OpenOffice _uses_ java for some things, but is not Java-based. CNet probably installed it, found that the installer looked for an instance of Java, and concluded that since it's cross-platform, it must be Java-based. It's mostly C++-based.
What I like most is the combination of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and The Art of Computer Programming. SICP takes a top-down approach, and TAOCP takes a bottom-up approach. Having both backgrounds is what makes for an excellent programmer.
Yeah, I was fairly disappointed in their Python book.
The nice thing about imprint is that if a publisher takes time to pick out quality books, you don't have to wonder if you're purchasing a lemon. O'Reilly has really earned it's reputation, but I think it's been slipping a bit as of late.
For a great work on advanced templating techniques, Modern C++ Design by Alexander Alexandrescu is a wonderful, wonderful book. It's very short, but packed with information that will make your head spin.
Of course, it also made me glad I knew Python and Lisp, because they have easier ways of doing just about everything mentioned in the book.
I couldn't find the post you were replying to, but just remember that you DO NOT have to accept the terms of the GPL to use the software. The GPL is much different than traditional license agreements, because it _adds_ rights ON TOP of your normal copyright rights, while most license agreements REMOVE them. Therefore, if you remove the COPYING file from the distribution, you are actually making the software more restrictive, rather than less.
I have a feeling that _actual_ piracy rates are much worse than speculated, but the real numbers would be such an embarrassment to the software industry that they keep them quiet. The fact is, almost every single Windows user runs pirated software, and a lot of it. How many people do you know that actually paid for WinZip? In addition, many small businesses think that simply buying a single copy makes it legal to run on all 10 of their computers, and their computers at home.
If we knew how much piracy was going on, I think it would actually show what a farce the software industry is. They are already making monopoly profits, and then to say that they are "losing" so much money means that their product is obviously way overpriced, and that the public thinks that the current piracy laws are idiotic.
In all honesty, the public believes in piracy, plain and simple. I choose to just use Free Software. What I find really funny are those people who think Linux people are pirates. What the hell would we pirate, anyway? Linux people are the most stringent adherents to licenses, because it makes their case so well.
Insightful my ass. 90% of HOME users may use copied Microsoft Office, but they do that to use WORK documents which are created on LICENSED Microsoft Office.
***
This is wishful thinking. The fact is that most businesses simply cannot afford the software needed to run their business, and thus they pirate. In fact, a large majority of small business owners do not even understand what piracy is. I have a friend who thought that since he bought a copy of QuickBooks, he has the right to install it on whoever's computer he wants, as long as he uses the original CD!
The fact is, the true cost of software is gargantuan. The TCO studies tend to poo-poo it, but if you look at the _real_ costs rather than the ones in the studies, it is huge.
For example, most people aren't aware that if their computer with preloaded software dies, and they move their hard drive to a new computer, they no longer have a license to use any of it.
Anyway, don't assume that businesses aren't pirating software, because the majority of small businesses sure as heck are.
If this succedes too well, it could start a dangerous prescident.
*******
Paying for software is not dangerous.
******
but I hope that companies don't get the idea that this is an easy way to make a quick buck off software you don't want to deal with any more.
******
I hope they do get that idea. I would be willing to pitch in money to free up several software packages that vendors probably don't care much about. Free is about Freedom, not price.
Actually it's the free software community, not GNU, that wants blender free. Secondly, I actually talked to RMS about changing the name to "freedom software", and he admitted the confusion about "free", but said that it was too late to change the official name because it would cause even more confusion than already exists.
The problem is the myth of cheap bandwidth. Although _local_ bandwidth is getting increasingly fast, the nonlocal bandwidth to support that just isn't there - it costs a lot of money to manage interstate lines.
Internet access is great, but it's not worth more than cable. When your internet bills outweigh your cable bills, you start losing customers. Therefore, companies that try to provide access for everyone find they have to have a very low price to have any volume. The large carriers, then, aren't getting a lot of money out of the deal either - they didn't think about how little money there would be in the game. They have to sell the bandwidth or else their investment is totally lost. However, so many people made these large bandwidth infrastructure purchases that there is a lot of competition, therefore the prices have to be low (and they have to be low to enable enough users on the system). Thus, the telecom providers are stuck in a situation where it is hardly able to pay its bills.
Anyway, this is mostly a guess, but I'd bet that it's pretty close to the truth.
I agree. I've been saying this in public forums for years, and hopefully this idea (which is standard in almost every successfuly development house) will get adopted in Linux.
This is incorrect. The memory usage reported by X _includes_ your screen. So, if you have a 32-bit display at 1024x768, that equates to 4 Megs right there. In addition, the X server holds a lot of temporary application data. So, applications can reserve a lot of server-side memory, that shows up under X when it's really application graphic data.
On most operating systems, the amount of memory used by the GUI isn't shown at all, and if it is the video memory certainly isn't included.
I used to use LaTeX until I found DocBook. It's a little hard to set up, but the results are excellent. It also has a much better separation between content and presentation.
The interesting thing about Microsoft is that until now, they've been able to beat their competitors without talking about them. They always compare the new releases of each software package to _their_ old releases, and just pretend the competitor doesn't exist.
Until now, the customer has had little way of knowing there is competition.
Now, with Linux/Open-source, Microsoft is in a position where they have to compete directly. This means their marketing material will probably have to mention Linux. And with each mention, Linux will gain more and more headway, because it is big enough to be in Microsoft's marketing material.
How many geeks are going to write software they're not going to use themselves?
*********
Just because they would get paid doesn't mean it's not open-source. A number of people are employed producing open software for others. This is especially useful when the customer is a group rather than individuals.
For example, if the artist's guild wanted to fund development of a better graphics package, it would likely be open-source, and the programmers would be paid. This would benefit everyone immensely.
They should not carry the magazines at all, if they find them offensive. Duh. It's that simple.
********
Unless they don't find them offensive with different covers. Duh. It's that simple. The magazine _wants_ to be in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart _wants_ to have the magazine if it's not offensive. This is good for both companies and the consumers.
What they really mean to say is that they worship at the cult of baby and don't give a rats ass what the single/childfree people with disposable income want.
*********
I.e. - a significant portion of their customers.
As a parent, I don't want my child seeing racy stuff just walking in a store. I'd like to be able to _shop_ without having to explain why such material is indecent. Therefore, I go to Wal-Mart. It seems that a lot of people have the same idea (notice the number of children walking with their parents in walmart). These people constitute a _market_, and a large one at that. The beauty of capitalism is that the market decides. If you aren't a part of the mass market, don't go to mass-market places. It's that simple.
Is there nowhere else to find porn? I mean really, if blockbuster doesn't rent porn, find someone who does! It's not the end of the world. It's not like Ma and Pa Video requires a different kind of VCR to play their tapes.
It's not like buying at Target all-of-a-sudden makes your stuff incompatible with the rest of the world. It's not like Wal-Mart lies and cheats it's way to the top. They are what they say they are. The market likes them.
The market does decide because a) the market goes to Wal-Mart and b) the market is the ones that go to Wal-Mart for it's family attitude.
Why is having questionable covers in family stores such a big deal?
The fact is, _families_ are who these magazine's customers are, and therefore them being more family-friendly to sell to their audience, who happens to shop at Wal-Mart, is not a crime.
I don't see your complaint. Yes, Wal-Mart's view of a magazine is powerful. That _is_ their choice, and they are not evil for making that choice. Get over it.
If you dislike this control then you should read magazines which are not sold at Wal-Mart.
But really, is asking magazines for something that is decent for families to see really asking that much?
By the way, Rolling Stone often comes close to qualifying as soft-porn - at least their covers do.
Re:Structured Computer Organization and compilers
on
General IT Books?
·
· Score: 2
You might enjoy my book, then, too, although it isn't finished yet. It's called "Programming from the Ground Up". http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/Programmi ngGroundUp/
I don't know what the big deal is about honeymoons. Why go to all of the expense of going somewhere nice? Really, all you need to do is find a good hotel in the middle of nowhere. It's not like you're going outside for anything except restocking food and condom supplies.
For your anniversary, go someplace nice. Then you might actually see where it is you go.
How did YOU find about Linux? If you found out, then so can anyone else. You and I are not inherently better. We just have educated ourselves. Anyone else can make that choice.
************
I found out about Linux because someone else told me about it. I then did quite extensive research on my own before knowing about all of it's capabilities. Expecting others to have the time to do such research when they are not even aware the choice is out there is absurd. If someone told them about the choice, would they believe them? Not until they became a household name.
Think about it - why can brand-names charge so much for their product and still have the majority of the market, without being better than the alternatives? Simple, customers recognize the name, and know what to expect. Most people I know don't even know where Aldi is.
Expecting people to educate themselves on topics they simply don't care about is wishful thinking at best. You certainly couldn't convince me to educate myself on car topics. I'll simply ask my father-in-law. Therefore, my choice on cars is simply based on what I have driven around, and what others around me have bought. Since I don't know anyone with a Kia, I probably won't drive one. If I have heard _any_ horror stories with a car brand I don't know, I'll simply skip them, even if the story was made up by someone intentionally trying to discredit them, because how would I know?
************
dan:
About config files: let's be real honest here. When something breaks it usually requires getting down and dirty with the command line. Yes, a lot of the graphical tools are coming along nicely, but to be sure, there is much to be done.
*************
Well, a) I haven't had much break. b) Are config files really harder than the registry editor? You can use a nice GUI editor w/ config files and then restart the service using Red Hat's service manager. I don't see that as being harder than editing registry entries and then restarting services using Windows service manager, do you? Except that the registry often contains a lot of binary data, too.
So no, I don't believe either of your points are valid.
The GPL is great for non-profit and 'hobby' applications but just won't work for products such as, say, photoshop.
********
Or say, the GIMP? You are looking at the wrong model of software development. Instead of thinking about a software house producing a piece of software and trying to get world+dog to send them money, think about an industry that would be benefitted by software, and willing to pay a development house to build it. All industries have associations. It is in their best interest to be the ones directly funding the creation of softare for their groups - because then it works exactly as they require. Plus, it eliminates the need to keep it proprietary.
The old model is completely backwards and broken. It was similar to the lottery in how it paid it's investors back. It puts the users against the developers. It gives the developers more money by screwing over the users.
Supply, demand, and price are very linked. You can't separate them. If there is enough demand, then either a) there is a supply of people who will volunteer to fill it, or b) the market will find a way to fund the people to develop it. If the demand is for free (as in speech) software, then the market, on it's own, will find it's way to compensate enough people enough to create the software. Period. It's the way a market economy works. Unfortunately, not enough people trust the market economy, and think they have to do it someone else's way for things to work out.
I think the point of the FSF's position is that you don't have to extract the maximum profit possible, as long as programmers can earn a living wage, which they, and I, believe to be quite possible with Free Software. In that case, everyone wins. It's not just the developers screwing over the rest of society.
Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice _uses_ java for some things, but is not Java-based. CNet probably installed it, found that the installer looked for an instance of Java, and concluded that since it's cross-platform, it must be Java-based. It's mostly C++-based.
What I like most is the combination of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and The Art of Computer Programming. SICP takes a top-down approach, and TAOCP takes a bottom-up approach. Having both backgrounds is what makes for an excellent programmer.
Yeah, I was fairly disappointed in their Python book.
The nice thing about imprint is that if a publisher takes time to pick out quality books, you don't have to wonder if you're purchasing a lemon. O'Reilly has really earned it's reputation, but I think it's been slipping a bit as of late.
For a great work on advanced templating techniques, Modern C++ Design by Alexander Alexandrescu is a wonderful, wonderful book. It's very short, but packed with information that will make your head spin.
Of course, it also made me glad I knew Python and Lisp, because they have easier ways of doing just about everything mentioned in the book.
I couldn't find the post you were replying to, but just remember that you DO NOT have to accept the terms of the GPL to use the software. The GPL is much different than traditional license agreements, because it _adds_ rights ON TOP of your normal copyright rights, while most license agreements REMOVE them. Therefore, if you remove the COPYING file from the distribution, you are actually making the software more restrictive, rather than less.
I have a feeling that _actual_ piracy rates are much worse than speculated, but the real numbers would be such an embarrassment to the software industry that they keep them quiet. The fact is, almost every single Windows user runs pirated software, and a lot of it. How many people do you know that actually paid for WinZip? In addition, many small businesses think that simply buying a single copy makes it legal to run on all 10 of their computers, and their computers at home.
If we knew how much piracy was going on, I think it would actually show what a farce the software industry is. They are already making monopoly profits, and then to say that they are "losing" so much money means that their product is obviously way overpriced, and that the public thinks that the current piracy laws are idiotic.
In all honesty, the public believes in piracy, plain and simple. I choose to just use Free Software. What I find really funny are those people who think Linux people are pirates. What the hell would we pirate, anyway? Linux people are the most stringent adherents to licenses, because it makes their case so well.
Insightful my ass. 90% of HOME users may use copied Microsoft Office, but they do that to use WORK documents which are created on LICENSED Microsoft Office.
***
This is wishful thinking. The fact is that most businesses simply cannot afford the software needed to run their business, and thus they pirate. In fact, a large majority of small business owners do not even understand what piracy is. I have a friend who thought that since he bought a copy of QuickBooks, he has the right to install it on whoever's computer he wants, as long as he uses the original CD!
The fact is, the true cost of software is gargantuan. The TCO studies tend to poo-poo it, but if you look at the _real_ costs rather than the ones in the studies, it is huge.
For example, most people aren't aware that if their computer with preloaded software dies, and they move their hard drive to a new computer, they no longer have a license to use any of it.
Anyway, don't assume that businesses aren't pirating software, because the majority of small businesses sure as heck are.
If this succedes too well, it could start a dangerous prescident.
*******
Paying for software is not dangerous.
******
but I hope that companies don't get the idea that this is an easy way to make a quick buck off software you don't want to deal with any more.
******
I hope they do get that idea. I would be willing to pitch in money to free up several software packages that vendors probably don't care much about. Free is about Freedom, not price.
Actually it's the free software community, not GNU, that wants blender free. Secondly, I actually talked to RMS about changing the name to "freedom software", and he admitted the confusion about "free", but said that it was too late to change the official name because it would cause even more confusion than already exists.
The problem is the myth of cheap bandwidth. Although _local_ bandwidth is getting increasingly fast, the nonlocal bandwidth to support that just isn't there - it costs a lot of money to manage interstate lines.
Internet access is great, but it's not worth more than cable. When your internet bills outweigh your cable bills, you start losing customers. Therefore, companies that try to provide access for everyone find they have to have a very low price to have any volume. The large carriers, then, aren't getting a lot of money out of the deal either - they didn't think about how little money there would be in the game. They have to sell the bandwidth or else their investment is totally lost. However, so many people made these large bandwidth infrastructure purchases that there is a lot of competition, therefore the prices have to be low (and they have to be low to enable enough users on the system). Thus, the telecom providers are stuck in a situation where it is hardly able to pay its bills.
Anyway, this is mostly a guess, but I'd bet that it's pretty close to the truth.
I agree. I've been saying this in public forums for years, and hopefully this idea (which is standard in almost every successfuly development house) will get adopted in Linux.
This is incorrect. The memory usage reported by X _includes_ your screen. So, if you have a 32-bit display at 1024x768, that equates to 4 Megs right there. In addition, the X server holds a lot of temporary application data. So, applications can reserve a lot of server-side memory, that shows up under X when it's really application graphic data.
On most operating systems, the amount of memory used by the GUI isn't shown at all, and if it is the video memory certainly isn't included.
I used to use LaTeX until I found DocBook. It's a little hard to set up, but the results are excellent. It also has a much better separation between content and presentation.
The interesting thing about Microsoft is that until now, they've been able to beat their competitors without talking about them. They always compare the new releases of each software package to _their_ old releases, and just pretend the competitor doesn't exist.
Until now, the customer has had little way of knowing there is competition.
Now, with Linux/Open-source, Microsoft is in a position where they have to compete directly. This means their marketing material will probably have to mention Linux. And with each mention, Linux will gain more and more headway, because it is big enough to be in Microsoft's marketing material.
It's pretty sweet for those of us in open-source.
How many geeks are going to write software they're not going to use themselves?
*********
Just because they would get paid doesn't mean it's not open-source. A number of people are employed producing open software for others. This is especially useful when the customer is a group rather than individuals.
For example, if the artist's guild wanted to fund development of a better graphics package, it would likely be open-source, and the programmers would be paid. This would benefit everyone immensely.
They should not carry the magazines at all, if they find them offensive. Duh. It's that simple.
********
Unless they don't find them offensive with different covers. Duh. It's that simple. The magazine _wants_ to be in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart _wants_ to have the magazine if it's not offensive. This is good for both companies and the consumers.
What they really mean to say is that they worship at the cult of baby and don't give a rats ass what the single/childfree people with disposable income want.
*********
I.e. - a significant portion of their customers.
As a parent, I don't want my child seeing racy stuff just walking in a store. I'd like to be able to _shop_ without having to explain why such material is indecent. Therefore, I go to Wal-Mart. It seems that a lot of people have the same idea (notice the number of children walking with their parents in walmart). These people constitute a _market_, and a large one at that. The beauty of capitalism is that the market decides. If you aren't a part of the mass market, don't go to mass-market places. It's that simple.
Is there nowhere else to find porn? I mean really, if blockbuster doesn't rent porn, find someone who does! It's not the end of the world. It's not like Ma and Pa Video requires a different kind of VCR to play their tapes.
It's not like buying at Target all-of-a-sudden makes your stuff incompatible with the rest of the world. It's not like Wal-Mart lies and cheats it's way to the top. They are what they say they are. The market likes them.
The market does decide because a) the market goes to Wal-Mart and b) the market is the ones that go to Wal-Mart for it's family attitude.
Why is having questionable covers in family stores such a big deal?
The fact is, _families_ are who these magazine's customers are, and therefore them being more family-friendly to sell to their audience, who happens to shop at Wal-Mart, is not a crime.
Oh no! They had to change their cover! Oh my, what's next!
Puhleease. This is silly. It's not like trying to not offend your customers is a nefarious purpose. What do you think they should do?
I don't see your complaint. Yes, Wal-Mart's view of a magazine is powerful. That _is_ their choice, and they are not evil for making that choice. Get over it.
If you dislike this control then you should read magazines which are not sold at Wal-Mart.
But really, is asking magazines for something that is decent for families to see really asking that much?
By the way, Rolling Stone often comes close to qualifying as soft-porn - at least their covers do.
You might enjoy my book, then, too, although it isn't finished yet. It's called "Programming from the Ground Up". http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/Programmi ngGroundUp/
I don't know what the big deal is about honeymoons. Why go to all of the expense of going somewhere nice? Really, all you need to do is find a good hotel in the middle of nowhere. It's not like you're going outside for anything except restocking food and condom supplies.
For your anniversary, go someplace nice. Then you might actually see where it is you go.
dan:
How did YOU find about Linux? If you found out, then so can anyone else. You and I are not inherently better. We just have educated ourselves. Anyone else can make that choice.
************
I found out about Linux because someone else told me about it. I then did quite extensive research on my own before knowing about all of it's capabilities. Expecting others to have the time to do such research when they are not even aware the choice is out there is absurd. If someone told them about the choice, would they believe them? Not until they became a household name.
Think about it - why can brand-names charge so much for their product and still have the majority of the market, without being better than the alternatives? Simple, customers recognize the name, and know what to expect. Most people I know don't even know where Aldi is.
Expecting people to educate themselves on topics they simply don't care about is wishful thinking at best. You certainly couldn't convince me to educate myself on car topics. I'll simply ask my father-in-law. Therefore, my choice on cars is simply based on what I have driven around, and what others around me have bought. Since I don't know anyone with a Kia, I probably won't drive one. If I have heard _any_ horror stories with a car brand I don't know, I'll simply skip them, even if the story was made up by someone intentionally trying to discredit them, because how would I know?
************
dan:
About config files: let's be real honest here. When something breaks it usually requires getting down and dirty with the command line. Yes, a lot of the graphical tools are coming along nicely, but to be sure, there is much to be done.
*************
Well, a) I haven't had much break. b) Are config files really harder than the registry editor? You can use a nice GUI editor w/ config files and then restart the service using Red Hat's service manager. I don't see that as being harder than editing registry entries and then restarting services using Windows service manager, do you? Except that the registry often contains a lot of binary data, too.
So no, I don't believe either of your points are valid.
The GPL is great for non-profit and 'hobby' applications but just won't work for products such as, say, photoshop.
********
Or say, the GIMP? You are looking at the wrong model of software development. Instead of thinking about a software house producing a piece of software and trying to get world+dog to send them money, think about an industry that would be benefitted by software, and willing to pay a development house to build it. All industries have associations. It is in their best interest to be the ones directly funding the creation of softare for their groups - because then it works exactly as they require. Plus, it eliminates the need to keep it proprietary.
The old model is completely backwards and broken. It was similar to the lottery in how it paid it's investors back. It puts the users against the developers. It gives the developers more money by screwing over the users.
Supply, demand, and price are very linked. You can't separate them. If there is enough demand, then either a) there is a supply of people who will volunteer to fill it, or b) the market will find a way to fund the people to develop it. If the demand is for free (as in speech) software, then the market, on it's own, will find it's way to compensate enough people enough to create the software. Period. It's the way a market economy works. Unfortunately, not enough people trust the market economy, and think they have to do it someone else's way for things to work out.
I think the point of the FSF's position is that you don't have to extract the maximum profit possible, as long as programmers can earn a living wage, which they, and I, believe to be quite possible with Free Software. In that case, everyone wins. It's not just the developers screwing over the rest of society.