Sorry, the 'kate plugin' is actually an extension to Kate's plugin implementation to allow programmers to write plugins for kate using Qt# (or KDE# when it comes out;-) It is a similar problem to the DCOP bindings...
Well Gavin emailed Joseph and Andreas first. Then he emailed me and that's where he got the quotes. I pointed him to Miguel for questions about Mono. I think he mistated Miguel a few times too (read: Mono has 15,000 libraries) LOL
Then he gave me a call last night and we talked. I explained a few things. Later that night he sent me the draft and called. He explained that he had 15 minutes for me to correct anything. I emailed him some suggestions later that night, but he apparently didn't get them in time.
Oh well, the point of the article is that we are in the process of adding some cool bindings to KDE not just the Qt# ones, but also some DCOP as well as Joseph attempting to extend Kate to allow plugins written in Qt#.
I stand by the quotes though. I think a Mono binding is good for KDE, because it allows multi-language support through one binding. To put another way, it adds C# _plus_ MonoBasic and all the other languages Mono and DotGNU support.
It also holds the promise of more apps for KDE if some windows developers are intrigued. I think that's a winning combination:-)
This is true. But as the article states we are working on DCOP bindings and the Kate plugin. When Qt# is in a solid state, we'll extend to include bindings for kdelib.
This is a very interesting idea. I suppose this will happen sooner or later when we start wrapping SWF with Qt#.
Just so I understand? Are you suggesting a completely new toolkit (read: not Windows.Forms) that the Ximian/KDE/GNOME communities would develop together, in C# and would have gtk/qt backends?
You have been misinformed. There is 'Mono' aka C# code in KDE's cvs. I repeat there is C# code in KDE's cvs and there has been for quite sometime. Have a look in the kdebindings module:-)
Re:Using multiple languages with the Mono framewor
on
KDE Adopting Mono
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well some of those more 'exotic' languages are already being implemented with Mono. Like Logo for instance has 'MonoLogo':-)
As far as mixing languages, it's quite easy. If you want to mix the libraries that you were referring to then there would have to be bindings for those libraries. But any library that Mono or DotGNU supports can be used by any language that Mono or DotGNU supports.
You are right. I tried to correct some of Gavin's statements such as: 'Qt is a language'
LOL, but I was in the middle of dinner when he called and he didn't have time to wait...
KDE is not 'switching' to Mono nor has KDE 'adopted' Mono, but some developers are attempting to include support for Mono in KDE. That's it. It is a another choice for the developer and IMHO a very _cool_ choice:-)
Damn, are you a dense motherfucker! The poster was trying to point out that the guy didn't _learn_ a thing, because he assumed the teacher would "play fair". Well, guess what, as he should have learned by the way he played the game, life _isn't_ fair! The teacher didn't play fair with his grade, just as he didn't play fair with the game. Ironic isn't it?!
Hey asshole, you really should quit replying to your own post with such surreptitious praise;-)
The above post was of course a response to the slashdot quote, not the article, but whilst we're here let's take a look at claim 1 shall we:
1. A computerized method for a digital rights management operating system comprising: assuming a trusted identity;
Hmm, this looks familiar. How about a login authentication process found on any unix system.
executing a trusted application;
Perhaps a nice daemon with root permission upon boot.
loading rights-managed data into memory for access by the trusted application; and
Howabout some 'rights managed data' aka, a regular unix file with some data of use to the daemon.
protecting the rights-managed data from access by an untrusted program while the trusted application is executing. "
Well, the 'rights-managed data' can be locked, whilst it's access is protected by the normal file permission set.
Doesn't this sound familiar? It should to anyone that's used a form of Unix this decade.
Re:Uhmm, sorry! Lot's of prior art here ;-)
on
MS Palladium Patent
·
· Score: 2
You seem to place great significance upon the term 'rights managed data'. I fail to see the difference between this and every file on any unix system! Every file has a corresponding set of permissions. So the only real leap you must take is to declare that files contain data. Not much of a leap there;-)
Uhmm, sorry! Lot's of prior art here ;-)
on
MS Palladium Patent
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory."
Hmmm. Seems to me that this 'art' has been around since the beginning of Unix. Hell, Microsoft has been providing a form of this 'art' with NT and 2000 for quite sometime. It's called permissions! And what would you call the recent advent of the NSA's Secure Linux? Administrators have been 'refusing to load the untrusted program into memory' for quite sometime to protect data... The only thing different about this scheme is Microsoft will be instituting a system where the company itself is root/administrator and the previous system admins are relegated to subordinate positions.
"The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data."
Ahh, this has also has seemingly been done since time began;-) For instance, with Unices I can restrict the user to reading the data, writing the data, executing the data or some combination thereof... Thus Unix has been able to restrict 'a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data'.
Exactly. You've just pointed out why the current copyright/patent/trademark system is busting at the system. The system relies upon artificially/legislatively induced demand. With the advent of cheap digital copying devices... aka 'computers', this demand is waning.
These ridiculous proposed laws floated by the RIAA/MPAA crowd are a great example of how absurd the entire copyright/patent/trademark system has become. IMHO, it's almost time to scrap the whole thing.
I'm sorry but you are _way_ off here. If Microsoft is really betting on making alot of money directly with.NET then all I've got to say is good luck! Sure they can make money, but the corporation/profits will only be a tiny fraction of there current self. And do you honestly think that Office 2005 will even matter anymore? I hate to break it to you, but the office software market is only going to decline/homogenize. The webservices crap has yet to materialize and no one is making a ton of money there. IMHO, the technology/software sector is going to grow ever more boring over the coming years as linux/OS/FS moves in and commoditizes the market. At the very least, if you're looking for exciting developments, do not look at office software for chrissakes;-)
Using the content producers logic there is an 'implied contract' between the actual advertiser and the viewer to buy the product advertised. Afterall, if the viewer has entered into a contract with the content producer, by the implied understanding that he/she will watch the advertisements, then it would stand to reason that by watching the advertisement he/she has entered into a contract with the advertiser, by the implied understanding that he/she will purchase the advertised product.
If you don't want to call it XFree86/Samba/Apache/OpenSSH/GNU/Linux... (insert every other app you use or distribute here) then write your own damn (insert every other app you use or distribute here).
These are at the moment the applications needed by _most_ distributions to make there Operating Systems useful/marketable by the average user.
Or in other words try using/selling a distribution of Linux without them. What's that? No success? To bad, if you subscribe to Stallman's logic then you are ethically bound to including the name of every major application/API into the name of the system.
"They did not add the OS, they added the kernel. Big difference. Remove all of the GNU tools and what can you do with the kernel?? What shell would you use??"
Perhaps one of the BSD shells.
"The kernel != the OS."
Ok, then define 'OS'. Would you have us believe like Microsoft, that it's whatever the FSF dictates as the 'OS'? The GNU toolchain is a _very_ important factor making up a modern Linux distribution, but there are _many_ pieces just as important as the GNU tools. Take XFree86 for example. Most, but not all, users find this software indispensable and would label it part of the OS... Should we then call it XFree86/GNU/Linux?? The same can be said of programs such as lilo, ubiquitous kernel drivers, vim, SSH, apache, samba.
"The stupidity of this statement lies in the fact that you have incorrectly id'ed the kernel as the OS. I assume that you consider yourself technically literate, so why do you confuse the kernel with the OS??"
So, once again how would _you_ define OS? I believe most technically literate people would agree with this definition (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893, sid9_gci212714,00.html), which fits 'linux the kernel' perfectly!
I understand that you were confused about the EM reference, but I specifically stated that the postulate has been _extrapolated_ to cover _all_ physical laws... And I'm not talking about human theories such as Newton's, rather it is a statement about the very nature of our universe, ie that this universe obeys some definite patterned behaviour and that these patterns do not change from observer to observer / location to location.
BTW, you mentioned that Newton's theories only held for non-accelerating reference frames... You are correct, but another word for that is an 'inertial' reference frame, which is covered in the principle of relativity quoted above;-)
What I am trying to get across here is something else, namely Einstein, knowingly or not, was detailing a basic assumption that we have now recognized as being indispensable to our view of nature/science. If the laws of this universe were non-uniform and had a random, unpredictable variable embedded into _the_law_itself_ (read: the law itself actually changes) WRT observers/location then the whole scientific method would necessarily break down.
Ok, this is starting to get annoying... What I am talking about has _nothing_ to do with EM fields or Maxwell's equations.
Stated yet another way the postulate states, "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity." This is a basic a priori assumption without which science becomes untenable. If you do not understand that then there is no reason to further discuss this.
I do not think I am confused at all. You are not considering the implications of the first postulate of special relativity. It is much more than a didactic tool to teach special relativity. What I said was true, it is widely regarded, and if you look into it you'll see why, as _the_ basic assumption upon which _all_ science is based.
You said, "The one assumption a scientist makes is that what his senses are telling him is "basically" accurate." This is part of what the first postulate is saying, just much more rigourously. It is imperative for the scientist to believe that the laws which govern physical phenomena are everywhere uniform and do not change from observer to observer. This is what the first postulate specifies.
You said, "When/if observations start contradicting this assumption, the model will be changed." If this were shown to be false, then the whole cookie crumbles and we live in a magical unscientifically explainable world. The model would indeed be changed, but science would no longer be the tool we use to verify and shape that model.
About use of the term 'scientifically proven': I agree. When I said that I was only pointing out that these assumptions are completely outside the realm of science. They are by definition a priori.
I would also agree that there is nothing but faith, hence my declaration that it is faith all the way down;-) When you take any axiomatic/dogmatic system of belief whether it be science, math, or religion, and drill down to the root of the system you will be left with nothing but faith. This is just supreme skepticism. It can not be proven to me that I will die, nor have I been shown any evidence, other than circumstantial, that I was born, yet I have faith that these are true.
You said, "Remember faith is that which is believed without evidence." I would say that if you explore any 'evidence' deeply enough you will find pure faith. Cheers!
Just to play devil's advocate, do you now reverse your belief in Einstein's first postulate and accordingly, the entire discipline of science in light of the pyschotropicly induced non-uniform meter...:-)
Like it or not, your belief in science is a product of your faith that the basic assumptions of science are correct. Obviously, it can not be scientifically proven that these assumptions are correct, so we are left with the _faith_ that they indeed are. Now, we can feel smug in this faith because of our astounding success in predicting the behaviour of the physical world, but I submit that it's still faith nontheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, the 'kate plugin' is actually an extension to Kate's plugin implementation to allow programmers to write plugins for kate using Qt# (or KDE# when it comes out ;-) It is a similar problem to the DCOP bindings...
Well Gavin emailed Joseph and Andreas first. Then he emailed me and that's where he got the quotes. I pointed him to Miguel for questions about Mono. I think he mistated Miguel a few times too (read: Mono has 15,000 libraries) LOL
:-)
Then he gave me a call last night and we talked. I explained a few things. Later that night he sent me the draft and called. He explained that he had 15 minutes for me to correct anything. I emailed him some suggestions later that night, but he apparently didn't get them in time.
Oh well, the point of the article is that we are in the process of adding some cool bindings to KDE not just the Qt# ones, but also some DCOP as well as Joseph attempting to extend Kate to allow plugins written in Qt#.
I stand by the quotes though. I think a Mono binding is good for KDE, because it allows multi-language support through one binding. To put another way, it adds C# _plus_ MonoBasic and all the other languages Mono and DotGNU support.
It also holds the promise of more apps for KDE if some windows developers are intrigued. I think that's a winning combination
Adam
This is true. But as the article states we are working on DCOP bindings and the Kate plugin. When Qt# is in a solid state, we'll extend to include bindings for kdelib.
This is a very interesting idea. I suppose this will happen sooner or later when we start wrapping SWF with Qt#.
Just so I understand? Are you suggesting a completely new toolkit (read: not Windows.Forms) that the Ximian/KDE/GNOME communities would develop together, in C# and would have gtk/qt backends?
You have been misinformed. There is 'Mono' aka C# code in KDE's cvs. I repeat there is C# code in KDE's cvs and there has been for quite sometime. Have a look in the kdebindings module :-)
Well some of those more 'exotic' languages are already being implemented with Mono. Like Logo for instance has 'MonoLogo' :-)
As far as mixing languages, it's quite easy. If you want to mix the libraries that you were referring to then there would have to be bindings for those libraries. But any library that Mono or DotGNU supports can be used by any language that Mono or DotGNU supports.
You are right. I tried to correct some of Gavin's statements such as: 'Qt is a language'
:-)
LOL, but I was in the middle of dinner when he called and he didn't have time to wait...
KDE is not 'switching' to Mono nor has KDE 'adopted' Mono, but some developers are attempting to include support for Mono in KDE. That's it. It is a another choice for the developer and IMHO a very _cool_ choice
Cheers,
Adam
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949241.html
Damn, are you a dense motherfucker! The poster was trying to point out that the guy didn't _learn_ a thing, because he assumed the teacher would "play fair". Well, guess what, as he should have learned by the way he played the game, life _isn't_ fair! The teacher didn't play fair with his grade, just as he didn't play fair with the game. Ironic isn't it?!
Hey asshole, you really should quit replying to your own post with such surreptitious praise ;-)
The above post was of course a response to the slashdot quote, not the article, but whilst we're here let's take a look at claim 1 shall we:
1. A computerized method for a digital rights management operating system comprising:
assuming a trusted identity;
Hmm, this looks familiar. How about a login authentication process found on any unix system.
executing a trusted application;
Perhaps a nice daemon with root permission upon boot.
loading rights-managed data into memory for access by the trusted application; and
Howabout some 'rights managed data' aka, a regular unix file with some data of use to the daemon.
protecting the rights-managed data from access by an untrusted program while the trusted application is executing. "
Well, the 'rights-managed data' can be locked, whilst it's access is protected by the normal file permission set.
Doesn't this sound familiar? It should to anyone that's used a form of Unix this decade.
You seem to place great significance upon the term 'rights managed data'. I fail to see the difference between this and every file on any unix system! Every file has a corresponding set of permissions. So the only real leap you must take is to declare that files contain data. Not much of a leap there ;-)
"The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises: refusing to load the untrusted program into memory."
;-) For instance, with Unices I can restrict the user to reading the data, writing the data, executing the data or some combination thereof... Thus Unix has been able to restrict 'a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data'.
Hmmm. Seems to me that this 'art' has been around since the beginning of Unix. Hell, Microsoft has been providing a form of this 'art' with NT and 2000 for quite sometime. It's called permissions! And what would you call the recent advent of the NSA's Secure Linux? Administrators have been 'refusing to load the untrusted program into memory' for quite sometime to protect data... The only thing different about this scheme is Microsoft will be instituting a system where the company itself is root/administrator and the previous system admins are relegated to subordinate positions.
"The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data."
Ahh, this has also has seemingly been done since time began
Cheers!
Exactly. You've just pointed out why the current copyright/patent/trademark system is busting at the system. The system relies upon artificially/legislatively induced demand. With the advent of cheap digital copying devices... aka 'computers', this demand is waning.
These ridiculous proposed laws floated by the RIAA/MPAA crowd are a great example of how absurd the entire copyright/patent/trademark system has become. IMHO, it's almost time to scrap the whole thing.
Can you back up your assertion that the article itself mentions how piracy affects new cd sales?
The quoted text refers to used CD sales, which last time I checked, do not infringe on _any_ copyright or constitute so-called 'piracy'.
I'm sorry but you are _way_ off here. If Microsoft is really betting on making alot of money directly with .NET then all I've got to say is good luck! Sure they can make money, but the corporation/profits will only be a tiny fraction of there current self. And do you honestly think that Office 2005 will even matter anymore? I hate to break it to you, but the office software market is only going to decline/homogenize. The webservices crap has yet to materialize and no one is making a ton of money there. IMHO, the technology/software sector is going to grow ever more boring over the coming years as linux/OS/FS moves in and commoditizes the market. At the very least, if you're looking for exciting developments, do not look at office software for chrissakes ;-)
Using the content producers logic there is an 'implied contract' between the actual advertiser and the viewer to buy the product advertised. Afterall, if the viewer has entered into a contract with the content producer, by the implied understanding that he/she will watch the advertisements, then it would stand to reason that by watching the advertisement he/she has entered into a contract with the advertiser, by the implied understanding that he/she will purchase the advertised product.
Implied Contract1: Watching shows --> Watching advertisements.
Implied Contract2: Watching advertisements --> Purchasing products.
Implied understanding justification1: Consumer understands that content producers make there money through advertisements.
Implied understanding justification2: Consumer understands that advertisers make there money through the purchase of advertised products.
Then again, WHERE IS THE CONTRACT? I never shook a hand or spoke with anyone about my obligation to watch commercials.
You truly don't understand do you?
If you don't want to call it XFree86/Samba/Apache/OpenSSH/GNU/Linux... (insert every other app you use or distribute here) then write your own damn (insert every other app you use or distribute here).
These are at the moment the applications needed by _most_ distributions to make there Operating Systems useful/marketable by the average user.
Or in other words try using/selling a distribution of Linux without them. What's that? No success? To bad, if you subscribe to Stallman's logic then you are ethically bound to including the name of every major application/API into the name of the system.
Still think Stallman is right?
I hope you get the picture.
"They did not add the OS, they added the kernel. Big difference. Remove all of the GNU tools and what can you do with the kernel?? What shell would you use??"
, sid9_gci212714,00.html), which fits 'linux the kernel' perfectly!
Perhaps one of the BSD shells.
"The kernel != the OS."
Ok, then define 'OS'. Would you have us believe like Microsoft, that it's whatever the FSF dictates as the 'OS'? The GNU toolchain is a _very_ important factor making up a modern Linux distribution, but there are _many_ pieces just as important as the GNU tools. Take XFree86 for example. Most, but not all, users find this software indispensable and would label it part of the OS... Should we then call it XFree86/GNU/Linux?? The same can be said of programs such as lilo, ubiquitous kernel drivers, vim, SSH, apache, samba.
"The stupidity of this statement lies in the fact that you have incorrectly id'ed the kernel as the OS. I assume that you consider yourself technically literate, so why do you confuse the kernel with the OS??"
So, once again how would _you_ define OS? I believe most technically literate people would agree with this definition (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893
According to the article, the lenses do not actually touch the cornea... ;-)
I understand that you were confused about the EM reference, but I specifically stated that the postulate has been _extrapolated_ to cover _all_ physical laws... And I'm not talking about human theories such as Newton's, rather it is a statement about the very nature of our universe, ie that this universe obeys some definite patterned behaviour and that these patterns do not change from observer to observer / location to location.
;-)
BTW, you mentioned that Newton's theories only held for non-accelerating reference frames... You are correct, but another word for that is an 'inertial' reference frame, which is covered in the principle of relativity quoted above
What I am trying to get across here is something else, namely Einstein, knowingly or not, was detailing a basic assumption that we have now recognized as being indispensable to our view of nature/science. If the laws of this universe were non-uniform and had a random, unpredictable variable embedded into _the_law_itself_ (read: the law itself actually changes) WRT observers/location then the whole scientific method would necessarily break down.
Ok, this is starting to get annoying... What I am talking about has _nothing_ to do with EM fields or Maxwell's equations.
Stated yet another way the postulate states, "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity." This is a basic a priori assumption without which science becomes untenable. If you do not understand that then there is no reason to further discuss this.
I do not think I am confused at all. You are not considering the implications of the first postulate of special relativity. It is much more than a didactic tool to teach special relativity. What I said was true, it is widely regarded, and if you look into it you'll see why, as _the_ basic assumption upon which _all_ science is based.
You said, "The one assumption a scientist makes is that what his senses are telling him is "basically" accurate." This is part of what the first postulate is saying, just much more rigourously. It is imperative for the scientist to believe that the laws which govern physical phenomena are everywhere uniform and do not change from observer to observer. This is what the first postulate specifies.
You said, "When/if observations start contradicting this assumption, the model will be changed." If this were shown to be false, then the whole cookie crumbles and we live in a magical unscientifically explainable world. The model would indeed be changed, but science would no longer be the tool we use to verify and shape that model.
About use of the term 'scientifically proven': I agree. When I said that I was only pointing out that these assumptions are completely outside the realm of science. They are by definition a priori.
;-) When you take any axiomatic/dogmatic system of belief whether it be science, math, or religion, and drill down to the root of the system you will be left with nothing but faith. This is just supreme skepticism. It can not be proven to me that I will die, nor have I been shown any evidence, other than circumstantial, that I was born, yet I have faith that these are true.
I would also agree that there is nothing but faith, hence my declaration that it is faith all the way down
You said, "Remember faith is that which is believed without evidence." I would say that if you explore any 'evidence' deeply enough you will find pure faith. Cheers!
Just to play devil's advocate, do you now reverse your belief in Einstein's first postulate and accordingly, the entire discipline of science in light of the pyschotropicly induced non-uniform meter... :-)
Like it or not, your belief in science is a product of your faith that the basic assumptions of science are correct. Obviously, it can not be scientifically proven that these assumptions are correct, so we are left with the _faith_ that they indeed are. Now, we can feel smug in this faith because of our astounding success in predicting the behaviour of the physical world, but I submit that it's still faith nontheless.