Seems to me he desires a convergence of tech (which should include libs, as well as HAL and d-bus):
"I'm very interested in finding out, how to get those two communities working closer together, how to get more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of technology but also at the level of best practices / processes."
"...see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects - HAL, d-bus". Actually what he did was pose the question of whether or not: "if Nokia makes the QT-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace QT as a platform?" Its a good question. Could Gnome embrace QT as a platform?
Its not out of context, your quote is out of context:
Shuttleworth:...And separately what GNOME is going to do if Nokia makes the QT-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace QT as a platform?
derStandard.at: So you would favor GNOME to switch over to QT?
Shuttleworth: Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of QT
This was right after "KDE guys have a point when they say their approach has made it easier for them to make leaps forward". I'd say that the suggestion here was indeed, if Qt is lgpl-ed, shouldn't gnome consider it?
Um...but Fortran came first, and was an attempt to code with great efficiency on slow hardware by modeling the language closely to the hardware. Lisp was the second language (although the first "high level" language as we mean high level today), and modeled not the hardware, but abstract mathematical structure. I would suggest the appropriate mythological metaphor to be, rather than the tower of babel, a mixture of the tower of babel and Prometheus. When man stayed low, the gods cared not. To move from assembly to Fortran was of little consequence. However, with the advent of Lisp, the gods realized that the patterns of reality itself (abstract math) were to be invoked, and the gods trembled, muttering "how long until they instantiate their own namespace", for we would be as powerful as they. So Satan first brought forth Cobol from the pits of Hell, and later gave us Basic and MS Windows. And here we are.
I'd suggest that language developed, and we adapted over time to better use language. Note that the physical adaptation would be to something that gave an advantage. (If I were talking, making plans, and you hear better than most, then (Feringi-like) you can make use of that. Likewise, hearing stress and determining if someone is lying when their vocal cords constrict is an advantage.)
The key point is that without language, there is no obvious reason to adapt to better use language. There can be no selection until there is some advantage to be gained.
Methinks language implies symbols. Your cat hisses, which is an auditory signal. No doubt. But is there information encoded symbolically? What are the symbols, and what are the patterns used to build up references to said symbols (consonants, vowels, etc...)?
I believe that all you need to do is write one line documenting the use of the opensource tarball. That one line covers the whole tarball, because its really *project* documentation at issue rather than programmer's source code documentation.
Who said it was a line-by-line review? They were not reviewing the codebase, but whether or not the code base documented its derivative sources. Ask a developer, "Are you borrowing open source? Where did you document it?" That one question just reviewed a 10 million line application in less than a minute.
"hey, your hello world program uses library Y, which is 2 million lines that we don't think is documented properly," then the "application" does not *contain* 50% or more open source code, but rather *references* a certain amount of open source code, which is probably a meaningless statistic.
Its not that the 2 million lines of code is undocumented. It might be documented very well. Its that the project doesn't record the fact that code is used from Project OpenThingee. Thus, when OpenThingee finds a problem and patches it, no one knows that their codebase needs a patch, because no one knows it uses OpenThingee code. Therefor, its not a meaningless stat.
Actually, they never said anything about whether the open source code was well documented or not. They said the projects using opensource didn't document that a particular opensource code base was part of the project.
But its not per line, but per application. If they used open source and documented "we used code from project whatever", that counts as one case of documented code.
This probably says more about your customers than anything else:
Java Desktop
Over 91% of Internet-connected PCs have Java enabled (Source: Omniture, April 2007).
This includes over 63% of Sun JRE in the US, and over 65% of Sun JRE in Italy/Spain/UK (Nielsen//NetRatings, January 2007)
92% (and growing) of JRE installs (Java.com, J.S.C.) are now Java SE 6 (April 2007, Sun)
Estimated Worldwide Java SE penetration per Operating System and VM vendor (Source: Sun estimate, April 2007)
* Sun JRE (Windows): 65%
* Microsoft VM (Windows): 21%
* Apple VM (Mac OS): 3.5%
* Other (including Java SE on Linux and other OS: 1.5%
PC OEMS representing over 60% of all shipped PCs in Q4 2006 have signed Java SE redistribution agreements with Sun. (Sun, based on IDC #206152, March 2007).
9 of the top 10 PC OEM vendors have a JRE redistribution agreement with Sun. (Sun, based on IDC #206152, March 2007).
"Again: their server(s) and their software." But its not like the Rule of Law allows you to do whatever you want with something just because its yours. Nor should it.
I like lynx because it looks like a typed paged. Links actually doesn't look as good to me. When reading for content, I don't want to see extraneous formating. In Firefox I "View/Page Style/No Style" to achieve a similar result when a page has too much "desgin" in the way.
No, if c = 1 unit_dist/unit_time for our chosen system of distance and time, then E = mc^2, *not* mc, because unit_energy = (unit_mass)(unit_dist^2)/(unit_time^2). While numerically similar results occur, (unit_mass)(unit_dist)/(unit_time) is actually (unit_mass)(unit_velocity) which is momentum, not energy. Thus, E doesn't equal mc.
But c can't be just '1', because it isn't a just a number. It represents a physical quantity with units. Thus, even if c= 1m/s, energy would still be E=mc^2 and not mc, because the units as well as the number have to be squared.
What part of "instant" isn't mutually exclusive with "all future"? Seems like the contradiction is inherent. Can anyone "instantly" deal with "all future" anything? Can you instantly deal with all future MS rollouts? Did you instantly deal with all future rollouts when Win2k was introduced? So you already dealt with WinXP, Vista, and Win7 at that time? Didn't think so...
"So, should the US Government decide that it would forbid itself from purchasing anything from Europe as money would then go into the pockets of a European Corporation, you would support it?"
The US Gov should decide to forbid itself from purchasing anything from *any* company that can't perform operations within the bounds of law. This includes IBM, MS, SAP, Oracle, or *any* company. We won't negotiate with terrorists, but we do business with criminals?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me he desires a convergence of tech (which should include libs, as well as HAL and d-bus):
"I'm very interested in finding out, how to get those two communities working closer together, how to get more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of technology but also at the level of best practices / processes."
"...see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects - HAL, d-bus". Actually what he did was pose the question of whether or not: "if Nokia makes the QT-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace QT as a platform?" Its a good question. Could Gnome embrace QT as a platform?
This was right after "KDE guys have a point when they say their approach has made it easier for them to make leaps forward". I'd say that the suggestion here was indeed, if Qt is lgpl-ed, shouldn't gnome consider it?
Um...but Fortran came first, and was an attempt to code with great efficiency on slow hardware by modeling the language closely to the hardware. Lisp was the second language (although the first "high level" language as we mean high level today), and modeled not the hardware, but abstract mathematical structure. I would suggest the appropriate mythological metaphor to be, rather than the tower of babel, a mixture of the tower of babel and Prometheus. When man stayed low, the gods cared not. To move from assembly to Fortran was of little consequence. However, with the advent of Lisp, the gods realized that the patterns of reality itself (abstract math) were to be invoked, and the gods trembled, muttering "how long until they instantiate their own namespace", for we would be as powerful as they. So Satan first brought forth Cobol from the pits of Hell, and later gave us Basic and MS Windows. And here we are.
I'd suggest that language developed, and we adapted over time to better use language. Note that the physical adaptation would be to something that gave an advantage. (If I were talking, making plans, and you hear better than most, then (Feringi-like) you can make use of that. Likewise, hearing stress and determining if someone is lying when their vocal cords constrict is an advantage.)
The key point is that without language, there is no obvious reason to adapt to better use language. There can be no selection until there is some advantage to be gained.
Methinks language implies symbols. Your cat hisses, which is an auditory signal. No doubt. But is there information encoded symbolically? What are the symbols, and what are the patterns used to build up references to said symbols (consonants, vowels, etc...)?
I believe that all you need to do is write one line documenting the use of the opensource tarball. That one line covers the whole tarball, because its really *project* documentation at issue rather than programmer's source code documentation.
Who said it was a line-by-line review? They were not reviewing the codebase, but whether or not the code base documented its derivative sources. Ask a developer, "Are you borrowing open source? Where did you document it?" That one question just reviewed a 10 million line application in less than a minute.
Actually, they never said anything about whether the open source code was well documented or not. They said the projects using opensource didn't document that a particular opensource code base was part of the project.
No, it means that in 100 projects that used open source code, 50 of the projects documented that they had code from a certain open source code base.
But its not per line, but per application. If they used open source and documented "we used code from project whatever", that counts as one case of documented code.
Agreed: Especially right next to "dialogue is very much needed", it seems almost a parody.
"ya"..."um"..."Geesh"..."Wow"
You have obviously drank the kool-aid. Good luck with that. Try to avoid going over the top so much, though.
Other interesting facts:
6 Million Java Developers Worldwide
By the end of CY 2007, About 85% of all mobile devices shipping will have Java technology in them (Ovum, May 2007)
800 Million Total Java Desktops
7 Million Total Java enabled set-top boxes
4 Million Total Java-enabled Blu Ray devices
436,000,000 JRE downloads br>
8,750,000 Total Java SDK downloads -(SE, EE, ME)
6,300,000 Java SE JDK downloads
720,000 Java SE JDK downloads/month
"Again: their server(s) and their software." But its not like the Rule of Law allows you to do whatever you want with something just because its yours. Nor should it.
Wow: Results 1 - 10 of about 20,400 for sites for whining Microsoft sycophants. I never knew there were so many!
I don't know, but it rather sounds as if you are being *very* productive in the former scenario, and just watching a movie in the latter.
I like lynx because it looks like a typed paged. Links actually doesn't look as good to me. When reading for content, I don't want to see extraneous formating. In Firefox I "View/Page Style/No Style" to achieve a similar result when a page has too much "desgin" in the way.
Actually lots of sites look better in lynx. It needs tabs, though.
No, if c = 1 unit_dist/unit_time for our chosen system of distance and time, then E = mc^2, *not* mc, because unit_energy = (unit_mass)(unit_dist^2)/(unit_time^2). While numerically similar results occur, (unit_mass)(unit_dist)/(unit_time) is actually (unit_mass)(unit_velocity) which is momentum, not energy. Thus, E doesn't equal mc.
But c can't be just '1', because it isn't a just a number. It represents a physical quantity with units. Thus, even if c= 1m/s, energy would still be E=mc^2 and not mc, because the units as well as the number have to be squared.
That is to say, 1m/s is not equal to 1 m^2/s^2
"I think removing Microsoft from this position could result in innovation in some areas of application progression and improvement."
;-)
There, fixed that for you
Sounds like you are describing MS and the USA there, bubba, more than the EU. The EU is currently in a state of ascendancy.
What part of "instant" isn't mutually exclusive with "all future"? Seems like the contradiction is inherent. Can anyone "instantly" deal with "all future" anything? Can you instantly deal with all future MS rollouts? Did you instantly deal with all future rollouts when Win2k was introduced? So you already dealt with WinXP, Vista, and Win7 at that time? Didn't think so...
"So, should the US Government decide that it would forbid itself from purchasing anything from Europe as money would then go into the pockets of a European Corporation, you would support it?"
The US Gov should decide to forbid itself from purchasing anything from *any* company that can't perform operations within the bounds of law. This includes IBM, MS, SAP, Oracle, or *any* company. We won't negotiate with terrorists, but we do business with criminals?