I think the Perl books were they're most crowning acheivements. All other Perl books were secondary to the O'Riely versions. I guess owning Mr. Wall didn't hurt in that respect:)
If anything happens to the Statue of Liberty, why not just send her back to France and get them to do warranty repair. I'm sure the French wouldn't mind, especially if you've purchased the extended warranty:)
I think it's nice that people are starting to get interested in relational databases again. They really are the backbone of information systems in business, despite what the industry rags will have you believe.
The "hype" of object-oriented and XML-driven "databases", although aesthetically prettier, have adverse effects on performance and design. Programmers get lazy, applications become sloppy and performance goes into the toilet.
Profits? who needs it!
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think for things like software and web servers, profit will be secondary. Yes, I've witnessed the.com crash, but here me out:
Free software applications have to replace all common off the shelf softwate (except for stuff like games, which is more "content" than application). Simply put, time is on free software's side. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but eventually, someone will have written a free replacement for every commercial off-the-shelf application.
Similarly, many web sites and web services seem to be too simple (from an application complexity point of view) to demand any kind of real subscription fees to users. People won't pay them, for the most part, so sites have to slim down and make due with ad revenues.
(shameless plug, check out the site on my sig for an example of such a web service)
Can't you just disable "auto-run" for audio CDs in Windows? But I guess most average users don't know or care enough to do that. Ohh well, why do you need privacy anyways, unless you've got something to hide, you criminal:)
I've also seen the case where scientists will constantly refer to their own, or their coleagues' papers. This is an easy way to increase the "cited" count of the refered paper, making one's work look more usefull, even when the citation has little or no relevance to the current topic.
This is all well and good for external spam, but what can be done for all the spam you get from within the organization? You know the Dilbert/Office Space-esque ones about birthdays, births, engagments, retirements, etc. And it only seems to get worse as the organization gets larger.
First off, C++ objects can force the use of all data access through assert()-filled methods, then in optimized mode can be inlined and thus reduced to their C equivalents.
Second, destructors in C++ guarantee clean up of objects, regardless of how you leave scope (natural, return, exception, etc).
Finally, you couple destructors and reference counting auto-pointers, and you have yourself a very nice allocation API that's as easy as Java, but without the performance or unnatural destruction logistics.
I compiled your C++ program under Red Hat Linux 7.1. With no optimization, the binary was 4212 bytes. With optimizations it was 4776. Both versions where stripped. Are you sure your linking the standard C++ libraries dynamically?
Also, a quick scan of by bin diretories shows that most binaries are indeed stripped.
Finally, if you consider C++ "big", then I urge you to read some of Bjarne's writings on the subject. The whole goal of C++ was to help you code in "with classes" with 0-cost over the same code implemented in C.
I also don't understand how a binary can be linked mutiple times both statically and dynamically to the same library. Surely you'd get symbol conflicts.
I'm not a dumb guy. I've bee coding for various platforms and languages for many years, and always enjoy playing with new technology and software. But next to sendmail configuration files, autoconf/make seem to be created by the devil himself. I've never seen such an orgy of scripts, binaries and m4 working to create makefiles that take way to long to comprehend and debug. It shouldn't be this complex and bloated.
make, by itself, is perfect as a build tool. What I do like is the way glib/gtk+/gnome/libxml and other tools provide you with a -config script to which you can use backticks in your compile lines (eg. CFLAGS = `gtk-config --cflags`).
glib (not to be confused by glibc), also provides many safe routines (ie. better sprintf()) and utility functions we all could use and have probably made for ourselves. It also guarantees the existence of various core functions, by simply either being an alias for the system function, or if it doesn't exist, providing an implementation. Thus instead of targeting UNICEs, I assume the target platform has ANSI C (or C++) plus glib and any other libs I need. No need to worry if it's strings.g or string.h, or if there's a strdup().
Thus, it is my humble opinion that autoconf and friends should be replaced by simple make, *-config scripts and glib (or some other common library).
Why don't you use raw hard drive partitions for your files. IE. set the proper permissions on say/dev/hdb6 and save/load your files directly to that. Ofcourse you don't get the 'file managment' capabilities of a file system, but you also don't get the overhead (and restrictions).
Big databases do this all the time. Surprisingly, when I played around with microsoft sql server 6.5 on NT 4, it required creating its files on top of NT's NTFS file system - two layers of journalling, come on now...
I wonder if you americans can give me some approximate estimates on comp sci tuitions in the states?
In Canada I pay about $3200CDN (~$2200US) a year at my local provincial institution. Ofcourse we're taxed a hell of a lot more:). Between coop work terms and livin at home I'll be graduating in black financialy.
Caldera is cheaper than Red Hat? Last time I checked Red Hat distros were still open source and freely downloadable of the 'net (as well as other sources). Can't go below zero, eh:)
Caldera also doesn't seem to have the same commitment to free software as Red Hat does. I fear that if Caldera gains power in Linux land they could become a SCO with lots of expensive add-ons. Their NetWare is but a taste. I also remember when they multi-hundred dollar versions of OpenLinux (the "Lite" (sick) was the free one).
Let me start of by saying that like RMS I too want all my software to be free. Specifically I think the GNU GPL is the best license for the job. I think RMS' vision of free software for all is inevidable. However I think we are still a bit early in the "free software for everything" revolusion and thus his speaches seem so far reaching.
That said I still would rather call it just "Linux" simply because a shorter, one word name is better. Just as long as the core groups of people keep the GPL (or "real" open source license requirements - no pseudo Qt or Apple licenses) alive (GNOME, Red Hat, Cygnus) free software will be fine.
I hope some day to call my OS+software a "GNU system" or just "GNU" instead of Linux. Not because of the FSF or GNU project itself, but simply because of the license and it's power to defend against closed source. One example is how the GPL protected/helped gcc with Objective-C, egcs, and more front end and target platform support.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Perl books were they're most crowning acheivements. All other Perl books were secondary to the O'Riely versions. I guess owning Mr. Wall didn't hurt in that respect :)
If anything happens to the Statue of Liberty, why not just send her back to France and get them to do warranty repair. I'm sure the French wouldn't mind, especially if you've purchased the extended warranty :)
I think it's nice that people are starting to get interested in relational databases again. They really are the backbone of information systems in business, despite what the industry rags will have you believe.
The "hype" of object-oriented and XML-driven "databases", although aesthetically prettier, have adverse effects on performance and design. Programmers get lazy, applications become sloppy and performance goes into the toilet.
I think for things like software and web servers, profit will be secondary. Yes, I've witnessed the .com crash, but here me out:
Free software applications have to replace all common off the shelf softwate (except for stuff like games, which is more "content" than application). Simply put, time is on free software's side. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but eventually, someone will have written a free replacement for every commercial off-the-shelf application.
Similarly, many web sites and web services seem to be too simple (from an application complexity point of view) to demand any kind of real subscription fees to users. People won't pay them, for the most part, so sites have to slim down and make due with ad revenues.
(shameless plug, check out the site on my sig for an example of such a web service)
Can't you just disable "auto-run" for audio CDs in Windows? But I guess most average users don't know or care enough to do that. Ohh well, why do you need privacy anyways, unless you've got something to hide, you criminal :)
I've also seen the case where scientists will constantly refer to their own, or their coleagues' papers. This is an easy way to increase the "cited" count of the refered paper, making one's work look more usefull, even when the citation has little or no relevance to the current topic.
This is all well and good for external spam, but what can be done for all the spam you get from within the organization? You know the Dilbert/Office Space-esque ones about birthdays, births, engagments, retirements, etc. And it only seems to get worse as the organization gets larger.
First off, C++ objects can force the use of all data access through assert()-filled methods, then in optimized mode can be inlined and thus reduced to their C equivalents.
Second, destructors in C++ guarantee clean up of objects, regardless of how you leave scope (natural, return, exception, etc).
Finally, you couple destructors and reference counting auto-pointers, and you have yourself a very nice allocation API that's as easy as Java, but without the performance or unnatural destruction logistics.
I compiled your C++ program under Red Hat Linux 7.1. With no optimization, the binary was 4212 bytes. With optimizations it was 4776. Both versions where stripped. Are you sure your linking the standard C++ libraries dynamically?
Also, a quick scan of by bin diretories shows that most binaries are indeed stripped.
Finally, if you consider C++ "big", then I urge you to read some of Bjarne's writings on the subject. The whole goal of C++ was to help you code in "with classes" with 0-cost over the same code implemented in C.
I also don't understand how a binary can be linked mutiple times both statically and dynamically to the same library. Surely you'd get symbol conflicts.
autoconf and automake are hideous.
I'm not a dumb guy. I've bee coding for various platforms and languages for many years, and always enjoy playing with new technology and software. But next to sendmail configuration files, autoconf/make seem to be created by the devil himself. I've never seen such an orgy of scripts, binaries and m4 working to create makefiles that take way to long to comprehend and debug. It shouldn't be this complex and bloated.
make, by itself, is perfect as a build tool. What I do like is the way glib/gtk+/gnome/libxml and other tools provide you with a -config script to which you can use backticks in your compile lines (eg. CFLAGS = `gtk-config --cflags`).
glib (not to be confused by glibc), also provides many safe routines (ie. better sprintf()) and utility functions we all could use and have probably made for ourselves. It also guarantees the existence of various core functions, by simply either being an alias for the system function, or if it doesn't exist, providing an implementation. Thus instead of targeting UNICEs, I assume the target platform has ANSI C (or C++) plus glib and any other libs I need. No need to worry if it's strings.g or string.h, or if there's a strdup().
Thus, it is my humble opinion that autoconf and friends should be replaced by simple make, *-config scripts and glib (or some other common library).
Why don't you use raw hard drive partitions for your files. IE. set the proper permissions on say /dev/hdb6 and save/load your files directly to that. Ofcourse you don't get the 'file managment' capabilities of a file system, but you also don't get the overhead (and restrictions).
Big databases do this all the time. Surprisingly, when I played around with microsoft sql server 6.5 on NT 4, it required creating its files on top of NT's NTFS file system - two layers of journalling, come on now...
I wonder if you americans can give me some approximate estimates on comp sci tuitions in the states?
:). Between coop work terms and livin at home I'll be graduating in black financialy.
In Canada I pay about $3200CDN (~$2200US) a year at my local provincial institution. Ofcourse we're taxed a hell of a lot more
Caldera is cheaper than Red Hat? Last time I checked Red Hat distros were still open source and freely downloadable of the 'net (as well as other sources). Can't go below zero, eh :)
Caldera also doesn't seem to have the same commitment to free software as Red Hat does. I fear that if Caldera gains power in Linux land they could become a SCO with lots of expensive add-ons. Their NetWare is but a taste. I also remember when they multi-hundred dollar versions of OpenLinux (the "Lite" (sick) was the free one).
Let me start of by saying that like RMS I too want all my software to be free. Specifically I think the GNU GPL is the best license for the job. I think RMS' vision of free software for all is inevidable. However I think we are still a bit early in the "free software for everything" revolusion and thus his speaches seem so far reaching.
That said I still would rather call it just "Linux" simply because a shorter, one word name is better. Just as long as the core groups of people keep the GPL (or "real" open source license requirements - no pseudo Qt or Apple licenses) alive (GNOME, Red Hat, Cygnus) free software will be fine.
I hope some day to call my OS+software a "GNU system" or just "GNU" instead of Linux. Not because of the FSF or GNU project itself, but simply because of the license and it's power to defend against closed source. One example is how the GPL protected/helped gcc with Objective-C, egcs, and more front end and target platform support.