I was trying to refer to the usual hacker/cracker debates by using "hackers" and "cracker" separately. And do not think of it as "piracy". It isn't a good word to use.
Plus, it seems that you have no clue about free software. Actually, "intellectual property" is not something that I and many others would readily accept.
Also, what I talk about may be true if the Linux platform is flooded with shareware programs; programs that are not free. Then, I think those programs will be subject to aggressive cracking, since the crackers will have found a new arena.
Think subtler next time, and be careful with your nasty words because the arguments here are to be disputed over with nice words. Get it? Don't try to start flaming with your average reasoning...
Okay, but the decision of GPL developers is not the same. It's because the license was mandatory. It is a prime element of the success of GNU/Linux systems today. So the "fair decision" is arguable. They are not helping the free software cause since they are trying to get some bucks off the most basic application: web browser. While your argument would hold for a program of less general utility, it cannot survive in the question of a most general purpose program. Furthermore, a Redmond based cracker group would be immediately noticed and banished. Remember, it is the rebels against the tyranny...
No I don't steal off purses. But I'd love to help out with Mozilla, if I weren't involved with another free software project. And my point was not that strong. I am not actually telling people to go and crack it right away, I was trying to refer to the usual cracker/hacker debates. It's just that I don't like Opera and I don't like QT. Also, thank you for setting the standards for use of free software. .
1. On Qt: Really? I hadn't noticed the moc! It doesn't matter how you implement an auxiliary class mechanism, the one in QT just reminds of the CObject model in MFC. The signal/slot mechanism is slightly superior to message maps in MFC, however they are merely a kludge, they don't fit at all in the C++ object model. (Hint for framework developers: If your language is class based, try to use its class construct) What is more, the classes in QT are convenient for a couple of apps, but that's it; they're no thicker (?) than MFC stuff. MFC is even better in some aspects, although it has the worst design on the planet. The both so-called GUI frameworks suffer from lack of elegance, they are *built on* ad hoc solutions. (I haven't examined QT2.0 very closely, so you can attack from that angle;)maybe that one patches things better than I think)
2. On crackers: Yes, I used to be in the company of crackers, but I don't necessarily approve of "piracy".. Nevertheless I don't think that Opera is any good to top the browsers bill, and make us throw bucks in the process.
ppl love to flame, don't they! is your cerebral substance engaged?
I think the guys at Opera soft. are over confident in their little product, it's a usual web browser after all. It doesn't seem to have its source code opened up for the free software community, so I am not going for it. And they've talked as if the QT library is the state-of-the-art in UI. I seriously doubt it because QT resembles a lot to Microsoft stuff: both in program structure and in look/feel. (You know I had to code with disgusting MFC once) If any cracker wants to help their hacker pals, he can crack the Linux version of Opera and distribute it in the usual fashion.
I called myself coder when I was in a demo group. Why? Because coders did a different job than a bbs op, a swapper, a gfx artist or a musician. If people nowadays think that "hacker" is a too general term, they should use "coder" instead -- if they are coders! I don't think that you gotta a be coder to be able to sketch some logos and throw in a few lines of java code. So, I think it's okay to use "coder", if someone is really a coder. You know, someone who has coded some megabytes of proggyz...
Again, a pragmatic comment on the issue. i don't think it takes Red Hat to be family's favorite. And i don't either think that free software should be freed from hackers' hands. It's the hackers that made a free OS possible. If Red Hat puts a burden on the free OS we have, slash 'em away!
Of course you don't mean that philosophy is for entertainment. Talking about old philosophers is fun, but not because they are simple minded or foolish. It gives a chance to see how ideas are developed... On the other hand, I also think that there is a lot of crap philosophy around. Stuff with neither strong background nor rigorous investigation. You know what Einstein once said about being simple. He actually meant that you should be sufficiently articulated in order to succeed in your work. So I greatly appreciate your observation about some theories of mind.
From a computational perspective it's all very natural that a complex system is distributed, and yet it is modular... On the other hand, from the same perspective 90% of all psychologists seem very idiotic; they are awed at the most trivial of computational facts, and laws. They would not truly understand any theorem on Turing machines and still claim to be investigating limits of computation. And I'm bored of the way connectionists try to discover some magic aspect of mind. I can't understand how they can expect some very elementary model to scale up to a human mind. On the other hand, linguists and logicists are seeking something else entirely. Just a few remarks, take 'em easy said...
right on!: CDE is cool, Gnome sucks
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
yep, I don't care how great the GTK is or anything. I kinda like the GIMP and read about GTK--, the language support is fine, etc. but the GNOME looks like windoze, and worse KDE does too... aren't these people creative at all?
FFS, we aren't crying. But it's really lame to offend other people just because you're in the position to that. Yes, he may have a lot of followers (Linus), and it's true that he is the leader of the project but how can he jettison those other people who've wholeheartedly tried to do something useful, and actually did so? The GNU project is a lot bigger than the Linux kernel project...
I don't know if I have to say this, but Linus seems to be missing the point for the sake of being *productive*.
First of all he is totally dumb on the microkernel issue. Microkernels aren't meant just for portability. Portability, in fact, is just some secondary advantage of a microkernel. Among some well known advantages are that a microkernel can support multiple OS'es, open-ness, distributed computing, flexibility... whatever. The reason why microkernels were conceived was definitely not only portability. That's just too funny to claim for a CS grad. like Linus...
About the interface of Linux, I don't know if that doc. project about Linux API has been completed, but the last time I'd checked it, it had few entries. I mean even if you keep the monolithic interface tight an' slim, there are other things you gotta deal with. I think OO ppl will have a lot more to speak on this.
Third, It is definitely not TRUE what Torvalds the Magnificient says on GNU tools. I think that the Linux project, for instance depends a lot on ash, bintools, filetools, this tools that tools. I think he is just getting it too personal. Weak character or something.
Now about modularity, I use those kernel modules, and we all know they're handy. But still, it seems very funny that a simple dynamic C/assembly module/package implementation gets this much credit. Of course it's necessary but it's trivial. It's just something that had to be there.
One point I agree with Linus is his views on GPL. I think GPL isn't very well defined. It depends a lot on current compiler technology... I'm getting the impression that GPL has some fatal flaws.
Then he talks about Portability (again). It seems to me that he is too proud of his work. May I remind that AmigaOS could load device drivers and libraries dynamically in the 84 or so.. Just to remind that Linux isn't the only kernel which can do that. (Though it's free, and we should celebrate that)
I don't know if I have to say this, but Linus seems to be missing the point for the sake of being *productive*. First of all he is totally dumb on the microkernel issue. Microkernels aren't meant just for portability. Portability, in fact, is just some secondary advantage of a microkernel. Among some well known advantages are that a microkernel can support multiple OS'es, open-ness, distributed computing, flexibility... whatever. The reason why microkernels were conceived was definitely not only portability. That's just too funny to claim for a CS grad. like Linus... About the interface of Linux, I don't know if that doc. project about Linux API has been completed, but the last time I'd checked it, it had few entries. I mean even if you keep the monolithic interface tight an' slim, there are other things you gotta deal with. I think OO ppl will have a lot more to speak on this. Third, It is definitely not TRUE what Torvalds the Magnificient says on GNU tools. I think that the Linux project, for instance depends a lot on ash, bintools, filetools, this tools that tools. I think he is just getting it too personal. Weak character or something. Now about modularity, I use those kernel modules, and we all know they're handy. But still, it seems very funny that a simple dynamic C/assembly module/package implementation gets this much credit. Of course it's necessary but it's trivial. It's just something that had to be there. One point I agree with Linus is his views on GPL. I think GPL isn't very well defined. It depends a lot on current compiler technology... I'm getting the impression that GPL has some fatal flaws. Then he talks about Portability (again). It seems to me that he is too proud of his work. May I remind that AmigaOS could load device drivers and libraries dynamically in the 84 or so.. Just to remind that Linux isn't the only kernel which can do that. (Though it's free, and we should celebrate that) Huh?
Sure, but Linux is GPL'ed remember that? And I truly think that RMS and his folks at MIT have put together a definitive "Free Software" movement. I do think that www.fsf.org matters, not a lousy redhat.com or linux.com. After all, the Linux kernel is just a headlong POSIX compliant kernel! The only success it has attained (IMHO) is the incorporation of a multitude of device drivers. (Yeah, and networking, and this and that) Forget about it and any good coder at 19 can go ahead and write an OS based on MINIX (BTW Tanenbaum rullaZ!). Though, I do appreciate that it takes a lot of skill and effort to make such a portable kernel a reality. And there is nothing wrong with the "GNU/Linux" naming, since the most *critical* parts of the system we run are made possible by the GNU project. They deserve the credit. Y'know without all those development tools, we wouldn't have a Linux kernel in the first place. What's more, your point about HURD is just misleading. Just because a zillion developers did't jump on the HURD, doesn't mean that it's any bad. When HURD gets out of alpha, it will be the finest free OS to see the light of day... And about the hardcore MS people, I think this corresponds to those people who are managers/developers in the industry who have no clue about computing? Fu**'em up man. I just had to wrestle with the suckey MFC and NT for the last year because of them...
Slashdot Mirror
I was trying to refer to the usual hacker/cracker debates by using "hackers" and "cracker" separately. And do not think of it as "piracy". It isn't a good word to use.
Plus, it seems that you have no clue about free software. Actually, "intellectual property" is not something that I and many others would readily accept.
Also, what I talk about may be true if the Linux platform is flooded with shareware programs; programs that are not free. Then, I think those programs will be subject to aggressive cracking, since the crackers will have found a new arena.
Think subtler next time, and be careful with your nasty words because the arguments here are to be disputed over with nice words. Get it? Don't try to start flaming with your average reasoning...
Okay, but the decision of GPL developers is not the same. It's because the license was mandatory. It is a prime element of the success of GNU/Linux systems today. So the "fair decision" is arguable. They are not helping the free software cause since they are trying to get some bucks off the most basic application: web browser. While your argument would hold for a program of less general utility, it cannot survive in the question of a most general purpose program. Furthermore, a Redmond based cracker group would be immediately noticed and banished. Remember, it is the rebels against the tyranny...
No I don't steal off purses. But I'd love to help out with Mozilla, if I weren't involved with another free software project. And my point was not that strong. I am not actually telling people to go and crack it right away, I was trying to refer to the usual cracker/hacker debates. It's just that I don't like Opera and I don't like QT. Also, thank you for setting the standards for use of free software. .
1. On Qt: Really? I hadn't noticed the moc! It doesn't matter how you implement an auxiliary class mechanism, the one in QT just reminds of the CObject model in MFC. The signal/slot mechanism is slightly superior to message maps in MFC, however they are merely a kludge, they don't fit at all in the C++ object model. (Hint for framework developers: If your language is class based, try to use its class construct) What is more, the classes in QT are convenient for a couple of apps, but that's it; they're no thicker (?) than MFC stuff. MFC is even better in some aspects, although it has the worst design on the planet. The both so-called GUI frameworks suffer from lack of elegance, they are *built on* ad hoc solutions. (I haven't examined QT2.0 very closely, so you can attack from that angle ;)maybe that one patches things better than I think)
2. On crackers: Yes, I used to be in the company of crackers, but I don't necessarily approve of "piracy".. Nevertheless I don't think that Opera is any good to top the browsers bill, and make us throw bucks in the process.
ppl love to flame, don't they! is your cerebral substance engaged?
I think the guys at Opera soft. are over confident in their little product, it's a usual web browser after all. It doesn't seem to have its source code opened up for the free software community, so I am not going for it. And they've talked as if the QT library is the state-of-the-art in UI. I seriously doubt it because QT resembles a lot to Microsoft stuff: both in program structure and in look/feel. (You know I had to code with disgusting MFC once) If any cracker wants to help their hacker pals, he can crack the Linux version of Opera and distribute it in the usual fashion.
I called myself coder when I was in a demo group. Why? Because coders did a different job than a bbs op, a swapper, a gfx artist or a musician. If people nowadays think that "hacker" is a too general term, they should use "coder" instead -- if they are coders! I don't think that you gotta a be coder to be able to sketch some logos and throw in a few lines of java code. So, I think it's okay to use "coder", if someone is really a coder. You know, someone who has coded some megabytes of proggyz...
Again, a pragmatic comment on the issue. i don't think it takes Red Hat to be family's favorite. And i don't either think that free software should be freed from hackers' hands. It's the hackers that made a free OS possible. If Red Hat puts a burden on the free OS we have, slash 'em away!
Of course you don't mean that philosophy is for entertainment. Talking about old philosophers is fun, but not because they are simple minded or foolish. It gives a chance to see how ideas are developed... On the other hand, I also think that there is a lot of crap philosophy around. Stuff with neither strong background nor rigorous investigation. You know what Einstein once said about being simple. He actually meant that you should be sufficiently articulated in order to succeed in your work. So I greatly appreciate your observation about some theories of mind.
From a computational perspective it's all very natural that a complex system is distributed, and yet it is modular... On the other hand, from the same perspective 90% of all psychologists seem very idiotic; they are awed at the most trivial of computational facts, and laws. They would not truly understand any theorem on Turing machines and still claim to be investigating limits of computation. And I'm bored of the way connectionists try to discover some magic aspect of mind. I can't understand how they can expect some very elementary model to scale up to a human mind. On the other hand, linguists and logicists are seeking something else entirely. Just a few remarks, take 'em easy said...
yep, I don't care how great the GTK is or anything. I kinda like the GIMP and read about GTK--, the language support is fine, etc. but the GNOME looks like windoze, and worse KDE does too... aren't these people creative at all?
FFS, we aren't crying. But it's really lame to offend other people just because you're in the position to that. Yes, he may have a lot of followers (Linus), and it's true that he is the leader of the project but how can he jettison those other people who've wholeheartedly tried to do something useful, and actually did so? The GNU project is a lot bigger than the Linux kernel project...
I don't know if I have to say this, but Linus seems to be missing the point for the sake of being *productive*.
First of all he is totally dumb on the microkernel issue. Microkernels aren't meant just for portability. Portability, in fact, is just some secondary advantage of a microkernel. Among some well known advantages are that a microkernel can support multiple OS'es, open-ness, distributed computing, flexibility... whatever. The reason why microkernels were conceived was definitely not only portability. That's just too funny to claim for a CS grad. like Linus...
About the interface of Linux, I don't know if that doc. project about Linux API has been completed, but the last time I'd checked it, it had few entries. I mean even if you keep the monolithic interface tight an' slim, there are other things you gotta deal with. I think OO ppl will have a lot more to speak on this.
Third, It is definitely not TRUE what Torvalds the Magnificient says on GNU tools. I think that the Linux project, for instance depends a lot on ash, bintools, filetools, this tools that tools. I think he is just getting it too personal. Weak character or something.
Now about modularity, I use those kernel modules, and we all know they're handy. But still, it seems very funny that a simple dynamic C/assembly module/package implementation gets this much credit. Of course it's necessary but it's trivial. It's just something that had to be there.
One point I agree with Linus is his views on GPL. I think GPL isn't very well defined. It depends a lot on current compiler technology... I'm getting the impression that GPL has some fatal flaws.
Then he talks about Portability (again). It seems to me that he is too proud of his work. May I remind that AmigaOS could load device drivers and libraries dynamically in the 84 or so.. Just to remind that Linux isn't the only kernel which can do that. (Though it's free, and we should celebrate that)
Huh?
I don't know if I have to say this, but Linus seems to be missing the point for the sake of being *productive*. First of all he is totally dumb on the microkernel issue. Microkernels aren't meant just for portability. Portability, in fact, is just some secondary advantage of a microkernel. Among some well known advantages are that a microkernel can support multiple OS'es, open-ness, distributed computing, flexibility... whatever. The reason why microkernels were conceived was definitely not only portability. That's just too funny to claim for a CS grad. like Linus... About the interface of Linux, I don't know if that doc. project about Linux API has been completed, but the last time I'd checked it, it had few entries. I mean even if you keep the monolithic interface tight an' slim, there are other things you gotta deal with. I think OO ppl will have a lot more to speak on this. Third, It is definitely not TRUE what Torvalds the Magnificient says on GNU tools. I think that the Linux project, for instance depends a lot on ash, bintools, filetools, this tools that tools. I think he is just getting it too personal. Weak character or something. Now about modularity, I use those kernel modules, and we all know they're handy. But still, it seems very funny that a simple dynamic C/assembly module/package implementation gets this much credit. Of course it's necessary but it's trivial. It's just something that had to be there. One point I agree with Linus is his views on GPL. I think GPL isn't very well defined. It depends a lot on current compiler technology... I'm getting the impression that GPL has some fatal flaws. Then he talks about Portability (again). It seems to me that he is too proud of his work. May I remind that AmigaOS could load device drivers and libraries dynamically in the 84 or so.. Just to remind that Linux isn't the only kernel which can do that. (Though it's free, and we should celebrate that) Huh?
Sure, but Linux is GPL'ed remember that? And I truly think that RMS and his folks at MIT have put together a definitive "Free Software" movement. I do think that www.fsf.org matters, not a lousy redhat.com or linux.com. After all, the Linux kernel is just a headlong POSIX compliant kernel! The only success it has attained (IMHO) is the incorporation of a multitude of device drivers. (Yeah, and networking, and this and that) Forget about it and any good coder at 19 can go ahead and write an OS based on MINIX (BTW Tanenbaum rullaZ!). Though, I do appreciate that it takes a lot of skill and effort to make such a portable kernel a reality. And there is nothing wrong with the "GNU/Linux" naming, since the most *critical* parts of the system we run are made possible by the GNU project. They deserve the credit. Y'know without all those development tools, we wouldn't have a Linux kernel in the first place. What's more, your point about HURD is just misleading. Just because a zillion developers did't jump on the HURD, doesn't mean that it's any bad. When HURD gets out of alpha, it will be the finest free OS to see the light of day... And about the hardcore MS people, I think this corresponds to those people who are managers /developers in the industry who have no clue about computing? Fu**'em up man. I just had to wrestle with the suckey MFC and NT for the last year because of them...