I think even with the popularity of windows, Macintosh has 800x as many viruses. Its just too easy:
1) no memory protection.. you can alter anything in memory if you want. 2) toolbox- interrupt-driven drawing and system code with a patchable table.. I want to make the text drawing functions say 'iM 'lEEt' instead of what you want it to say 3) no file protection.. you can easily destroy sytem files as well as user files
Shoot, they have viruses that are SO creative for the mac (like the oscar virus) that people purposely install them because they are so coll. How is that for ironic? (Whoaa, that is cool, can I get a copy of... wait, I already have it! coooool!)
the copyright transfer is such a load of shit. it is just journals exploiting as much as they can. Fortunately, my institution (Caltech) is thinking of starting a new journal- with the benefit of the caltech name it might still be worth publishing in, and it woulnd't have all the greedy exploits.
Don't forget that MS has a habit of introducing functionality in one release, then removing or hiding parts of it in the next release. Like your MS DOS with your Win98 (all sorts of switches and options from the DOS that shipped with Win95 are... poof! gone)
But the point is, I think, that once Perl has been adapted to make better use of Win32-specific functions, that MS could change/tweak/modify those functions. ActiveState would most certainly be aware of these types of changes coming down the pipe well before you or I, and can make anticipatory changes. Suddenly, the new functionality that Perl is supposed to have only works on Windows 2000, or NT4/5. So you want to keep using Perl, right? but you're using Win98. Now you have to upgrade your OS!
"You can use the wrong methods, and STILL arrive at the right conclusion."
No, you can STATE at a TRUE conclusion. You cannot ARRIVE anywhere valid.
"The fact that the origional writer's arguments are bogus, does not mean that his conclusion is therefore false."
No, just invalid.
If you then want to take his (invalid) conclusion and say, "No, I think he's right" you'll have to provide something to back it up. Which you did not. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
If I can't compile or run programs written in Language L without the license, what's the difference? -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
There are many many languages/specs that have licenses. Java, Posix, etc. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
I'm not saying Frank is an idiot because he can't spell and he got a lot of grammar wrong. I'm saying his rebuttal would be more effective if it had been written correctly.
Compare and contrast:
"if he would of profered it might of ben easyer to read and uderstand"
"If he would have proofread it might have been easier to read and understand" -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Nearly all of MS's specs and protocols are undocumented or poorly documented. Things like WINE, Samba, and Office conversion utils are all reverse engineered. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Just the fact that "Company decides to stick to standards" is newsworthy points out what a sorry state we are in. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
1) The author is supposedly the former editor of a magazine. He surely should know how important basic spelling and grammar are.
2) By posting on Slashot and LinuxToday (as well as emailing the original author), this person is representing (infinitesimally, perhaps) the Linux community and therefore me as well. I am not an "illiterate hacker" and I don't want to be made to look like one through guilt by association.
3) Accuracy in spelling and grammar in written language is directly comparable to accuracy of syntax and semantics in a programming environment. Typos, especially those that are correctly spelled wrong words, are bugs that can cause all kinds of problems. Sure, many errors can be fixed with context. But a) that's inefficient not to mention annoying and b) what about those that aren't? -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Are you trying to say "it doesn't matter how he got there, he just got there"?
Because that translates pretty easily to "the ends justify the means". -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Re:Don't believe it till you see it.
on
K7 Info
·
· Score: 1
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>Well, they don't so you just have to live with it and I can sympathize with the point of view of the programmers. It is a lot of time and energy (and in bussiness those mean money) to add support for 3dnow to your game.
It can be simpler than that. I've not done too much x86 development, my area is with the PPC it should be as simple as clicking a checkbox in the IDE. Support 3dnow = yes.
It's the developer of the IDE who does the majority of the work in that area. The compiler and the linker can dynamicly adjust for the target CPU/environment. For example, metrowerks Codewarrior can be configured to optimize for a specific processor within the PowerPC family (601, 603, 604, and I'm sure G3 will be next).
All in all AMD's biggest shortcoming is and has been for the past few years with FPU performance, it's been abysmal. If (and that's a big IF) they can improve that with the K7 they just might be able to live up to their own hype.
Secondly, I wasn't going to say anything until I saw you are the former editor-in-chief of Unix Info, BUT this essay shares a great deal with other essays posted on Slashdot: no proofreading. Worse, this essay wasn't just for Slashdot's consumption--you emailed it out as a rebuttal to a columnist.
And this isn't just idle "you mean 'lose' not 'loose'" complaints. There are many areas where I had to back up and re-read (and re-re-read) sentences until I understood how you meant to put them. Examples:
The line about Netscape creating a browser "with and API". I finally realized you meant "with an API".
"I do not remember Microsoft being a proponent for open source software, not them being a beneficiary." I must have read this 4 times before I realized that you meant "...nor them being a...".
Yes, I realize that the meaning is of utmost importance, but spelling and grammar are the road on which your message travels and potholes can slow or stop your progress. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
I think what Dr Varmus is doing is great. As another poster said, I can't believe the scientific community is against it. They sound more interested in making money than the sharing of scientific knowledge, which to me is what science is all about...knowledge.
I used to work with Dr. Varmus when he was at UCSF (nothing more than a lab assistant) but he was always a wonderful person to work with. After he won the nobel prize (shared) and got hist post with the NIH he took the whole lab out to a great party/dinner. I'm not really surprised he would be pushing for this. He always tried to go beyond what the administrations told him he could and couldn't do, always for the better of the science.
---- "Wars, conflict, it's all business. One murder makes a villain. Millions a hero. Numbers sanctify."
Just out of curiosity, why are they sticking with Red Hat, considering that A) Their latest offering has taken a lot of flak about being weighted down with two desktop environments and seems rushed and B) OpenLinux has all the features of Red Hat plus a graphical install, etc.
I don't mean to cause a flamewar here, but think about it...Red Hat seems to be abandoning the desktop in favor of corporate customers, and there are better desktop-oriented distros out there (Corel's version of debian should be interesting, to say the least).
I agree this was an interesting article, although also one a little bit disappointing to me if true. I am in a position where I think I will be attempting to farm out some work on a project that I want to release in an OpenSource form. I won't directly be the deep pockets, but I will hopefully get a chunk of change from those pockets, and think that both my background and schedule suggest that I'd like to find some help on the project.
With that in mind, I looked very hopefully at some of these "Bounty" models that have been discussed and set up. I very much like the idea of offering up work in this form. The alternative, for me, I suppose is just a more old-fashioned sub-contracting. That can probably work too... but it doesn't have any of the feel of OpenSource in that aspect of the process, even if I then eventually release my final code in an OpenSource way.
Related to this though, I'd like to take exception to one point of the article. The author claims that 99.999% of programmers--like the same number of painters--suck. I think I might quibble with the precise degree of exclusion, but obviously there is more mediocrity than greatness in either arts or programming (arts). My reaction to this is "So what?!"
I think I myself am not in that 0.0001% of the great ones. I'm not even in a more generous 1% of the greatest programmers. But I'm adequate, even a bit good. And that is enough to write what it is I need to write. And that would be fine to write the rather boring project I want farm out. I don't need Linus, or RMS, or Larry Wall, to write something that tracks a few records in a database, and presents a few formatted screens in a web-browser. It is real workaday stuff, and mediocre is good enough to get this done. In fact, for medium-sized not-too-profound software projects, RMS is not even going to code them 10 or 100 times faster than I am. 50% faster, sure; maybe even twice as fast; but no orders of magnitude, and no 3x multiplicative factors even.
I think that projects like the one I have hinted at make up an awful lot of all software--even of OpenSource software that scratches some little itch. And I even think there is nothing wrong with that. For this sort of thing, the bounty method seems more reasonable than suggested.
We should just ask them to contribute to the Nikon module for GPhoto. It's a great app and writing simple camera specific driver modules for new camera support is the way it was designed. Then they could have automatic support built into the eventual GNOME desktop.
>>I have no idea how they're expecting to be able to do SMP under Win9x. They'd have to come up with their own SMP engine and tack it onto the kernel I suppose. But then I'm no SE.
It should be possible for software to take advantage of whatever hardware is available. When Win95 first shipped there was no such thing as a "3D Card" but we were able to use them. I don't see why SMP should be any different. As long as you've got a kernel that can support multiple threads, SMP should be possible in one form or another.
>>I have no idea how they're expecting to be able to do SMP under Win9x. They'd have to come up with their own SMP engine and tack it onto the kernel I suppose. But then I'm no SE.
It should be possible for software to take advantage of whatever hardware is available. When Win95 first shipped there was no such thing as a "3D Card" but we were able to use them. I don't see why SMP should be any different. As long as you've got a kernel that can support multiple threads SMP should be possible in one form or another.
Let's fly a couple of spaceships packed with those microbes to the mars.
They will start producing methan. Once we run out of fuel. We can just fly to Mars. compress all that methan they have produced in 50 years or so and use it as a replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by Dr Evil:
... wait, I already have it! coooool!)
I think even with the popularity of windows, Macintosh has 800x as many viruses. Its just too easy:
1) no memory protection.. you can alter anything in memory if you want.
2) toolbox- interrupt-driven drawing and system code with a patchable table.. I want to make the text drawing functions say 'iM 'lEEt' instead of what you want it to say
3) no file protection.. you can easily destroy sytem files as well as user files
Shoot, they have viruses that are SO creative for the mac (like the oscar virus) that people purposely install them because they are so coll. How is that for ironic?
(Whoaa, that is cool, can I get a copy of
-David
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
the copyright transfer is such a load of shit. it is just journals exploiting as much as they can. Fortunately, my institution (Caltech) is thinking of starting a new journal- with the benefit of the caltech name it might still be worth publishing in, and it woulnd't have all the greedy exploits.
Posted by &E:
... poof! gone)
Don't forget that MS has a habit of introducing functionality in one release, then removing or hiding parts of it in the next release. Like your MS DOS with your Win98 (all sorts of switches and options from the DOS that shipped with Win95 are
Posted by &E:
But the point is, I think, that once Perl has been adapted to make better use of Win32-specific functions, that MS could change/tweak/modify those functions. ActiveState would most certainly be aware of these types of changes coming down the pipe well before you or I, and can make anticipatory changes. Suddenly, the new functionality that Perl is supposed to have only works on Windows 2000, or NT4/5. So you want to keep using Perl, right? but you're using Win98. Now you have to upgrade your OS!
Trickery Trickery Trickery!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"You can use the wrong methods, and STILL arrive at the right conclusion."
No, you can STATE at a TRUE conclusion. You cannot ARRIVE anywhere valid.
"The fact that the origional writer's arguments are bogus, does not mean that his conclusion is therefore false."
No, just invalid.
If you then want to take his (invalid) conclusion and say, "No, I think he's right" you'll have to provide something to back it up. Which you did not.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
If I can't compile or run programs written in Language L without the license, what's the difference?
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
There are many many languages/specs that have licenses. Java, Posix, etc.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Which is why I would have someone proofread.
I'm not saying Frank is an idiot because he can't spell and he got a lot of grammar wrong. I'm saying his rebuttal would be more effective if it had been written correctly.
Compare and contrast:
"if he would of profered it might of ben easyer to read and uderstand"
"If he would have proofread it might have been easier to read and understand"
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Nearly all of MS's specs and protocols are undocumented or poorly documented. Things like WINE, Samba, and Office conversion utils are all reverse engineered.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
But this story is news here. That's my point.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Just the fact that "Company decides to stick to standards" is newsworthy points out what a sorry state we are in.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
1) The author is supposedly the former editor of a magazine. He surely should know how important basic spelling and grammar are.
2) By posting on Slashot and LinuxToday (as well as emailing the original author), this person is representing (infinitesimally, perhaps) the Linux community and therefore me as well. I am not an "illiterate hacker" and I don't want to be made to look like one through guilt by association.
3) Accuracy in spelling and grammar in written language is directly comparable to accuracy of syntax and semantics in a programming environment. Typos, especially those that are correctly spelled wrong words, are bugs that can cause all kinds of problems. Sure, many errors can be fixed with context. But a) that's inefficient not to mention annoying and b) what about those that aren't?
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Are you trying to say "it doesn't matter how he got there, he just got there"?
Because that translates pretty easily to "the ends justify the means".
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>Well, they don't so you just have to live with it and I can sympathize with the point of view of the programmers. It is a lot of time and energy (and in bussiness those mean money) to add support for 3dnow to your game.
It can be simpler than that. I've not done too much x86 development, my area is with the PPC it should be as simple as clicking a checkbox in the IDE. Support 3dnow = yes.
It's the developer of the IDE who does the majority of the work in that area. The compiler and the linker can dynamicly adjust for the target CPU/environment. For example, metrowerks Codewarrior can be configured to optimize for a specific processor within the PowerPC family (601, 603, 604, and I'm sure G3 will be next).
All in all AMD's biggest shortcoming is and has been for the past few years with FPU performance, it's been abysmal. If (and that's a big IF) they can improve that with the K7 they just might be able to live up to their own hype.
LK
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
First off, I agree with much of what you say.
Secondly, I wasn't going to say anything until I saw you are the former editor-in-chief of Unix Info, BUT this essay shares a great deal with other essays posted on Slashdot: no proofreading.
Worse, this essay wasn't just for Slashdot's consumption--you emailed it out as a rebuttal to a columnist.
And this isn't just idle "you mean 'lose' not 'loose'" complaints. There are many areas where I had to back up and re-read (and re-re-read) sentences until I understood how you meant to put them. Examples:
The line about Netscape creating a browser "with and API". I finally realized you meant "with an API".
"I do not remember Microsoft being a proponent for open source software, not them being a beneficiary." I must have read this 4 times before I realized that you meant "...nor them being a...".
Yes, I realize that the meaning is of utmost importance, but spelling and grammar are the road on which your message travels and potholes can slow or stop your progress.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by tha_skunk:
:-)
Jupiter is virtually a ball of hydrogen. There should be fuel a plenty to burn.
but also a little bit farer away....
But a ball of H2!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus, and I thought a Methanized Mars would be
a great firework!!!!!!!
Posted by The Incredible Mr. Limpett:
I think what Dr Varmus is doing is great. As another poster said, I can't believe the scientific community is against it. They sound more interested in making money than the sharing of scientific knowledge, which to me is what science is all about...knowledge.
I used to work with Dr. Varmus when he was at UCSF (nothing more than a lab assistant) but he was always a wonderful person to work with. After he won the nobel prize (shared) and got hist post with the NIH he took the whole lab out to a great party/dinner. I'm not really surprised he would be pushing for this. He always tried to go beyond what the administrations told him he could and couldn't do, always for the better of the science.
----
"Wars, conflict, it's all business. One murder makes a
villain. Millions a hero. Numbers sanctify."
Posted by OGL:
Just out of curiosity, why are they sticking with Red Hat, considering that A) Their latest offering has taken a lot of flak about being weighted down with two desktop environments and seems rushed and B) OpenLinux has all the features of Red Hat plus a graphical install, etc.
I don't mean to cause a flamewar here, but think about it...Red Hat seems to be abandoning the desktop in favor of corporate customers, and there
are better desktop-oriented distros out there (Corel's version of debian should be interesting, to say the least).
-W.W.
Posted by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:
I agree this was an interesting article, although also one a little bit disappointing to me if true. I am in a position where I think I will be attempting to farm out some work on a project that I want to release in an OpenSource form. I won't directly be the deep pockets, but I will hopefully get a chunk of change from those pockets, and think that both my background and schedule suggest that I'd like to find some help on the project.
With that in mind, I looked very hopefully at some of these "Bounty" models that have been discussed and set up. I very much like the idea of offering up work in this form. The alternative, for me, I suppose is just a more old-fashioned sub-contracting. That can probably work too... but it doesn't have any of the feel of OpenSource in that aspect of the process, even if I then eventually release my final code in an OpenSource way.
Related to this though, I'd like to take exception to one point of the article. The author claims that 99.999% of programmers--like the same number of painters--suck. I think I might quibble with the precise degree of exclusion, but obviously there is more mediocrity than greatness in either arts or programming (arts). My reaction to this is "So what?!"
I think I myself am not in that 0.0001% of the great ones. I'm not even in a more generous 1% of the greatest programmers. But I'm adequate, even a bit good. And that is enough to write what it is I need to write. And that would be fine to write the rather boring project I want farm out. I don't need Linus, or RMS, or Larry Wall, to write something that tracks a few records in a database, and presents a few formatted screens in a web-browser. It is real workaday stuff, and mediocre is good enough to get this done. In fact, for medium-sized not-too-profound software projects, RMS is not even going to code them 10 or 100 times faster than I am. 50% faster, sure; maybe even twice as fast; but no orders of magnitude, and no 3x multiplicative factors even.
I think that projects like the one I have hinted at make up an awful lot of all software--even of OpenSource software that scratches some little itch. And I even think there is nothing wrong with that. For this sort of thing, the bounty method seems more reasonable than suggested.
Posted by tha_skunk:
:-)
> Can you say "great balls of fire"?
oh yeah, in case that we solve the energy problem
before we coulda blow hole mars in pieces, what a
great firework would this be.
>I hope you didn't mean the above. Imagine the
>cost of transporting it
was not really serious
But imagine the cost of having no fuel anymore
and no real alternative for it!!!!!!!!!
those number coulda make you freak out
Posted by Mojoski:
We should just ask them to contribute to the Nikon module for GPhoto. It's a great app and writing simple camera specific driver modules for new camera support is the way it was designed. Then they could have automatic support built into the eventual GNOME desktop.
So mention www.GPhoto.org in your email.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>I have no idea how they're expecting to be able to do SMP under Win9x. They'd have to come up with their own SMP engine and tack it onto the kernel I suppose. But then I'm no SE.
It should be possible for software to take advantage of whatever hardware is available. When Win95 first shipped there was no such thing as a "3D Card" but we were able to use them. I don't see why SMP should be any different. As long as you've got a kernel that can support multiple threads, SMP should be possible in one form or another.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>I have no idea how they're expecting to be able to do SMP under Win9x. They'd have to come up with their own SMP engine and tack it onto the kernel I suppose. But then I'm no SE.
It should be possible for software to take advantage of whatever hardware is available. When Win95 first shipped there was no such thing as a "3D Card" but we were able to use them. I don't see why SMP should be any different. As long as you've got a kernel that can support multiple threads SMP should be possible in one form or another.
LK
Posted by tha_skunk:
That is really very cool.
Let's fly a couple of spaceships packed with
those microbes to the mars.
They will start producing methan.
Once we run out of fuel. We can just fly to Mars.
compress all that methan they have produced in
50 years or so and use it as a replacement.
come on lets do it
call your senator today
Posted by _DogShu_:
I thought ENIAC was the first electronic programmable computer. That's what they told me in my CompSci classes.