What's evryone so worked up about?
on
Microsoft's COOL
·
· Score: 1
So what?
Microsoft is not making a Java Compiler for Windows. There are still several companies who make Java compilers for the Windows platform (Sun, Symantec, ect.). Although Microsoft's compiler group (at least their C++ compiler group) is the only group I can look at and say that they put out decent products (I may not like the IDE or the APIs, or the system the code runs on, but the code generation is sound), their move away from Java products is unlikely to be a big deal.
Anyways, hopefull COOL will be a replacement for VB, which be a blessing.
I've commented before to other people that my biggest problem with Microsoft is that they market their products one level above where they should be. NT isn't a horrible OS, but it should be marketed to the market they're currently selling 98 to. It's not on the level of unix. Similar things exists with say MS-SQL server, not a horrible product, would work for low-end stuff, but no Oracle. I think their point is that Linux isn't ready to be a desktop OS for every man, and as much as I wish that wasn't true, it still is. On the server it makes sense. For the technically savy desktop user it makes sense. For my mother, no. KDE has made great progress, and I could see myself configuring a machine for non-tech-savy people to use, but they still couldn't do it themselves, and thus MS days aren't exactly numbered yet, as much as I wish they were.
Let me start out by saying that I'm currently a bigger fan of KDE than GNOME. I prefer a design based upon using C++ in GUI progamming over a traditional C one. I prefer Qt over Gtk simply based upon the design and layout of the libraries. KDE beat GNOME to stability and now to maturity. I just thik it is a better project.
That said, I wish the flaming would stop. GNOME and KDE started out from two different points to achieve the same goal. KDE looked at Qt, which already provided a sound foundation for a GUI API, and built upon it. They have generally succeeded in delivering a nice environment in terms of looks, an environment based upon shared libraries that do a great deal of thigns, and allow for efficiency and code reuse, and a generally lovely API that makes one understand the Zen which the OO paradigm can be when well done. GNOMR looked at using CORBA as an object model that integrated well with the goal of providing a desktop environment for X. Another good idea there. They've generally suceeded there. Although I disagree with the design choice of GTK as the widget set, it is not a horrible choice. Soon GNOME will have delivered upon their promise.
The flaming is dumb. The developers of KDE and GNOME, from what I've seen written by each of them, have nothing but the utmost for each other. In fact, in the case of KDE, after the release of 1.0, the developers looked at the CORBA base of GNOME and liked it a lot. KDE 2.0's major advance, KOM/OpenParts, KDE's version of this object model is an attempt to look at the strengths of GNOME and see how those strengths can be added to KDE. Once GNOME reaches stability, I'm sure the advances of KDE will be on their mind in choosing future directions.
In short, KDE and GNOME each have touched on something important. My opinion is that in the end KDE will win out, because of good design and having a head start, but this is to take nothing away from GNOME. Even if my prediction is correct, and KDE does win out, it, and indeed all of us will owe a great deal to the GNOME project. If the opposite happens, the obsitie debt of grititude will also be deserved.
In conclusion, I'd like to close on a paraphrase of something Eric S. Raymond said when he was participating in a panel on free software that I organized several months ago (I'll try to get the quote as close as possible): "I'm glad KDE and GNOME are competing with each other. Providing a good GUI for linux is something that's far too important for just one group to work on."
I'll avoid the temptation to reply to your little flame bait, and respond to only point 2. BeOS has support within its filesystem, and hooks in other parts of its OS to support bein a mult-user system. It is quite possible, in fact I'd venture to say probable, that they will add support for this in the future. However, since their goal is to be a media OS, the implementation of SMP, threading, (both already done years ago) and support for a lot more hardware (being done, but still needs work) is obviously a higher priority than adding multiuser support.
Even though they are ranks of Engineering schools, they're pretty to how I'd rank them for CS/CompE programs though, although of the bunch ranked six I'd put CMU and Cornell higher than Georgia Institute of Technology or Purdue.
As for learning from books vs. learning from people, based on my expirience at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, which is tied with a bunch at second on that list, it depends on the prof and sometimes upon the TAs. I doubt you will find any school where the way you learn (or don't learn as the case may be) varries a lot from course to course and often even semester to semester.
As for free ethernet, in dorms that's pretty much universal. I can't speak for private schools, but at a public university the issue is how long you can live with another person in esentially a closet without going completely mad.
As for hard courses, you haven't taken hard courses until you take one get a 45% and have your grade after the class is curved, be a B. Done that twice, it's kind of fun actually.
Slashdot Mirror
So what?
Microsoft is not making a Java Compiler for Windows. There are still several companies who make Java compilers for the Windows platform (Sun, Symantec, ect.). Although Microsoft's compiler group (at least their C++ compiler group) is the only group I can look at and say that they put out decent products (I may not like the IDE or the APIs, or the system the code runs on, but the code generation is sound), their move away from Java products is unlikely to be a big deal.
Anyways, hopefull COOL will be a replacement for VB, which be a blessing.
I've commented before to other people that my biggest problem with Microsoft is that they market their products one level above where they should be. NT isn't a horrible OS, but it should be marketed to the market they're currently selling 98 to. It's not on the level of unix. Similar things exists with say MS-SQL server, not a horrible product, would work for low-end stuff, but no Oracle. I think their point is that Linux isn't ready to be a desktop OS for every man, and as much as I wish that wasn't true, it still is. On the server it makes sense. For the technically savy desktop user it makes sense. For my mother, no. KDE has made great progress, and I could see myself configuring a machine for non-tech-savy people to use, but they still couldn't do it themselves, and thus MS days aren't exactly numbered yet, as much as I wish they were.
Let me start out by saying that I'm currently a bigger fan of KDE than GNOME. I prefer a design based upon using C++ in GUI progamming over a traditional C one. I prefer Qt over Gtk simply based upon the design and layout of the libraries. KDE beat GNOME to stability and now to maturity. I just thik it is a better project.
That said, I wish the flaming would stop. GNOME and KDE started out from two different points to achieve the same goal. KDE looked at Qt, which already provided a sound foundation for a GUI API, and built upon it. They have generally succeeded in delivering a nice environment in terms of looks, an environment based upon shared libraries that do a great deal of thigns, and allow for efficiency and code reuse, and a generally lovely API that makes one understand the Zen which the OO paradigm can be when well done. GNOMR looked at using CORBA as an object model that integrated well with the goal of providing a desktop environment for X. Another good idea there. They've generally suceeded there. Although I disagree with the design choice of GTK as the widget set, it is not a horrible choice. Soon GNOME will have delivered upon their promise.
The flaming is dumb. The developers of KDE and GNOME, from what I've seen written by each of them, have nothing but the utmost for each other. In fact, in the case of KDE, after the release of 1.0, the developers looked at the CORBA base of GNOME and liked it a lot. KDE 2.0's major advance, KOM/OpenParts, KDE's version of this object model is an attempt to look at the strengths of GNOME and see how those strengths can be added to KDE. Once GNOME reaches stability, I'm sure the advances of KDE will be on their mind in choosing future directions.
In short, KDE and GNOME each have touched on something important. My opinion is that in the end KDE will win out, because of good design and having a head start, but this is to take nothing away from GNOME. Even if my prediction is correct, and KDE does win out, it, and indeed all of us will owe a great deal to the GNOME project. If the opposite happens, the obsitie debt of grititude will also be deserved.
In conclusion, I'd like to close on a paraphrase of something Eric S. Raymond said when he was participating in a panel on free software that I organized several months ago (I'll try to get the quote as close as possible): "I'm glad KDE and GNOME are competing with each other. Providing a good GUI for linux is something that's far too important for just one group to work on."
Well, Eric, I couldn't agree more.
I'll avoid the temptation to reply to your little flame bait, and respond to only point 2. BeOS has support within its filesystem, and hooks in other parts of its OS to support bein a mult-user system. It is quite possible, in fact I'd venture to say probable, that they will add support for this in the future. However, since their goal is to be a media OS, the implementation of SMP, threading, (both already done years ago) and support for a lot more hardware (being done, but still needs work) is obviously a higher priority than adding multiuser support.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ cat13wi.htm
Even though they are ranks of Engineering schools, they're pretty to how I'd rank them for CS/CompE programs though, although of the bunch ranked six I'd put CMU and Cornell higher than Georgia Institute of Technology or Purdue.
As for learning from books vs. learning from people, based on my expirience at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, which is tied with a bunch at second on that list, it depends on the prof and sometimes upon the TAs. I doubt you will find any school where the way you learn (or don't learn as the case may be) varries a lot from course to course and often even semester to semester.
As for free ethernet, in dorms that's pretty much universal. I can't speak for private schools, but at a public university the issue is how long you can live with another person in esentially a closet without going completely mad.
As for hard courses, you haven't taken hard courses until you take one get a 45% and have your grade after the class is curved, be a B. Done that twice, it's kind of fun actually.