However, he didn't specify what company would hire Ximian. "I suppose he meant Apple," speculated one eyewitness...
What a dumb idea. Apple has a healthy (ehem) relationship with M$. Why would they pay Ximian for a port of.net? Why not wait for M$ to do it? Seems like they probably will, since they will probably need it for Office...
What's more, Apple are dealing with the Java port in-house. It's not like they are lacking the expertise.
Finally, I would expect Apple to say something publicly if they were funding this. They would probably have to disclose it in their quarterlies anyway.
OK, I run FreeBSD as well, so I'm familiar with the system. Funny how FBSD's source install system - which is geared toward admins - is better than most linux systems source installer - which is geared toward users (more than FBSD, anyway).
I would still argue that, to most users, source code is useless. Not only that, but developers should realize that and develop/package their binaries accordingly.
I'd like to take a moment to point out that you're being untruthful. You had to download it, su to root, unpack it, fire up a command line, and then make install. And all that **after** you had installed all the right headers and libs and etc. That's far too much work, and not at all simple.
Unless you're willing to provide me with two separate binaries sets for me to use, the simple act of typing "make install" is well worth the price of a significant performance increase.
Now I'd like to get religious for a moment. In the 90's I use OpenStep. Developers on that platform shipped binaries/packages that worked across **5** platforms, including windows. As in: install it in ONE location on the NFS/Samba server, and everyone just double-clicks it and it works for them. THAT is what I mean when I say that developers are being lazy and using folks like you so they can give the "I don't need to provide binaries, I give source" excuse.
[And someone is going to complain that it was only one platform and that this is an unfair comparison. To which I'd reply: You're right, all the *nix platforms have failed misserably to come up with a unified package mechanism for launching apps. The reason, I believe, is that most *nix platform owners/developers/companies don't understand what it is to ship a USER application, as opposed to a NERD/GEEK app]
(5 platforms:
OS Motorola
OS Intel
OS HPPA
OS Sparc
OS Windows (x86)
- you could probably throw in OS/Solaris as well)
ug - I hate html
You are (or should be) an annomoly. Software (not source code) is for users, and users don't give a shit about source - just that it works. Most of the comments about system compatability are the result of bad design. These programs should link dynamically and do the right thing on your system. XFree86 should just have a driver for your video card and it should be easy to install. Not some damn source patch you have to install yourself.
[I can hear it now - "I'm a user and I care about source!"; give it a rest, you're a geek/nerd/idiot, and part of the problem. If developers had to consider USERS, they would write software that just worked - not worked for those who compiled it the way they wanted it.]
If you've got one user, what does it take to upgrade her? If you have 10, how much more work is it? (probably more than 10x)
Also, if you have one unit area to cover with transmitters, you just have to replace the one transmitter (plus a backup?). If you have 1000, you have to lay out a lot more money. And this part is probably the biggest deal.
They're not sick: their religion -- *just like Christianity* -- claims that the afterlife is a helluva lot better than this miserable life. And given the horrible conditions they live in, it's little wonder they don't much value human lives.
Speaking to what I know - Christianity claims that the afterlife is much better or 'a helluva lot worse' (so to speak). Certainly the teachings of the bible don't encourage the celebration of the taking of life (and by this, I mean especially the new testament).
Game editor interfaces are usually divided into two sections: a display of the content, surrounded by controls for manipulating the content, which is the same thing you see in word processors and web browsers.
Where "word processors" means M$ and lookalikes, and "web browsers" are the lowest common denominator! Give me a main window with the option to open other windows for specific controls and/or inspectors. If you want to go full-tilt, let users put those inspector windows into the main window as borders (blech).
I find most game UI distasteful. I have a windowing (multiple windows!) for a reason. Welcome back to the 80's - one window fits all. Windows in windows. Suckage!
I'm tired of new OO languages that don't let me ask SomeClass.respondsToMethod("SomeMethod", someArgTypes).
And also still suffers fragile base class issues in spades.
In D, all non-static member functions are virtual. This may sound inefficient, but since the D compiler knows all of the class heirarchy when generating code, all functions that are not overridden can be optimized to be non-virtual. In fact, since C++ programmers tend to "when in doubt, make it virtual", the D way of "make it virtual unless we can prove it can be made non-virtual" results on average much more direct function calls. It also results in fewer bugs caused by not declaring a function virtual that gets overridden.
This is great if you're compiling an entire system, but if you're shipping or using someone else's library, it's less good. Even worse if you plan on loading anything dynamically. Java does a great job of this - but people haven't figured out how to use it yet. ObjC and the Foundation&AppKit Frameworks are great examples.
From a BRIEF read, I could not see where OCaml supports the notion of introspection. Can I ask a class or object what methods it supports and then invoke them? If not, it would fail to make this OO Programmer happy...
For WebObjects I'd say the prefered solution is ReportMill. It's what we're using...
(For what it's worth, WO 5.0 (due any time) is supposed to be Java only)
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
It turns out that users ARE stupid. Otherwise they would be called programmers or sysadmins. Yes, the OS makers SHOULD make all their choices for them. They should only have one windowing system/window manager/filemanager/whatever. Users should not have to worry about whether or not they have libc[X], gtk[whatever], etc. They're all WAY TOO DUMB to care.
If you need proof that users are stupid, consider: why are all these idiots running windows when they could be using Linux? (said 1/2 tongue in cheek - who's the idiot now?:-)
Further proof: It turns out that a vast number of people (some would say 50%, but I'll say many are 'of') are of below average intelligence. Take a good look around - PEOPLE ARE stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but how is he gonna upgrade his laptop's video card?!?
Microsoft .NET for OS X has indeed been announced. I wouldn't expect any development tools however.
Reference? Why post as an AC? Most won't read it...
However, he didn't specify what company would hire Ximian. "I suppose he meant Apple," speculated one eyewitness...
.net? Why not wait for M$ to do it? Seems like they probably will, since they will probably need it for Office...
What a dumb idea. Apple has a healthy (ehem) relationship with M$. Why would they pay Ximian for a port of
What's more, Apple are dealing with the Java port in-house. It's not like they are lacking the expertise.
Finally, I would expect Apple to say something publicly if they were funding this. They would probably have to disclose it in their quarterlies anyway.
I have started using a-s-k to block spam, and have been pretty happy with it. Have not received spam in weeks.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/a-s-k/
http://www.paganini.net/ask
I have started using a-s-k to block spam, and have been pretty happy with it.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/a-s-k/
http://www.paganini.net/ask
None of your damn business.
Could be they're being untruthful. Wouldn't be the first time. Although...
Maybe it is portable. Maybe it *IS* real easy to port. Maybe they already have it running on FreeBSD, linux, Solaris, and Plan9.
Doesn't mean they're release it for any platform other than windows...
OK, I run FreeBSD as well, so I'm familiar with the system. Funny how FBSD's source install system - which is geared toward admins - is better than most linux systems source installer - which is geared toward users (more than FBSD, anyway).
I would still argue that, to most users, source code is useless. Not only that, but developers should realize that and develop/package their binaries accordingly.
Woah, commented on 2 of your thread without realizing it was the same poster!
...form over content...
Sounds like a lot of the windowmanager/theme work I've seen. (OK, so this is bleedover from another topic)...
I'd like to take a moment to point out that you're being untruthful. You had to download it, su to root, unpack it, fire up a command line, and then make install. And all that **after** you had installed all the right headers and libs and etc. That's far too much work, and not at all simple.
Unless you're willing to provide me with two separate binaries sets for me to use, the simple act of typing "make install" is well worth the price of a significant performance increase.
Now I'd like to get religious for a moment. In the 90's I use OpenStep. Developers on that platform shipped binaries/packages that worked across **5** platforms, including windows. As in: install it in ONE location on the NFS/Samba server, and everyone just double-clicks it and it works for them. THAT is what I mean when I say that developers are being lazy and using folks like you so they can give the "I don't need to provide binaries, I give source" excuse.
[And someone is going to complain that it was only one platform and that this is an unfair comparison. To which I'd reply: You're right, all the *nix platforms have failed misserably to come up with a unified package mechanism for launching apps. The reason, I believe, is that most *nix platform owners/developers/companies don't understand what it is to ship a USER application, as opposed to a NERD/GEEK app]
(5 platforms:
- OS Motorola
- OS Intel
- OS HPPA
- OS Sparc
- OS Windows (x86)
- you could probably throw in OS/Solaris as well)ug - I hate html
You are (or should be) an annomoly. Software (not source code) is for users, and users don't give a shit about source - just that it works. Most of the comments about system compatability are the result of bad design. These programs should link dynamically and do the right thing on your system. XFree86 should just have a driver for your video card and it should be easy to install. Not some damn source patch you have to install yourself.
[I can hear it now - "I'm a user and I care about source!"; give it a rest, you're a geek/nerd/idiot, and part of the problem. If developers had to consider USERS, they would write software that just worked - not worked for those who compiled it the way they wanted it.]
Microsoft thinks XBox will be the killer app for broadband. What could be more power & network intensive than multi-player FPS's with voice comms?
When will "the other 7%" get to run this? Sad that M$ will beat them there.
I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying.
If you've got one user, what does it take to upgrade her? If you have 10, how much more work is it? (probably more than 10x)
Also, if you have one unit area to cover with transmitters, you just have to replace the one transmitter (plus a backup?). If you have 1000, you have to lay out a lot more money. And this part is probably the biggest deal.
Right. Like the government gives a shit where you are/were. Or that they would have any trouble finding out if they DID care.
They're not sick: their religion -- *just like Christianity* -- claims that the afterlife is a helluva lot better than this miserable life. And given the horrible conditions they live in, it's little wonder they don't much value human lives.
Speaking to what I know - Christianity claims that the afterlife is much better or 'a helluva lot worse' (so to speak). Certainly the teachings of the bible don't encourage the celebration of the taking of life (and by this, I mean especially the new testament).
Game editor interfaces are usually divided into two sections: a display of the content, surrounded by controls for manipulating the content, which is the same thing you see in word processors and web browsers.
Where "word processors" means M$ and lookalikes, and "web browsers" are the lowest common denominator! Give me a main window with the option to open other windows for specific controls and/or inspectors. If you want to go full-tilt, let users put those inspector windows into the main window as borders (blech).
I find most game UI distasteful. I have a windowing (multiple windows!) for a reason. Welcome back to the 80's - one window fits all. Windows in windows. Suckage!
I'm tired of new OO languages that don't let me ask SomeClass.respondsToMethod("SomeMethod", someArgTypes).
And also still suffers fragile base class issues in spades.
In D, all non-static member functions are virtual. This may sound inefficient, but since the D compiler knows all of the class heirarchy when generating code, all functions that are not overridden can be optimized to be non-virtual. In fact, since C++ programmers tend to "when in doubt, make it virtual", the D way of "make it virtual unless we can prove it can be made non-virtual" results on average much more direct function calls. It also results in fewer bugs caused by not declaring a function virtual that gets overridden.
This is great if you're compiling an entire system, but if you're shipping or using someone else's library, it's less good. Even worse if you plan on loading anything dynamically. Java does a great job of this - but people haven't figured out how to use it yet. ObjC and the Foundation&AppKit Frameworks are great examples.
From a BRIEF read, I could not see where OCaml supports the notion of introspection. Can I ask a class or object what methods it supports and then invoke them? If not, it would fail to make this OO Programmer happy...
Please respond via email - thanks.
For WebObjects I'd say the prefered solution is ReportMill. It's what we're using...
(For what it's worth, WO 5.0 (due any time) is supposed to be Java only)
Just happened to be at the right place at the right time. I expect that will be my first and last 'first post' on /. ever.
WooHoo
Is my TShirt worth big bucks now?
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
:-)
It turns out that users ARE stupid. Otherwise they would be called programmers or sysadmins. Yes, the OS makers SHOULD make all their choices for them. They should only have one windowing system/window manager/filemanager/whatever. Users should not have to worry about whether or not they have libc[X], gtk[whatever], etc. They're all WAY TOO DUMB to care.
If you need proof that users are stupid, consider: why are all these idiots running windows when they could be using Linux? (said 1/2 tongue in cheek - who's the idiot now?
Further proof: It turns out that a vast number of people (some would say 50%, but I'll say many are 'of') are of below average intelligence. Take a good look around - PEOPLE ARE stupid.
802.11
They have one of the best solutions around for it.