First broadcast October 1958, still going, 25-odd presenters since then. Famous over here for:
a) The baby elephant dumping on (live) camera
b) The bomb-proof but cute Valerie Singleton (if you are of a certain age, otherwise the current Konnie Huq looks like a worthy replacement)
c) 'Here's one I made earlier' - phrase for live TV when demoing recipe, or when things go hopelessly wrong
d) John Noakes doing ballet
e) 'Sticky tape' and 'sticky backed plastic' - essential ingredients of DIY presents for kids to make, but trade names such as Scotch tape and Fablon were verboten on BBC
f) Raising significant $$ for various disaster zones from the Biafran war onwards - not bad from collecting junk (stamps, foil...)
Oh, and many other things no doubt. Good stuff, anybody complaining about worthiness etc. should remember that it's always been accompanied by the likes of Scooby Doo in the schedules.
It's not tripe, but not the full story either. For part of the conflict, the UK paid the US for material under a scheme called 'lend-lease', and for the later part the US donated it. For a long time after the war, the UK owed the US money and so a lot of products like MG sports cars were built for "export only", but then again, the country received a lot of aid under the Marshall plan. The most amazing thing is that rationing lasted so long after the war - until about 1955, certainly longer than in France and West Germany.
Actually we did have a little republican experiment here, chap called Cromwell. This led to the development of democratic ideals by Locke, Hume & co. which were copied almost verbatim into the US Constitution. Anyway, this republic basically followed the general pattern of announcing liberty, fraternity etc. and then embarking on massive civil war. Pikes and muskets were the main weapons, but they still managed to cause the biggest body count until the first world war. There's just been a middling TV series on it, not seen it but might be coming your way.
Not trivial, perhaps, but certainly not unique to Microsoft. How many JVMs are there out there? And still people are working on their own VMs for Perl, Python, TCL, Scheme etc.
'Using it' in some form is probably sensible, but it doesn't follow that in order to benefit from it we have to reproduce every feature - creative synthesis and modification should be allowed to best meet open source requirements.
Let's be clear what Miguel is proposing here: he's not just modelling Mono on Dotnet, in the manner of modelling C# on Java, he's cloning it, and so tying Linux development in every aspect to Windows development. Nobody has asked for this, and it isn't healthy.
The Mono guys know that there's no actual benefit in cloning Dotnet instead of coming up with something else (Parrot, modded Java VM etc.) but the thrills and spills of sailing close to the MS wind are too tempting to ignore.
Pointless, but endlessly entertaining, I'll admit/
Insightful my ass. The poster doesn't seem to have even heard of existing open source VM efforts (Parrot, Python, TCL, Scheme...). Instead we get waffle about some trivial performance and documentation aspects of Dotnet as though this was somehow of great and lasting significance.
The issue at hand is whether we address Dotnet-style requirements by developing a similar platform, hopefully drawing together other VM developments, or try vainly to clone Dotnet and so put MS in the driving seat of Linux development.
"Mono is worthwhile developing even if it doesn't have full compatibility with MS dotNet Framework"
This assertion is just as vacuous this time as the last ~20 times it's been thown into Dotnet discussions.
Funny how no Mono proponents will go so far as producing a concrete list of requirements that cloning Dotnet (specifically and uniquely) will satisfy, presumably because they either don't exist or they can't guarantee to deliver them.
The fact is that there is precisely zero benefit in cloning Dotnet unless it offers real portability for real applications. All other requirements can better be delivered using existing or emerging platforms.
GNOME (and Linux) needs something like Dotnet, but it doesn't need Dotnet.
There are plenty of VM projects around (Java, Python, PERL, TCL, Scheme...), some with features not in Dotnet. I'll support the development and convergence of these as my new platform.
Why should GNOME support Dotnet? Where are the requirements? To run third party apps developed for Dotnet on Linux - an instant Photoshop port, maybe?
Get real.
All that's happening is that a few people who don't know about Parrot, don't like Sun/Java and don't have the wit to propose something new are following the hype and grabbing the headlines.
New readers should start by ploughing through earlier Dotnet discussions, where the usefulness of ECMA's standardization the CLR and a minimal set of classes (around 10% of the total platform) was shown to be nil.
Miguel should stop chasing something he can never catch and instead join a VM project that can help unify open source efforts rather than fragmenting them further. "Parrot" wouldn't be a bad start.
Hmmm... the future of clustering is a hard one to call IMHO. It's not clear to me that JBoss did the wrong thing by just defaulting to a load balancer-driven model - BEA and others can be seen as being on a path to eliminating caching and moving locking back to the database, meaning that there's no EJB clustering logic to speak of, just the HTTP session replication, and I'm not at all sure how that's going to evolve to handle SOAP clients nicely.
J2EE patterns, specifically the EJB patterns, are really just putting lipstick on a pig, as they can't hide the underlying problems with reentrancy, locking, consistency, DB roundtrips etc. endemic to EJBs. This isn't a WebSphere problem by any means, I'd guess that IBM is better placed than many to develop a way out, at least for DB/2 users.
Personally I recommend TOPLink, either with or instead of EJBs, to get rid of the most annoying aspects, I expect other persistence frameworks could help as well.
A single schema for all settings? How manageable would that be? Or do you mean a 'meta-schema', describing what standard elements are in all config files?
And presumably a third file to verify the settings? Or maybe that's the application's job, in which case I can imagine that appconfig tool interfacing would be fun.
Configuration requires data and logic - you need a language like Python or LISP as others have commented. XML runs out of steam with any non-trivial application.
...you can break it if you don't know what you're doing...
but of course being potentially code (verification logic) as well as data (settings), a single config file can be manipulated by a generic tool, unlike the situation with XML.
And, of course, LISP can neatly add logic in there too, a major step forward seeing as how XML doesn't even have references (well, unless you want to fiddle with XPointers).
Set your own configurations for docked/undocked, refer to colour schemes defined elsewhere...
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun." (c) 1500BC Ecclesiastes All Rights Reserved
Slashdot Mirror
Aha, located the baby elephant!
What no links? Here we go: Blue Peter
First broadcast October 1958, still going, 25-odd presenters since then. Famous over here for:
a) The baby elephant dumping on (live) camera
b) The bomb-proof but cute Valerie Singleton (if you are of a certain age, otherwise the current Konnie Huq looks like a worthy replacement)
c) 'Here's one I made earlier' - phrase for live TV when demoing recipe, or when things go hopelessly wrong
d) John Noakes doing ballet
e) 'Sticky tape' and 'sticky backed plastic' - essential ingredients of DIY presents for kids to make, but trade names such as Scotch tape and Fablon were verboten on BBC
f) Raising significant $$ for various disaster zones from the Biafran war onwards - not bad from collecting junk (stamps, foil...)
Oh, and many other things no doubt. Good stuff, anybody complaining about worthiness etc. should remember that it's always been accompanied by the likes of Scooby Doo in the schedules.
It's not tripe, but not the full story either. For part of the conflict, the UK paid the US for material under a scheme called 'lend-lease', and for the later part the US donated it. For a long time after the war, the UK owed the US money and so a lot of products like MG sports cars were built for "export only", but then again, the country received a lot of aid under the Marshall plan. The most amazing thing is that rationing lasted so long after the war - until about 1955, certainly longer than in France and West Germany.
No Greeks in today? Oh well...
As opposed to Queens? :-)
Actually we did have a little republican experiment here, chap called Cromwell. This led to the development of democratic ideals by Locke, Hume & co. which were copied almost verbatim into the US Constitution. Anyway, this republic basically followed the general pattern of announcing liberty, fraternity etc. and then embarking on massive civil war. Pikes and muskets were the main weapons, but they still managed to cause the biggest body count until the first world war. There's just been a middling TV series on it, not seen it but might be coming your way.
Not trivial, perhaps, but certainly not unique to Microsoft. How many JVMs are there out there? And still people are working on their own VMs for Perl, Python, TCL, Scheme etc.
'Using it' in some form is probably sensible, but it doesn't follow that in order to benefit from it we have to reproduce every feature - creative synthesis and modification should be allowed to best meet open source requirements.
Let's be clear what Miguel is proposing here: he's not just modelling Mono on Dotnet, in the manner of modelling C# on Java, he's cloning it, and so tying Linux development in every aspect to Windows development. Nobody has asked for this, and it isn't healthy.
Ah, the famous Mono non sequitur, wondered where it had been hiding today...
Linux needs something like Dotnet ("to be able to write really portable code")
therefore
we must clone Dotnet.
I like my mom's apple pie and piano playing, so I will have her cloned.
How about IBM's SWT library on GTK? Dig in the Eclipse site to find it.
cheers
alex
Duh... I rest my case.
Next!
I guess that must be it.
The Mono guys know that there's no actual benefit in cloning Dotnet instead of coming up with something else (Parrot, modded Java VM etc.) but the thrills and spills of sailing close to the MS wind are too tempting to ignore.
Pointless, but endlessly entertaining, I'll admit/
eems like there really are some good ideas in .NET somewhere
Maybe the size of the marketing budget can explain this? Feel free to share some actual facts if you encounter any.
Insightful my ass. The poster doesn't seem to have even heard of existing open source VM efforts (Parrot, Python, TCL, Scheme...). Instead we get waffle about some trivial performance and documentation aspects of Dotnet as though this was somehow of great and lasting significance.
The issue at hand is whether we address Dotnet-style requirements by developing a similar platform, hopefully drawing together other VM developments, or try vainly to clone Dotnet and so put MS in the driving seat of Linux development.
"Mono is worthwhile developing even if it doesn't have full compatibility with MS dotNet Framework"
This assertion is just as vacuous this time as the last ~20 times it's been thown into Dotnet discussions.
Funny how no Mono proponents will go so far as producing a concrete list of requirements that cloning Dotnet (specifically and uniquely) will satisfy, presumably because they either don't exist or they can't guarantee to deliver them.
The fact is that there is precisely zero benefit in cloning Dotnet unless it offers real portability for real applications. All other requirements can better be delivered using existing or emerging platforms.
Wow, mod this up!
Someone who believes that the open source community can have good ideas too! Whatever next?!
If you don't want Gnome to be .NET,
I don't.
then fine. Stay with what you've got,
No thanks.
GNOME (and Linux) needs something like Dotnet, but it doesn't need Dotnet.
There are plenty of VM projects around (Java, Python, PERL, TCL, Scheme...), some with features not in Dotnet. I'll support the development and convergence of these as my new platform.
Your last paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
Why should GNOME support Dotnet? Where are the requirements? To run third party apps developed for Dotnet on Linux - an instant Photoshop port, maybe?
Get real.
All that's happening is that a few people who don't know about Parrot, don't like Sun/Java and don't have the wit to propose something new are following the hype and grabbing the headlines.
You guys never give up, do you?
New readers should start by ploughing through earlier Dotnet discussions, where the usefulness of ECMA's standardization the CLR and a minimal set of classes (around 10% of the total platform) was shown to be nil.
Miguel should stop chasing something he can never catch and instead join a VM project that can help unify open source efforts rather than fragmenting them further. "Parrot" wouldn't be a bad start.
Hmmm... the future of clustering is a hard one to call IMHO. It's not clear to me that JBoss did the wrong thing by just defaulting to a load balancer-driven model - BEA and others can be seen as being on a path to eliminating caching and moving locking back to the database, meaning that there's no EJB clustering logic to speak of, just the HTTP session replication, and I'm not at all sure how that's going to evolve to handle SOAP clients nicely.
J2EE patterns, specifically the EJB patterns, are really just putting lipstick on a pig, as they can't hide the underlying problems with reentrancy, locking, consistency, DB roundtrips etc. endemic to EJBs. This isn't a WebSphere problem by any means, I'd guess that IBM is better placed than many to develop a way out, at least for DB/2 users.
Personally I recommend TOPLink, either with or instead of EJBs, to get rid of the most annoying aspects, I expect other persistence frameworks could help as well.
A single schema for all settings? How manageable would that be? Or do you mean a 'meta-schema', describing what standard elements are in all config files?
And presumably a third file to verify the settings? Or maybe that's the application's job, in which case I can imagine that appconfig tool interfacing would be fun.
Configuration requires data and logic - you need a language like Python or LISP as others have commented. XML runs out of steam with any non-trivial application.
...you can break it if you don't know what you're doing...
but of course being potentially code (verification logic) as well as data (settings), a single config file can be manipulated by a generic tool, unlike the situation with XML.
Yes! That would be great.
And, of course, LISP can neatly add logic in there too, a major step forward seeing as how XML doesn't even have references (well, unless you want to fiddle with XPointers).
Set your own configurations for docked/undocked, refer to colour schemes defined elsewhere...
Flaw is that it's just too straightforward!
--
Compiler (n): Tool for discarding information.
Hey, I don't wish to be excommunicated, I'm just pointing out the holy copyright clause.
His message may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including divine inspiration, holy fiat, papal encyclical...
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done;
and there is no new thing under the sun."
(c) 1500BC Ecclesiastes
All Rights Reserved