Clang will become the standard on linux too I am sure. It is opensource, and the code has a nice modular architecture (gcc architecture is directly from hell, good luck if you want to reuse parts of it for something different, e.g. to create a static analyzer or a refactoring tool).
Also compare template error messages between gcc/VC++ and Clang. It is just no competition.
Finally a modular compiler chain so people with more complex problems can adapt the stack as needed. I am happy the 2 monolithic monstrosities (gcc & VC++) we had for at least 10 years too long are finally dying.
I spent the past four years of my life developing this tool for engine combustion, which exists primarily as software. If I had spent the past four years developing a better pitchfork, would you deny me a right to a patent on that tool? What is the intrinsic difference? They are both tools.
For me there are only be 2 cases were I could live with patents:
1) if R&D costs required are in the billions
2) if it requires such genius that only a single person (or 10, whatever) on this planet could invent it.
2) is not verifiable, so that cannot be a criteria
1) for medicine and such, but I'm sure it would work without patents too. But I would only allow it if they can prove that it really cost billions.
If you have the best product you don't fear the competition. You fear patents. Normally the inferior competition uses patents against the superior newcomer. I wouldn't be sure your product would not be sued by patents you have no idea even exist (and probably are very broad and generic you would never think they could apply to you).
So stop all patents now! Could be better even for your case.
See other posts about links to many groklaw.net posts which are about why they think you are wrong. There are many posts dealing with you... E.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article...
Also maybe Oracle can win that API copyrightability dispute, but that is because the Judges have no clue (except Alsup) (Cooperations are people and such, yeah right).
That still does not change that you talked about billion dollars, and come on, even if they lose you don't really believe it will be in this order of magnitude finally, are you?
You stand on the shoulder of giants. What if those would have patented their stuff.
Your work would not be possible.
And all algorithms are math. Math is not patentable in the US. At least in theory. All software patents are a perversion of this rule. Only possible because Judges have no idea about math or software.
If all the smart people did patent all ideas no innovation would be possible at all. All the papers you reference in your paper, imagine all those would be patented. You would be f#cked and sued.
So you think rangeCheck is hard to program and deserves any protection?
Anybody I know was for Google, and anybody that I know was right that the Judge will be for Google. Name one public programming figure that was for Oracle. Just one.
When it was clear that Judge Alsup in Oracle vs Google can program Java, how the *#*# could you still think Oracle would get its huge victory? Do you understand that you look like a shill for such things?
Any commenter that knows about programming said in this very moment that this will become a monumental defeat for Oracle, only you still believed in Oracle (you were very wrong as we know).
It was so funny when the Judge explained that any teenager could program a range check [bool check(val, min, max) {return val >= min && val <= max;}] and the Oracle lawyer looked like a complete idiot.
Did you read groklaw.net and what do you think about it, e.g. do you admit that it's predictions were mostly more accurate than yours and did you look at the cases where your opinion was painted as clearly wrong there?
Tell them Blender Institute is the new secret SuperPAC, but pssst, they should not tell anybody, it's secret. Just write checks for some millions, the rest is done by "the institute".
https://cloud.blender.org/goos...
For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal;-)
Of course there are also cheaper deals.
The fun part is, that Qt could be the savior for Microsoft, because few developers want to create cool stuff for Windows 8/Phone. With Qt developers could develop for all platforms at once, so even Windows Phone would get the cool Apps. The joke is in the Apps is a lot of money, with Qt Nokia may could have taken a good part of the cake if they would have thrown the resources at that (and mobile Linux). Developers are lazy, if you can write one App for all platforms with your framework, your framework wins. You control it, you win.
Nokia is ripped off like nobody before got ripped
on
Nokia Feeds a Patent Troll
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Was there any bidding process? I assume not. Just some very shady deal in the interest of Microsoft only (FEDs should check if there are contracts saying Vringo cannot sue Microsoft, that would kind of prove that Elop still only works for Microsoft).
I think the Nokia shareholders are getting ripped off by CEO Elop and the board, I hope someone sues them soon, before it is too late. Nokia is ripped off like nobody before got ripped off. The following text shows how major decisions by Elop (ex Microsoft) are only in the interest of Microsoft and not at all in the interest of Nokia.
And all those saying Nokia was already dead when Elop came, you are shills or blind, read it too. E.g. start reading the first âoeREASONsâ in the link. They were still twice their competitors when Elop came, alone in China they could have as many customers as Apple has worldwide by a exclusive deal (bound to MeeGo). Distance to Apple was growing at that time. All systematically destroyed in the following months. I don't say they were super fine, but they were still a monster, the elephant in the room. No outside force could move it nearly as fast as Elop has. Now they are an empty shell.
If you have time, read this. It's very long but good (19 reasons why Elop should be fired, you can skip the intro to REASON 1 if you are lazy).
No way the CEO AND the board do not see the logic behind most of these 19 reasons. This is a scam, there must be a huge reward for most of them on some secret channel. Money? Girls? Power?
Anonymous please give us their Email and transform Elops and Balmer's phones into bugs that we can hear what they are talking in private. Jail them all.
I think this once more shows how amateurish software is developed at microsoft**. So I would bet some money that there is a second 0-day flaw that is used which does not require to change the password of the user. I don't believe that this password was brute forced, because even microsoft should (now) be able to prevent brute forcing. Or are they not even able to achieve that? Because his account was new it means that many attempts to brute force would have been done in a short period of time, any reasonable system today prevents that...
**I have a little experience with microsoft because we had to support IE in a project. But how IE handles private keys on smart cards is not secure at all (all sessions stay active even card is removed, which was a absolute no-go in this project). Answer from microsoft after needing weeks (and much communication overhead) to confirm the flaw: it will not be fixed before IE 11.
Dear Microsoft Support,
I own 100'000 hotmail accounts (now), but I don't consider them save anymore. Can I please return them? Would you mind exchanging them for a GMail account?
Thanks
Slashdot Mirror
Clang will become the standard on linux too I am sure. It is opensource, and the code has a nice modular architecture (gcc architecture is directly from hell, good luck if you want to reuse parts of it for something different, e.g. to create a static analyzer or a refactoring tool).
Also compare template error messages between gcc/VC++ and Clang. It is just no competition.
Finally a modular compiler chain so people with more complex problems can adapt the stack as needed. I am happy the 2 monolithic monstrosities (gcc & VC++) we had for at least 10 years too long are finally dying.
I spent the past four years of my life developing this tool for engine combustion, which exists primarily as software. If I had spent the past four years developing a better pitchfork, would you deny me a right to a patent on that tool? What is the intrinsic difference? They are both tools.
For me there are only be 2 cases were I could live with patents:
1) if R&D costs required are in the billions
2) if it requires such genius that only a single person (or 10, whatever) on this planet could invent it.
2) is not verifiable, so that cannot be a criteria
1) for medicine and such, but I'm sure it would work without patents too. But I would only allow it if they can prove that it really cost billions.
If you have the best product you don't fear the competition. You fear patents. Normally the inferior competition uses patents against the superior newcomer. I wouldn't be sure your product would not be sued by patents you have no idea even exist (and probably are very broad and generic you would never think they could apply to you).
So stop all patents now! Could be better even for your case.
Groklaw never made any prediction whatsoever
See other posts about links to many groklaw.net posts which are about why they think you are wrong. There are many posts dealing with you... E.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article...
Also maybe Oracle can win that API copyrightability dispute, but that is because the Judges have no clue (except Alsup) (Cooperations are people and such, yeah right).
That still does not change that you talked about billion dollars, and come on, even if they lose you don't really believe it will be in this order of magnitude finally, are you?
You stand on the shoulder of giants. What if those would have patented their stuff.
Your work would not be possible.
And all algorithms are math. Math is not patentable in the US. At least in theory. All software patents are a perversion of this rule. Only possible because Judges have no idea about math or software.
If all the smart people did patent all ideas no innovation would be possible at all. All the papers you reference in your paper, imagine all those would be patented. You would be f#cked and sued.
So you think rangeCheck is hard to program and deserves any protection?
Anybody I know was for Google, and anybody that I know was right that the Judge will be for Google. Name one public programming figure that was for Oracle. Just one.
When it was clear that Judge Alsup in Oracle vs Google can program Java, how the *#*# could you still think Oracle would get its huge victory? Do you understand that you look like a shill for such things?
Any commenter that knows about programming said in this very moment that this will become a monumental defeat for Oracle, only you still believed in Oracle (you were very wrong as we know).
It was so funny when the Judge explained that any teenager could program a range check [bool check(val, min, max) {return val >= min && val <= max;}] and the Oracle lawyer looked like a complete idiot.
Did you read groklaw.net and what do you think about it, e.g. do you admit that it's predictions were mostly more accurate than yours and did you look at the cases where your opinion was painted as clearly wrong there?
Tell them Blender Institute is the new secret SuperPAC, but pssst, they should not tell anybody, it's secret. Just write checks for some millions, the rest is done by "the institute".
https://cloud.blender.org/goos... For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal ;-)
Of course there are also cheaper deals.
The fun part is, that Qt could be the savior for Microsoft, because few developers want to create cool stuff for Windows 8/Phone. With Qt developers could develop for all platforms at once, so even Windows Phone would get the cool Apps.
The joke is in the Apps is a lot of money, with Qt Nokia may could have taken a good part of the cake if they would have thrown the resources at that (and mobile Linux). Developers are lazy, if you can write one App for all platforms with your framework, your framework wins. You control it, you win.
Was there any bidding process? I assume not. Just some very shady deal in the interest of Microsoft only (FEDs should check if there are contracts saying Vringo cannot sue Microsoft, that would kind of prove that Elop still only works for Microsoft).
I think the Nokia shareholders are getting ripped off by CEO Elop and the board, I hope someone sues them soon, before it is too late. Nokia is ripped off like nobody before got ripped off. The following text shows how major decisions by Elop (ex Microsoft) are only in the interest of Microsoft and not at all in the interest of Nokia.
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/07/the-sun-tzu-of-nokisoftian-microkia-mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whose-the-baddest-of-them-all-waterloo.html
And all those saying Nokia was already dead when Elop came, you are shills or blind, read it too. E.g. start reading the first âoeREASONsâ in the link. They were still twice their competitors when Elop came, alone in China they could have as many customers as Apple has worldwide by a exclusive deal (bound to MeeGo). Distance to Apple was growing at that time. All systematically destroyed in the following months. I don't say they were super fine, but they were still a monster, the elephant in the room. No outside force could move it nearly as fast as Elop has. Now they are an empty shell.
If you have time, read this. It's very long but good (19 reasons why Elop should be fired, you can skip the intro to REASON 1 if you are lazy).
No way the CEO AND the board do not see the logic behind most of these 19 reasons. This is a scam, there must be a huge reward for most of them on some secret channel. Money? Girls? Power?
Anonymous please give us their Email and transform Elops and Balmer's phones into bugs that we can hear what they are talking in private. Jail them all.
I think this once more shows how amateurish software is developed at microsoft**. So I would bet some money that there is a second 0-day flaw that is used which does not require to change the password of the user. I don't believe that this password was brute forced, because even microsoft should (now) be able to prevent brute forcing. Or are they not even able to achieve that? Because his account was new it means that many attempts to brute force would have been done in a short period of time, any reasonable system today prevents that...
**I have a little experience with microsoft because we had to support IE in a project. But how IE handles private keys on smart cards is not secure at all (all sessions stay active even card is removed, which was a absolute no-go in this project). Answer from microsoft after needing weeks (and much communication overhead) to confirm the flaw: it will not be fixed before IE 11.
Dear Microsoft Support,
I own 100'000 hotmail accounts (now), but I don't consider them save anymore. Can I please return them? Would you mind exchanging them for a GMail account?
Thanks