There is such an movement, run by HP and O'Reilly.
They're going to create a site where programmers can sign up to write open source software at the request of 3rd party firms (such as hardware vendors); developers would then keep the hardware or whatever. See here for the full story. It's called SourceXChange.
Careful, by that reasoning the dominant product in any category (including desktop OS) would be considered the highest quality. "85% of desktops run Windows. Can 100 million users be wrong? Are they all on crack?"
I imagine Apache is used by so many people not because it's the best web server (which frankly I think it is), but because it inherited the web serving momentum from NCSA httpd and because MS didn't create NT/IIS as a web server solution early enough in the game. And now that it has the leading position in terms of market share, pragmatists who aren't on the cutting edge of technology view it as the safe choice, explaining why the market share is still rising (approaching 60%) as opposed to the usual history of MS competitors.
It's not really secure, anyway. Encrypting the data between your PC and their server only protects from a sniffer between your PC and their server. What about the long, circuitous SMTP path that the email took from the sender to their server? That's all plaintext, open to sniffers as well.
The door's reinforced titanium, but someone left the window open. Client to client PGP still looks like the answer.
SCO just put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger. Other Unix vendors like Sun, Digital, IBM and HP have been smart enough to ride the train (to varying extents); this SCO CEO seems to think he can stand on the tracks and derail it. Not a wise move.
I didn't think his book was groudbreaking Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any. You clearly have no familiarity with the field. Evolutionary psychology, and all of its related fields (ethobiology, sociobiology, etc), have been studied in academia and massively popularized in the last 20 years. Try Ed Wilson's 'Sociobiology'. Or Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' and 'Conciousness Explained', both of which directly tie natural selection to cognition. Or Francis Crick's 'The Astonishing Hypothesis'. Or Pat Churchland's 'Neurophilosophy'. Or John Casti's 'Paradigms Lost'. Philosophy of mind is by nature a highly interdisciplinary field, touching on everything from evolution and biochemistry to neural network and genetic algorithms. Pinker's book falls into the same class, though it tends to be a broad and shallow survey. Pinker claims that the conditions present for evolutionary humans have a strong and direct causal link to our current psychological / cognitive reality, and that this link's explanatory power allows us to understand psychology / cognition more thoroughly than we could with out it. And he's not the first, by ANY means. In fact, when Ed Wilson proposed that evolution might have some impact on psychology (in the late 70's), he was attacked by his Harvard collegues, including notables such as Stephen Jay Gould and Rich Lewontin. Read Casti's book for more.didn't have any facts to back up his claims Look at the copious footnotes to each chapter. I defy you to show one significant claim that isn't thoroughly defended. (note also that this complain contradicts your previous complaint) You seem to think that a footnote sets a scientific fact in stone. Sorry, but much of research contradicts each other in this relatively young and complex field. And Pinker does tend to make longer interpretive leaps than his 'footnote supporters' would like, a phenomenon common in popular science and often harmful to the field.Very weak bit of trolling. Yes, it was.
Why so many layers of abstraction? Because code bloat (which these layer may cause) is by far preferable to conceptual bloat (which these layers remove). Why use perl, when you can use C to do your own regular expressions? Why use C, when you can code in Assembly? Because hardware (processor speed) is cheap, while software (conceptual creation) is expensive. Who cares about windowing speed (for example)? If your X-server is responsive, you're not going to notice further speed improvements. But without top-notch libraries to speed development, you'll notice that the windowing system isn't evolving very quickly (cough - Windows). Sure, Linux has its problems. But creating a variety of conceptual frameworks is not one of them.
If theyre experts, why dig the web for info?
on
Linux Advocacy Hurts
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree. They knew that the mainstream press / public only has so much attention, and would simply read the headline (nt beats linux) and not delve into the technical details. It was a fantastic PR move, since we all know that optimized NT would never beat optimized linux. Microsoft demonstrates their marketing genius yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to create a site where programmers can sign up to write open source software at the request of 3rd party firms (such as hardware vendors); developers would then keep the hardware or whatever. See here for the full story. It's called SourceXChange.
Inferno Man
Careful, by that reasoning the dominant product in any category (including desktop OS) would be considered the highest quality. "85% of desktops run Windows. Can 100 million users be wrong? Are they all on crack?"
I imagine Apache is used by so many people not because it's the best web server (which frankly I think it is), but because it inherited the web serving momentum from NCSA httpd and because MS didn't create NT/IIS as a web server solution early enough in the game. And now that it has the
leading position in terms of market share, pragmatists who aren't on the cutting edge of technology view it as the safe choice, explaining why the market share is still rising (approaching 60%) as opposed to the usual history of MS competitors.
Inferno Man
Uh...how about 'cluster with fail-over'?
Inferno Man
It's not really secure, anyway. Encrypting the
data between your PC and their server only protects from a sniffer between your PC and their
server. What about the long, circuitous SMTP path that the email took from the sender to their server? That's all plaintext, open to sniffers as well.
The door's reinforced titanium, but someone left the window open. Client to client PGP still looks like the answer.
Inferno Man
SCO just put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger. Other Unix vendors like Sun, Digital, IBM and HP have been smart enough to ride the train (to varying extents); this SCO CEO seems to think he can stand on the tracks and derail it. Not a wise move.
I didn't think his book was groudbreaking Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any. You clearly have no familiarity with the field. Evolutionary psychology, and all of its related fields (ethobiology, sociobiology, etc), have been studied in academia and massively popularized in the last 20 years. Try Ed Wilson's 'Sociobiology'. Or Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' and 'Conciousness Explained', both of which directly tie natural selection to cognition. Or Francis Crick's 'The Astonishing Hypothesis'. Or Pat Churchland's 'Neurophilosophy'. Or John Casti's 'Paradigms Lost'. Philosophy of mind is by nature a highly interdisciplinary field, touching on everything from evolution and biochemistry to neural network and genetic algorithms. Pinker's book falls into the same class, though it tends to be a broad and shallow survey. Pinker claims that the conditions present for evolutionary humans have a strong and direct causal link to our current psychological / cognitive reality, and that this link's explanatory power allows us to understand psychology / cognition more thoroughly than we could with out it. And he's not the first, by ANY means. In fact, when Ed Wilson proposed that evolution might have some impact on psychology (in the late 70's), he was attacked by his Harvard collegues, including notables such as Stephen Jay Gould and Rich Lewontin. Read Casti's book for more. didn't have any facts to back up his claims Look at the copious footnotes to each chapter. I defy you to show one significant claim that isn't thoroughly defended. (note also that this complain contradicts your previous complaint) You seem to think that a footnote sets a scientific fact in stone. Sorry, but much of research contradicts each other in this relatively young and complex field. And Pinker does tend to make longer interpretive leaps than his 'footnote supporters' would like, a phenomenon common in popular science and often harmful to the field. Very weak bit of trolling. Yes, it was.
Why so many layers of abstraction? Because code bloat (which these layer may cause) is by far preferable to conceptual bloat (which these layers remove). Why use perl, when you can use C to do your own regular expressions? Why use C, when you can code in Assembly? Because hardware (processor speed) is cheap, while software (conceptual creation) is expensive.
Who cares about windowing speed (for example)? If your X-server is responsive, you're not going to notice further speed improvements. But without top-notch libraries to speed development, you'll notice that the windowing system isn't evolving very quickly (cough - Windows).
Sure, Linux has its problems. But creating a variety of conceptual frameworks is not one of them.
I totally agree. They knew that the mainstream
press / public only has so much attention, and would simply read the headline (nt beats linux) and not delve into the technical details. It was a fantastic PR move, since we all know that optimized NT would never beat optimized linux. Microsoft demonstrates their marketing genius yet again.