KDE is quite a bit more likely, especially if there's an MS breakup but even if there isn't. MS is NOT utterly opposed to writing software for other platforms. They're not entirely stupid. If there becomes a significant market for it, it'll eventually happen...
--
--
What follows is an excerpt from "Programming as if People Mattered: Friendly Programs, Software Engineering, and Other Noble Delusions", by Nathaniel S. Borenstein.
The Andrew Window Manager
An interesting constrast to the UNIX success story is the less well known but far more typical tale of how the institutionalized greed of the men in suits managed to kill another promising piece of software, the Andrew Window Manager. In contrast to the UNIX story, which occupies a key role in the history of computer software, the Andrew Window Manager is nothing more than a footnote in that history, a minor story that has been quietly repeated many times without anyone ever seeming to learn anything from it.
The Andrew Window Manager (WM) is a program that, as its name implies, manages windows on a computer's screen. It was one of the first network-oriented window managers to run under the UNIX operating system on a scientific workstation with a bitmap display. It was fast, easy to use, and reasonably reliable. Among those who used this class of machine, it generated intense interest, and a steady stream of visitors came to its birthplace, Carnegie Melon University (CMU), to see it.
However, WM was not owned by CMU. It was developed as part of the Andrew Project, a joint venture of IBM and CMU. Part of the agreement that defined the joint venture stated that IBM would own the software, but that "reasonable" licensing arrangements would be available.
Unfortunately, there are many definitions of "reasonable." To a university, a licensing arrangement like the standard UNIX license was "reasonable." To IBM, such low-cost licensing sounded insane. While IBM and CMU argued over licensing arrangements, the people waiting for licenses got impatient.
One such group, from MIT, eventually gave up on WM entirely, and built their own window system instead. That system, which they called X Windows, has the traditional evolutionary relationship with its predecessor: it did everything WM could do, and more. Moreover, the MIT group managed to align itself with a multivendor consortium that funded the continued development of X Windows as a nonproprietary, easily licensed standard window system. Within a few years, IBM found that nobody even wanted to license WM any more, and that IBM was in danger of being entirely left out of an emerging standard. With little choice, IBM embraced the X Windows standard, and CMU began converting all of the Andrew application software from WM to X.
What is most notable here is that WM was a very promising and useful piece of software. It was ahead of its time, and many groups would have liked to pick it up, use it, and improve it. By trying to from the beginning to squeeze every possible penny out of it, IBM squeezed the life out of it instead. Good software needs to evolve, and it cannot evolve in the face of greedy licensing arrangements.
--
--
I vote speech. I buy software all the time, I have no problem with paying for what I use. I'm happy to do so when the product is good. But it's annoying not having the source code to tinker with. I rather pay money for software that includes source that receive for no money software with no source...
Of course, if you'd asked me a few years ago when I had no money, I might have answered differently... :)
--
Yes. Let's look more carefully.
What happens if someone gets GPL'd software, then releases it to me under a different license
They can't. I have a copy of Microsoft Windows, but I can't license it to you under the terms of the BSD license. Or the GPL. In fact, I can't licence it to you at all! Why? It's not my code! I have to have ownership over the code in order to license it to anyone under any circumstances.
since I have never been bound by the GPL for this particular piece of software, couldn't I just release it under whatever license I wanted (in accordance with the license under which my GPL-violating friend gave me the software)?
Assuming the original software was released under the GPL and only under the GPL, then the GPL is the ONLY license its available to you under. By claiming you're not bound by the GPL, you are in fact claiming you have no license to the software at all, so in fact you're committing piracy.
Furthermore, if I was interrogated as to the identity of the GPL-violator from whom I got the software, would I be under any legal obligation to reveal it?
IANAL, but since under the circumstances you've described, you're in possession of stolen goods, I would assume the same rules apply as when cops find you in possession of physical hot merchandise, whatever those rules may be.
It seems to me this is a rather easy way of circumventing the GPL (and if it's not, you could always download the software in a country where software licenses don't apply and re-release it any way you like)
Within that country, perhaps, but not back into this one. You still don't have any license to the software, and by releasing it yourself under a different license you're probably committing fraud in addition to piracy...
--
beat;
}
Been programming in Pascal a lot? In C, even functions that take no parameters still require the parentheses, thus: beat(); not: beat;
--
--
--
--
Anyone stupid enough to ever say "X only shows Y" when talking about human behavior is grossly underestimating the complexity of humans.
--
--
--
--
* A home button. I'm definitely not the first to comment about this.
Both of these are present on the "Go" menu on Netscape 4.72 (I know, since I always immediately turn of the toolbar on Netscape, since it contains NO feature that's not already present elsewhere, so it just wastes screen space). Does 6PR1 have a "Go" menu? Try that if it does.
--
Err, sorry, runaway paste.
s/weeThen again, maybe it's my taste.k/week/
--
Could be. That stupid waste of space called a toolbar is the first thing I turn off in both Netscape and IE. Why waste the screen space on buttons you have to drag you mouse halfway across the screen to get to and click on when the exact same functionality and more is available by simply right-clicking without moving the mouse? Millions of users would suddenly become far more productive and find their browser easier to use if they were forced to run with the toolbar off for a weeThen again, maybe it's my taste.k.
--
Huh? In what way does the Qt API resemble the MFC API? MFC's API is a very thin layer over the Win32 API, it doesn't really abstract away from it at all. Thus, it's absolutely horid to work with. Whether Qt's API is great to work with or not is a matter of opinion, but you'd have to be brain dead to think it resembles the MFC API in any significant way. It's certainly not a rip-off of it. The look and feel may be, but the API isn't.
Though I'd agree that QT smells a bit better han MFC...
Not sure what this means, but I suspect you're babbling about the "look & feel" of the toolkits, which has nothing to do with what this thread was about: the API of the toolkits.
--
This is false. In fact, the proton-proton chain is the primary method of fusion powering our Sun. In the unstable nucleus formed by two fusing protons, one of them ends up emitting a positron, thus loosing its charge and becoming a neutron (it also emits a neutrino). The new deuterium nucleus then fuses with another proton, becoming 3He (He with only one neutron), and a gamma ray is emitted. Then two 3He nuclei fuse, forming ordinary He and emitting two protons.
--
--
(For the record, it's "hypocrisy"...)
--
--