I think Apple had the right idea with their PEF versioning, which allowed libraries to declare their own compatibility ranges.
The idea was each built library advertises the oldest version whose api it supports, and its current version. When you link against a library for your own build, the result is by declaration of the library implementor compatible with any version in that range. At runtime, so long as an available implementation's compatibility range overlaps the one you built against, it'll work — again, by declaration of the library implementor. You don't even have to know, which helps you and, more to the point, the local admin.
So the consequent rule was, when building a library reset its oldest-supported-version to the current version only when you remove or change the behavior of an existing api — adding a call or defining new selectors on an existing call was fine — and otherwise leave it alone. Once you understood it, it was simple.
And the massive Xorg fork that was needed to get past all that?
...
Not that there aren't projects where closed-source is better, but... does it really need saying? The ability to fork a septic project is a not-even-debatable advantage to open source, and this is one of the prime examples of it working: no project is immune to going bad like that.
I pointed out to the IT department where I worked maybe eight years ago we had a Word virus in a corporate email, and showed them my work.
I'm not so sanguine as you are on that "no reason to expect".
Their reply was accusatory, inflammatory, and ignorant. I'm fairly sure that if I hadn't found the right tone of acerbity and restraint for my response they'd have kept the war drums going.
So, your argument is that you and your friends and family should have to buy a Monopoly set each to play it together? One deck of cards each to play Crazy Eights with your kid? One DVD for each person who watches a movie? One copy of an album for each person who listens to it?
"The six plants that are making most of our money now were all built by a man named Tom Ayers [longtime CEO of Commonwealth Edison]. I went to his wake. I'm sitting there thinking, 'I've made a ton of money because of the plants you built, and I ought to be really grateful for your courage -- but you had Alzheimer's before they made any money!' I respect that immensely. But you can't afford to make decisions that don't pay until 20 years after you retire."
So, he plainly can't build plants now that make as much as any of the best assets he has now, built by a predecessor -- if he could have, he surely would have -- and he actually asserts that he can't be building plants that will be that valuable as a legacy for any successors, so he's not going to build any for the future.
So when, exactly, is this man who's "been about value for 25 years" in energy production going to build anything actually valuable that produces energy?
You want to know who thinks somebody owes him a living? It's that guy, and a lot more like him.
"principles of operation site:ibm.com" says it's still publicly available. It still has the detailed (and it seems to me expanded and improved since I last looked) explanation of not just the operation but the principles and purpose of UPT and CFC, the hardware-assist implementation of a killer minimal-recomparison algorithm I'm pretty sure they invented.
In fact, I'm sure they've been working on it. What is it now, forty years since they implemented that instruction, its operation was a key competitive advantage, they did a clear and complete job of documenting it under court order, and they're still improving the tutorial explanations for it?
Tell us again how the documentation Microsoft produces under court order is clear and complete and constantly improved over the course of decades even after the court orders expire?
"Don't ask, what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." — Howard Thurman
Don't start, young, on a career that gives you no pleasure. Your mind doesn't naturally gravitate towards what computers can do. You have few enough responsibilities that you can get a little ahead doing work that doesn't require your degree, and you have a whole year's worth of savings. Use those. Something, somewhere, just naturally occupies your thoughts when they'd otherwise be idle; there's something you'd rather be contemplating. For your life: find that.
If the *AA's want absolution for pretending distribution costs real money, they're going to have to give absolution for the kids pretending production doesn't.
Or, alternatively, we could just ignore them all, both crowds, and have sane conversations premised on observable fact: production costs real money and entails corporate-level risk, and distribution is, on that scale, virtually free. Somewhere in here everyone's going to have to settle on a business model where the people who do the valuable work (that's creation and production) get returns sufficient to motivate the effort required; the old models are struggling because they piggybacked on the distribution effort.
But if we're going to get to sane-land, this mirror-image pretense, where the *AA's pretend that singing "Happy Birthday" or playing the radio in your taxi-maintenance bay are theft and the children pretend making copies of "The Dark Knight" isn't, is going to have to stop. It doesn't matter any more who started it, everybody's going to need to stop. Me, I think it's kinda incumbent on the grownups to stop first.
Let's ignore the manipulative changes in that analogy, shall we, and focus on the substantive point. So we'll skip over how you substituted uneducated laborers for college-educated finance and marketing and legal professionals, and put them in a low-income low-mobility location with no comparable alternative means of support anywhere rather than at the centers of the most vibrant and varied cities on the planet, full of enterprises that need related skills.We'll just pass over those in relatively merciful relative silence, 'kay? Let's focus on the real situation.
Once upon a time, media distribution required dedicated bricks and mortar and real estate and special-purpose precision machinery and manufacturing and transport and untold infrastructure and the management competence to orchestrate them all so enough of everything was in all those physical retail outlets in amounts that roughly matched their popularity.
The *AA argument is apparently that all the people who used to be needed to do that should still be paid what their jobs used to be worth for some unspecified length of time after what they do has stopped providing any inherent value at all, even though everyone on the planet with enough brains to breathe saw this coming long ago.
But even that isn't absurd enough for these welfare queens. They don't just want to be paid for nothing, they want to be paid double and triple and ten times the amount. It used to be they got money when that product they worked so hard to manufacture and distribute was bought. Now they want money every time that product is used, even though their marginal effort for each use is the same as it ever was: zero.
From each according to his now- and predictably-worthless means, to each according to his ridiculously- and predictably-inflated needs? Let them get real jobs. Copper's still really valuable; maybe they could work in the copper mines?
Individuals don't pay tax, not really, only businesses do, because businesses have to cut their prices to match individuals' reduced incomes. Ultimately, it is the business that pays the tax.
Sorry. Demanding money for having done absolutely nothing of any value at all is scumbaggery. At best.
Even though there's no meatspace equivalent to a domain name, everyone recognizes that buying land when you happen to know someone else is going to want it soon, solely on the strength of knowing how much they'll want it, is... why, yes, yes it is: scumbaggery.
Why not find some job that actually improves things? The guys who drive those trucks that run around to construction sites and suck the shit out of portapotties actually contribute value to society. That's a relatively respectable way to earn a living.
Slashdot Mirror
Which btw were never standards to begin with
Standards are written documents that provide sufficient information to allow everyone to build products that meet them.
Snipe around the edges all you want, that's what standards are.
Marketers hate that world. They want "standard" to mean "whatever gets me money", same as they want for every other word connoting anything good.
distributed.net was doing about 35 billion keys per second in 1998.
That may well be true
It is easy to believe, isn't it?
Everyone sees it. Some people even admire it.
It does, however, make them unpopular among people who harbor a strong dislike for felons.
You know, there are simple smoke-tests you can apply for many of the more blatant fallacies.
Now, there's a clever idea: patch sudo to do an automatic union-mount. Sapir-Whorf security: you can't execute what's not in your namespace.
You should patent it, of course.
I think Apple had the right idea with their PEF versioning, which allowed libraries to declare their own compatibility ranges.
The idea was each built library advertises the oldest version whose api it supports, and its current version. When you link against a library for your own build, the result is by declaration of the library implementor compatible with any version in that range. At runtime, so long as an available implementation's compatibility range overlaps the one you built against, it'll work — again, by declaration of the library implementor. You don't even have to know, which helps you and, more to the point, the local admin.
So the consequent rule was, when building a library reset its oldest-supported-version to the current version only when you remove or change the behavior of an existing api — adding a call or defining new selectors on an existing call was fine — and otherwise leave it alone. Once you understood it, it was simple.
Damn, dude. You just slashdotted localhost.
And the massive Xorg fork that was needed to get past all that?
...
Not that there aren't projects where closed-source is better, but ... does it really need saying? The ability to fork a septic project is a not-even-debatable advantage to open source, and this is one of the prime examples of it working: no project is immune to going bad like that.
a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated
Why is this post not modded troll?
Call of Combat - r/t squad-level infantry combat, pure tactics. Think Atomic Games's "Close Combat" in Java.
fceultra and Pirates!
"The people in this video are most commonly described using this metaphor."
"Alex, what is a tool?"
I pointed out to the IT department where I worked maybe eight years ago we had a Word virus in a corporate email, and showed them my work.
I'm not so sanguine as you are on that "no reason to expect".
Their reply was accusatory, inflammatory, and ignorant. I'm fairly sure that if I hadn't found the right tone of acerbity and restraint for my response they'd have kept the war drums going.
So, your argument is that you and your friends and family should have to buy a Monopoly set each to play it together? One deck of cards each to play Crazy Eights with your kid? One DVD for each person who watches a movie? One copy of an album for each person who listens to it?
It worked for a short while, because there was a lot of room for domestic growth.
It worked for a short while because when Reagan took office the United States Government was the largest creditor in the history of the world
Reagan's policies pushed this country's economy off a four trillion dollar cliff. The parasites and their toadies worship him because it accelerated.
Here's a little supporting evidence.
The money quote, from the current CEO:
"The six plants that are making most of our money now were all built by a man named Tom Ayers [longtime CEO of Commonwealth Edison]. I went to his wake. I'm sitting there thinking, 'I've made a ton of money because of the plants you built, and I ought to be really grateful for your courage -- but you had Alzheimer's before they made any money!' I respect that immensely. But you can't afford to make decisions that don't pay until 20 years after you retire."
So, he plainly can't build plants now that make as much as any of the best assets he has now, built by a predecessor -- if he could have, he surely would have -- and he actually asserts that he can't be building plants that will be that valuable as a legacy for any successors, so he's not going to build any for the future.
So when, exactly, is this man who's "been about value for 25 years" in energy production going to build anything actually valuable that produces energy?
You want to know who thinks somebody owes him a living? It's that guy, and a lot more like him.
"principles of operation site:ibm.com" says it's still publicly available. It still has the detailed (and it seems to me expanded and improved since I last looked) explanation of not just the operation but the principles and purpose of UPT and CFC, the hardware-assist implementation of a killer minimal-recomparison algorithm I'm pretty sure they invented.
In fact, I'm sure they've been working on it. What is it now, forty years since they implemented that instruction, its operation was a key competitive advantage, they did a clear and complete job of documenting it under court order, and they're still improving the tutorial explanations for it?
Tell us again how the documentation Microsoft produces under court order is clear and complete and constantly improved over the course of decades even after the court orders expire?
"Don't ask, what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." — Howard Thurman
Don't start, young, on a career that gives you no pleasure. Your mind doesn't naturally gravitate towards what computers can do. You have few enough responsibilities that you can get a little ahead doing work that doesn't require your degree, and you have a whole year's worth of savings. Use those. Something, somewhere, just naturally occupies your thoughts when they'd otherwise be idle; there's something you'd rather be contemplating. For your life: find that.
If the *AA's want absolution for pretending distribution costs real money, they're going to have to give absolution for the kids pretending production doesn't.
Or, alternatively, we could just ignore them all, both crowds, and have sane conversations premised on observable fact: production costs real money and entails corporate-level risk, and distribution is, on that scale, virtually free. Somewhere in here everyone's going to have to settle on a business model where the people who do the valuable work (that's creation and production) get returns sufficient to motivate the effort required; the old models are struggling because they piggybacked on the distribution effort.
But if we're going to get to sane-land, this mirror-image pretense, where the *AA's pretend that singing "Happy Birthday" or playing the radio in your taxi-maintenance bay are theft and the children pretend making copies of "The Dark Knight" isn't, is going to have to stop. It doesn't matter any more who started it, everybody's going to need to stop. Me, I think it's kinda incumbent on the grownups to stop first.
Let's ignore the manipulative changes in that analogy, shall we, and focus on the substantive point. So we'll skip over how you substituted uneducated laborers for college-educated finance and marketing and legal professionals, and put them in a low-income low-mobility location with no comparable alternative means of support anywhere rather than at the centers of the most vibrant and varied cities on the planet, full of enterprises that need related skills.We'll just pass over those in relatively merciful relative silence, 'kay? Let's focus on the real situation.
Once upon a time, media distribution required dedicated bricks and mortar and real estate and special-purpose precision machinery and manufacturing and transport and untold infrastructure and the management competence to orchestrate them all so enough of everything was in all those physical retail outlets in amounts that roughly matched their popularity.
The *AA argument is apparently that all the people who used to be needed to do that should still be paid what their jobs used to be worth for some unspecified length of time after what they do has stopped providing any inherent value at all, even though everyone on the planet with enough brains to breathe saw this coming long ago.
But even that isn't absurd enough for these welfare queens. They don't just want to be paid for nothing, they want to be paid double and triple and ten times the amount. It used to be they got money when that product they worked so hard to manufacture and distribute was bought. Now they want money every time that product is used, even though their marginal effort for each use is the same as it ever was: zero.
From each according to his now- and predictably-worthless means, to each according to his ridiculously- and predictably-inflated needs? Let them get real jobs. Copper's still really valuable; maybe they could work in the copper mines?
excessive taxation
Adhering to[...] principles
foolishly helping
Begging the question, presuming facts not in evidence, tendentious?
Individuals don't pay tax, not really, only businesses do, because businesses have to cut their prices to match individuals' reduced incomes. Ultimately, it is the business that pays the tax.
Sorry. Demanding money for having done absolutely nothing of any value at all is scumbaggery. At best.
Even though there's no meatspace equivalent to a domain name, everyone recognizes that buying land when you happen to know someone else is going to want it soon, solely on the strength of knowing how much they'll want it, is ... why, yes, yes it is: scumbaggery.
Why not find some job that actually improves things? The guys who drive those trucks that run around to construction sites and suck the shit out of portapotties actually contribute value to society. That's a relatively respectable way to earn a living.
I decided long ago that they're intentionally mocking the USPTO. Seriously.
MS fanboys use C#: everyone else uses Java
And Real Programmers use FORTRAN.
tftfy