(or later) wouldn't apply in this case, because it would be Telstra's option to pick which version of the GPL to distribute the code under. If you were to download the source from them, then you would have the right to "upgrade" it to GPLv3 for anyone who wanted to download it from you.
Telstra responded quickly to Gratton's claims, saying they would work with the vendors to straighten out the licensing situation and fix any compliance issues.
What's the problem, exactly? They've been notified of their noncompliance and have stated that they'll fix it. Isn't that what we want them to do? Let me know if they've failed to do so after a reasonable amount of time, but until then, I guess I can't be bothered to care.
I presume you're talking about Kiva or something very similar. If so, I agree completely. I've lent my initial stake about 10 times, and each time it's an actual investment. I picked companies that I though could use effectively use the money, sent them the cash, then watched as they repaid it. It's a gratifying feeling, I tell you.
Why would 'overlapping windows' be a good thing, exactly? Tiling I can see - just now, Windows is finally getting the ability to effectively tile windows. But overlapping? That begs the introduction of features to help deal with display short-comings - like the tear-off corners a person has to use to resize said window.
And yet the other popular consumer GUI OSes of the time, namely AmigaOS and MacOS, had no trouble with it.
Aside from this fact, why would the ability to overlay or tile windows be of any importance when your resolution is negligible and your screen even less so? We're talking about displays only slightly larger than what we find on tablets today, and at significantly lower resolution.
I don't even know how to properly respond to this. Had you never used any of the contemporary OSes that supported such things? I promise you that it was very handy, even on a 640x200 (!!!) Amiga with an ancient monitor. It never would have occurred to me that someone would have described the lack of that ability as a feature.
Why even write the article if you're going to be talking with people so unfamiliar with the software. You're arguing semantics whether it was in or on DOS for it wasn't until XP that the consumer line stopped using it.
I'm pretty sure he meant "text mode" instead of "in DOS", since he contrasts it with the later GUI version. And I'm almost certain he's wrong about that, but not for the reason you were quick to jump on him for.
Programmers on the versions of the ARM platform without a MMU do OK today without that happening.
...when only one program is running at a time.
The difference back then is the multiple programs were attempting to run without the OS being capable of letting them do so properly.
Which was exactly what the GP said. You can obviously write good bare-metal software on a non-memory-protected system. Without those protections, though, even the best NASA-grade engineered software can be trashed by some random shareware alarm clock program writing to the wrong place.
Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole.
That's pretty much the working legal definition of "immoral".
Same for theft. And other major crimes. No such argument can be made for ESC research, beyond personal offense taken by some based on their morals.
These aren't my views, but I bring them up because you're glossing over them:
There are a lot of people who view the coordinated death of an embryo as murder. Not "similar to murder", or "analogous to murder", but "is murder". Put yourself in their shoes. How do you compromise on that? How do say, "I find this whole murder thing distasteful, but you're right; I'm just pushing my morality off on strangers"?
Suppose someone was proposing a law to allow adult children to kill their parents, regardless of reason. I'm not talking about painfully, slowly dying invalids in hospice care, but normally healthy adults. Of course everyone would fight that legislation! Well, many "pro lifers" see that as identical to abortion law except with babies instead of retirees, and would vehemently disagree that they're "forcing morality" on anyone.
Again, these aren't my views on the subject. It's just that I think you're doing them (and yourself!) a disservice by dismissing the pro-life contingent as a bunch of Puritanical control freaks, when from their perspective they're genuinely anguished by what they see as state-sponsored murder.
The rights of the few shall not be infringed upon by the wants of the many.
A pro-lifer would agree completely, but from a different angle: "the rights of the few (to not be murdered before birth) shall not be infringed upon by the wants ot the many (not to be inconvenienced)."
And to reiterate: these aren't my opinions. I've spent a lot of time around pro-lifers, though, and their views are a lot less cartoonish than you seem to want to make them to be.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Are you serious? Are you required to put that after your statement of personal opinions?
Well it starts and ends like this: Family is basically the principal institution for the socialization of children.
I'm a straight, married Conservative with 4 kids, and think you're utterly wrong. First, that's your idea of what "family" means, and there are a lot of couples (subset of "families") who think it means having an intimate, personal relationship with someone they love and want to share time with. Second, the topic at hand is about couples (who happen to be gay) who are raising and "socializing" children, which is pretty much exactly your definition of a family.
Unless, of course, by "socialization of children" you meant "teaching of my specific mores to children".
Yep, when Virginia Tech built a supercomputer out of Xserves for a much cheaper cost than anything else at the time, it was really just a bunch of Mac Fanboys wasting money on useless computers.
It was a good idea - 6 years ago. That anecdote isn't relevant today.
I think the only people who got these things were Mac Fanboys. Don't get me wrong, I like Mac. But I would never have recommended Apple Servers in a business settings.
Yeah, I never could figure out their market. For small offices, a Mini is much more cost-effective and a perfectly reasonable replacement. Large offices typically have the expertise to buy a Dell or HP 1U server and configure their own system. Where's the sweet spot for people who need the Xserve's features but aren't technical enough to get them some other way?
Disabling swap doesn't disable paging. I don't know of any way of disabling page eviction to disk, not on Linux, not on Windows, not on OS X. That's what VM is about.
That's not what VM is about, and I think you know it. Paging and swapping are things made possible by VM, but are not the same as VM.
But beyond that, there's an experiment you can run on many modern desktops: boot the whole system into a RAM disk and run exclusively off the motherboard DIMMs. No spinning rust, no SSDs, nothing but DRAM. Know what? You'll still see those latencies when clicking menus and other widgets.
I mentioned the Amiga deliberately in my last post. It had a wholly different GUI concept where every app's interface ran in the same process. That is, there was one thread that handled all GUI elements for every running application, and it was always there managing the display even when individual apps were too busy with other stuff. Contrast with pretty much every other modern desktop where each app manages its own display, regardless of how much other work it's doing. While Amiga's approach probably wouldn't work very well today, it made for a wonderfully responsive GUI. Those are the types of design decisions that make all the difference between instant feedback and waiting to see whether your click actually registered.
He said VM because he meant VM and not paging. Even when you've disable swap and have no paging, your address space for each application is still virtualized.
I have a Boston Terrier. As long as we're listing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, I thought I'd toss that out there.
Of course VM won't have any impact on human-observable latencies, so why even bring it up?
While the image repainting was slow simply due to memory bandwidths back then, one can't but be amazed at the instantaneous response from the right-hand menu system. It seems like it took one or two vsyncs for the new menu to appear in response to a keystroke. This is something that you still can't get on modern OSes simply because there's always the VM subsystem in the way.
That's all very true, except that you're completely wrong. Seriously, what? I get those lags even on systems where I've temporarily disabled swap. I wholeheartedly agree that most X GUIs are painfully laggy - I hate that my 7MHz Amiga 1000 was much more responsive than my dual-core 3GHz desktop - but that has everything to do with the interactions between toolkits, X, and the apps using those toolkits and nothing at all to do with paging. And while you're at it, quit saying "VM" when you mean "paging". While you commonly see them together, they're nowhere near the same.
Yes, because supporting criminals by means of an even worse crime always makes absolute sense.
Removing a possibly productive citizen from society seems a lot worse than removing a *AA sociopath from society. Thomas shared a few songs. The *AA CEOs have bought a legal system. Of those, I think I must have a different idea of "an even worse crime" than you do.
I'm not saying I'd condone or endorse this specific vigilanteism, but I am saying that I'd have a hard time voting to convict for it if I were on the jury.
Re:Hi- I'm the Author
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
How do you get a book reviewed on slashdot?
I wrote a review when a publisher sent me a free copy (seemingly at random; maybe because of the mailing lists I was active on at the time?) and it interested me enough to want to tell others about it.
This is not a request for everyone to start sending me books. My days aren't that long.:-) Just passing along how it happened to work in my case.
Re:Yes, yes, for loops!
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
You totally missed the advantage that should excite most people these days: map and reduce are much easier to parallelize than a for loop. A Lisp implementation could easily fork off 10 child processes to chew through a large map, for instance, while a C compiler would have to be far more cautious about explicitly performing the steps in the order you wrote them.
If you use Emacs' automagical indentation (TAB == "indent this line Properly"), and set your editor to display the corresponding parenthesis for any one you have selected, it becomes much easier to track parentheses.
Or you can just bind a key to slime-close-all-parens-in-sexp and let Emacs add enough parentheses to finish your statement. I agree with your main idea: get a good editor and let it help you.
The reason people dislike it, is that the normal way for personal computers to operate is that the owner of the device (who is also typically the user), is the "someone" that you mention. And a lot of us are still used to the normal way (I guess that's why I call it "normal";-). The evil here is not the killswitch; it's whose hand is on the switch.
What about a compromise where a vendor can remotely flag an app, and upon launch the user gets a prompt like "This application has been identified as potentially dangerous. Do you still want to use it?"
Oh, I wasn't arguing against that. I just wanted to point out that there were some Republicans who disliked it even when some other Republicans were coming up with it.
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare".
Which is why I voted against Romney in the 2008 primary (when I was still a registered Republican). I disliked the idea even when someone who was on my team was advancing it.
While CSS has certainly improved the visuals, the sites I like the best are ones that actually still useful when I use lynx/elinks to visit them (e.g., Daring Fireball, Ars Technica).
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a lot of iOS users who detest sites that force specific renderings. It's not the best idea to discard the "young with disposable income" demographic just because that banner has to be 4.263 inches wide to keep the graphic designer from losing his mind.
Slashdot Mirror
(or later) wouldn't apply in this case, because it would be Telstra's option to pick which version of the GPL to distribute the code under. If you were to download the source from them, then you would have the right to "upgrade" it to GPLv3 for anyone who wanted to download it from you.
I'm fairly certain they're not legally obligated to, as that was a large part of the motivation for GPLv3.
Telstra responded quickly to Gratton's claims, saying they would work with the vendors to straighten out the licensing situation and fix any compliance issues.
What's the problem, exactly? They've been notified of their noncompliance and have stated that they'll fix it. Isn't that what we want them to do? Let me know if they've failed to do so after a reasonable amount of time, but until then, I guess I can't be bothered to care.
I presume you're talking about Kiva or something very similar. If so, I agree completely. I've lent my initial stake about 10 times, and each time it's an actual investment. I picked companies that I though could use effectively use the money, sent them the cash, then watched as they repaid it. It's a gratifying feeling, I tell you.
Why would 'overlapping windows' be a good thing, exactly? Tiling I can see - just now, Windows is finally getting the ability to effectively tile windows. But overlapping? That begs the introduction of features to help deal with display short-comings - like the tear-off corners a person has to use to resize said window.
And yet the other popular consumer GUI OSes of the time, namely AmigaOS and MacOS, had no trouble with it.
Aside from this fact, why would the ability to overlay or tile windows be of any importance when your resolution is negligible and your screen even less so? We're talking about displays only slightly larger than what we find on tablets today, and at significantly lower resolution.
I don't even know how to properly respond to this. Had you never used any of the contemporary OSes that supported such things? I promise you that it was very handy, even on a 640x200 (!!!) Amiga with an ancient monitor. It never would have occurred to me that someone would have described the lack of that ability as a feature.
Why even write the article if you're going to be talking with people so unfamiliar with the software. You're arguing semantics whether it was in or on DOS for it wasn't until XP that the consumer line stopped using it.
I'm pretty sure he meant "text mode" instead of "in DOS", since he contrasts it with the later GUI version. And I'm almost certain he's wrong about that, but not for the reason you were quick to jump on him for.
Programmers on the versions of the ARM platform without a MMU do OK today without that happening.
...when only one program is running at a time.
The difference back then is the multiple programs were attempting to run without the OS being capable of letting them do so properly.
Which was exactly what the GP said. You can obviously write good bare-metal software on a non-memory-protected system. Without those protections, though, even the best NASA-grade engineered software can be trashed by some random shareware alarm clock program writing to the wrong place.
Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole.
That's pretty much the working legal definition of "immoral".
Same for theft. And other major crimes. No such argument can be made for ESC research, beyond personal offense taken by some based on their morals.
These aren't my views, but I bring them up because you're glossing over them:
There are a lot of people who view the coordinated death of an embryo as murder. Not "similar to murder", or "analogous to murder", but "is murder". Put yourself in their shoes. How do you compromise on that? How do say, "I find this whole murder thing distasteful, but you're right; I'm just pushing my morality off on strangers"?
Suppose someone was proposing a law to allow adult children to kill their parents, regardless of reason. I'm not talking about painfully, slowly dying invalids in hospice care, but normally healthy adults. Of course everyone would fight that legislation! Well, many "pro lifers" see that as identical to abortion law except with babies instead of retirees, and would vehemently disagree that they're "forcing morality" on anyone.
Again, these aren't my views on the subject. It's just that I think you're doing them (and yourself!) a disservice by dismissing the pro-life contingent as a bunch of Puritanical control freaks, when from their perspective they're genuinely anguished by what they see as state-sponsored murder.
The rights of the few shall not be infringed upon by the wants of the many.
A pro-lifer would agree completely, but from a different angle: "the rights of the few (to not be murdered before birth) shall not be infringed upon by the wants ot the many (not to be inconvenienced)."
And to reiterate: these aren't my opinions. I've spent a lot of time around pro-lifers, though, and their views are a lot less cartoonish than you seem to want to make them to be.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Are you serious? Are you required to put that after your statement of personal opinions?
Well it starts and ends like this: Family is basically the principal institution for the socialization of children.
I'm a straight, married Conservative with 4 kids, and think you're utterly wrong. First, that's your idea of what "family" means, and there are a lot of couples (subset of "families") who think it means having an intimate, personal relationship with someone they love and want to share time with. Second, the topic at hand is about couples (who happen to be gay) who are raising and "socializing" children, which is pretty much exactly your definition of a family.
Unless, of course, by "socialization of children" you meant "teaching of my specific mores to children".
What do you in your datacenter that would result in a server becoming airborne?
Oh, and you've never had a server crash?
Yep, when Virginia Tech built a supercomputer out of Xserves for a much cheaper cost than anything else at the time, it was really just a bunch of Mac Fanboys wasting money on useless computers.
It was a good idea - 6 years ago. That anecdote isn't relevant today.
I think the only people who got these things were Mac Fanboys. Don't get me wrong, I like Mac. But I would never have recommended Apple Servers in a business settings.
Yeah, I never could figure out their market. For small offices, a Mini is much more cost-effective and a perfectly reasonable replacement. Large offices typically have the expertise to buy a Dell or HP 1U server and configure their own system. Where's the sweet spot for people who need the Xserve's features but aren't technical enough to get them some other way?
Disabling swap doesn't disable paging. I don't know of any way of disabling page eviction to disk, not on Linux, not on Windows, not on OS X. That's what VM is about.
That's not what VM is about, and I think you know it. Paging and swapping are things made possible by VM, but are not the same as VM.
But beyond that, there's an experiment you can run on many modern desktops: boot the whole system into a RAM disk and run exclusively off the motherboard DIMMs. No spinning rust, no SSDs, nothing but DRAM. Know what? You'll still see those latencies when clicking menus and other widgets.
I mentioned the Amiga deliberately in my last post. It had a wholly different GUI concept where every app's interface ran in the same process. That is, there was one thread that handled all GUI elements for every running application, and it was always there managing the display even when individual apps were too busy with other stuff. Contrast with pretty much every other modern desktop where each app manages its own display, regardless of how much other work it's doing. While Amiga's approach probably wouldn't work very well today, it made for a wonderfully responsive GUI. Those are the types of design decisions that make all the difference between instant feedback and waiting to see whether your click actually registered.
He said VM because he meant VM and not paging. Even when you've disable swap and have no paging, your address space for each application is still virtualized.
I have a Boston Terrier. As long as we're listing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, I thought I'd toss that out there.
Of course VM won't have any impact on human-observable latencies, so why even bring it up?
While the image repainting was slow simply due to memory bandwidths back then, one can't but be amazed at the instantaneous response from the right-hand menu system. It seems like it took one or two vsyncs for the new menu to appear in response to a keystroke. This is something that you still can't get on modern OSes simply because there's always the VM subsystem in the way.
That's all very true, except that you're completely wrong. Seriously, what? I get those lags even on systems where I've temporarily disabled swap. I wholeheartedly agree that most X GUIs are painfully laggy - I hate that my 7MHz Amiga 1000 was much more responsive than my dual-core 3GHz desktop - but that has everything to do with the interactions between toolkits, X, and the apps using those toolkits and nothing at all to do with paging. And while you're at it, quit saying "VM" when you mean "paging". While you commonly see them together, they're nowhere near the same.
Yes, because supporting criminals by means of an even worse crime always makes absolute sense.
Removing a possibly productive citizen from society seems a lot worse than removing a *AA sociopath from society. Thomas shared a few songs. The *AA CEOs have bought a legal system. Of those, I think I must have a different idea of "an even worse crime" than you do.
I'm not saying I'd condone or endorse this specific vigilanteism, but I am saying that I'd have a hard time voting to convict for it if I were on the jury.
How do you get a book reviewed on slashdot?
I wrote a review when a publisher sent me a free copy (seemingly at random; maybe because of the mailing lists I was active on at the time?) and it interested me enough to want to tell others about it.
This is not a request for everyone to start sending me books. My days aren't that long. :-) Just passing along how it happened to work in my case.
You totally missed the advantage that should excite most people these days: map and reduce are much easier to parallelize than a for loop. A Lisp implementation could easily fork off 10 child processes to chew through a large map, for instance, while a C compiler would have to be far more cautious about explicitly performing the steps in the order you wrote them.
If you use Emacs' automagical indentation (TAB == "indent this line Properly"), and set your editor to display the corresponding parenthesis for any one you have selected, it becomes much easier to track parentheses.
Or you can just bind a key to slime-close-all-parens-in-sexp and let Emacs add enough parentheses to finish your statement. I agree with your main idea: get a good editor and let it help you.
The reason people dislike it, is that the normal way for personal computers to operate is that the owner of the device (who is also typically the user), is the "someone" that you mention. And a lot of us are still used to the normal way (I guess that's why I call it "normal" ;-). The evil here is not the killswitch; it's whose hand is on the switch.
What about a compromise where a vendor can remotely flag an app, and upon launch the user gets a prompt like "This application has been identified as potentially dangerous. Do you still want to use it?"
Oh, I wasn't arguing against that. I just wanted to point out that there were some Republicans who disliked it even when some other Republicans were coming up with it.
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare".
Which is why I voted against Romney in the 2008 primary (when I was still a registered Republican). I disliked the idea even when someone who was on my team was advancing it.
Shame about the "flamebait". That was pretty funny. :-) My turn:
webOS, a nichey thing
that no one really understood.
Kin, another Redmond product
lacking any trace of good.
While CSS has certainly improved the visuals, the sites I like the best are ones that actually still useful when I use lynx/elinks to visit them (e.g., Daring Fireball, Ars Technica).
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a lot of iOS users who detest sites that force specific renderings. It's not the best idea to discard the "young with disposable income" demographic just because that banner has to be 4.263 inches wide to keep the graphic designer from losing his mind.
Dell was still selling (and people were presumably still buying) XP machines last month.