Even more so, if they picked up TransGaming too, they could have a Windows-compatible OS that they simply shipped to your house. I can see the ads now -
"Why pay the money to upgrade to Win XP when AOL will send you the latest Windows-compatible operating system right to your doorstep! Be looking for AOL Windows in your mailbox."
Actually, what will happen is that Bill Gates will act like he invented the concept of secure computing. And the media will believe it, just like they believe he invented the browser, email, the internet, and web services.
Have you seen how much hype has gone into web services, with Microsoft acting like they were the first ones to the table? Arg.
Without copyright you could still use and copy it for free, or even disassemble it or reverse-compile it. I imagine those tools would be in even greater use.
Again, without copyright, there is no need for GPL.
No, CNET says they bid. They did not say that Microsoft's bid made it more costly. As the CNET article says, the person who sold the domain did NOT take the top bid. So, they bid on it, but that did not affect what the others had to bid on it to get it.
Depends. If you're going to write object oriented code, it's a hell of a lot simpler to write it using well documented, standardised semantics than trying to write C++ code in C. In the case of GNOME, complaints about it "adding complexity" are moot -- GTK/GNOME add complexity by using obscure idioms to emulate what C++ supports using well-defined semantics.
***
To say the semantics of C++ is well-defined are true, but the semantics are not really that logical.
***
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries).
The KDE people have been working on a library that generates C wrappers for C++ applications.
***
You are missing the point. The C wrappers are fine, but they don't help C++ people using a different compiler.
***
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers.
If they're really skilled, they shouldn't have much trouble learning C++.
***
But why? C++ adds little but complexity.
***
Anything but C++, huh ? A standard ABI would be nice, but it's not a be-all-end-all.
***
Yes, anything but C++. I teach C++, so I know it quite well, and all of it's magic templating, virtual base class features. And I can tell you that trying to write useful C++ libraries is just plain a bug-ridden, pain-in-the-butt nightmare. Especially if you are using libraries from multiple developers. You have to wonder if pass-by-value might invoke the copy constructor. You have to make sure that all of the templates support the features you want, just right. And then, there's function overloading, which is just a plain bad idea (it's basically setting you up for calling the wrong version of a function accidentally). C++ has a lot of features. It even has one feature (the ability to pass templates as template parameters) that no other language has. However, the way that the features are put together is so wretched, that I can't imagine a worse way to do it.
Usually X-Windows runs slower because most distributions have it running as a low priority (why is this, especially desktop versions?). Anyway, if you find the PID of X Windows, and do
renice -20 PUTTHEPIDHERE
You will be happy. You might also do the same for sawfish & panel.
C++ ADDS complexity. It does not reduce it. The language is the biggest frankenstein language I've ever seen. There are several reasons not to use C++:
1) It adds complexity
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries). This means if Solaris' GNOME was compiled with Sun's C++ compiler, you couldn't use gcc to build GNOME applications.
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers. C++ programmers generally do not know enough of the strange nuances of C++ to adequately implement libraries.
If there were another OO language with a standard ABI, then there might be a case. Maybe Objective C. However, C++ is definitely a bad implementation choice because of the complexity it adds.
Re:What good is it, if nobody adopts it?
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 2
The developer API has a lot to do with ease-of-use. If the API makes it easy to write easy-to-use applications, people will.
Think about old X applications. They were difficult to use, because Xlib is impossible to program in. A better API brings better applications.
Also, haven't you been looking at the recent announcements? Evolution 1.0, Galeon 1.0, and Gnumeric 1.0. These are all programs that are extremely easy-to-use while being powerful.
Actually, the packaging makes sense as far as the flexibility goes.
glib is useful on its own. Without anything else. it gets its own package.
Gtk+ is the widget set. It gets its own package (you can write applications just to Gtk+ if you want).
CORBA stuff is independent. They get their own packages.
Some things are likely to install even in distributions without GNOME. They get their own package as separate downloads.
Each application needs to be independently installable.
If you want something easy and organized, why not just either a) skip the direct download, and wait for your distribution, or b) use Red Carpet for download, and let it resolve the dependencies for you.
If the complexity of compiling bothers you, don't compile.
The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.
***
I don't think so. If I remember right, the person selling that domain only wanted a "serious" bid, but it was mainly based on what plans they had for it. It did not go to the highest bidder.
Re:What are technical advantages of Hurd?
on
Hurd: H2 CD Images
·
· Score: 2
HURD is better for massively parallel processors and user-customizability. It is massively multithreaded, has a message-passing-based kernel, and the user can load their own O.S. drivers without violating the integrity of the system.
It is quite possible going to be the open-source architecture to power the future power-architectures consisting of hundreds of CPUs.
Another nice thing about the HURD, even if it doesn't do that, is it's an interesting test-bed of new Operating System ideas. That's one reason it hasn't reached 1.0 - everyone keeps testing new things out. There's no problem with that - it brings new innovations to a lot of other stuff.
Anyway, HURD shows the true power of free software. There's almost noone working on it (comparitively), but it has just as rich an environment as everything else because of the large mass of free software that can be ported. It shows that with Free Software, innovation can happen easily, because the developers can focus on the new stuff, and just use the existing tools to make a complete environment. Think about the uphill battle the HURD would have to go through if they had to write all of the userland themselves, too!
They're not a non-profit, but http://www.transgaming.com/ could have the keys to Linux conquering the desktop. Sign up for a membership. I personally don't even use it, but I'm signed up because I think it will help out.
piss-poor quality? Yeah, I guess that's why Windows is used on more than 90% of desktops and that MS Office is so popular.
****
You don't see McDonald's winning any product-of-the-year awards, do you? That's because the business behind McDonalds works so well, not the product itself. Just like Microsoft.
You know, I haven't seen anyone who has rolled out Linux in the past year who has turned back. In the schools where they are trying it, it is actually proving to be a great success.
_Programming_ actually is kind of a universal. Learning to program a computer helps people understand many things about logic, sequence, and other stuff.
Noone has a problem with companies making money. Even the Free Software Foundation sells their packages. The problem people have is with people trying to take away freedoms from individual users on their own software and computers, including the freedom to share.
Hm, if only the API's are Beta and the UI isn't even that level, I have a hard time believing they have a realistic time schedule.
*****
Ummm...., you have to have the API's BEFORE the applications. If the APIs is only beta quality, how could the applications which depend on them be more so?
You also have to remember that the applications themselves are already written, they only need to be ported to the new API, so it's not like they are going to be rewritten from scratch or anything.
Also, fast turnaround times are essential for feedback and testing. If two weeks after Beta 1 users are still reporting bugs that were fixed a week ago, you have a bad situation. The faster the turnaround time between betas, the better. Remember, "release early, release often". That's how you find and fix bugs.
Actually, a Beta should be suitable for general use.
**************
Not a platform beta. The platform beta means that they've got all of the pieces of the platform together, and they are testing the API's to make _them_ production quality. The DESKTOP betas are scheduled for next year, in which case end-user functionality will be tested.
That's why its a PLATFORM BETA. It's not a release beta, it's a PLATFORM BETA. This means that they are working on the PLATFORM. Then they will be working on the applications. Joe Sixpack is NOT MEANT for this release. Period. When they have a DESKTOP release, and after distributions package it, then it will be ready for Joe Desktop. Don't complain simply because you don't understand the process. The process is the same for Windows, it's just that with Linux, anyone can view the progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Even more so, if they picked up TransGaming too, they could have a Windows-compatible OS that they simply shipped to your house. I can see the ads now -
"Why pay the money to upgrade to Win XP when AOL will send you the latest Windows-compatible operating system right to your doorstep! Be looking for AOL Windows in your mailbox."
Wouldn't that be fun?
Actually, what will happen is that Bill Gates will act like he invented the concept of secure computing. And the media will believe it, just like they believe he invented the browser, email, the internet, and web services.
Have you seen how much hype has gone into web services, with Microsoft acting like they were the first ones to the table? Arg.
Speaking of Microsoft and Enron, how many people have read this:
u le maker000217.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/r
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Without copyright you could still use and copy it for free, or even disassemble it or reverse-compile it. I imagine those tools would be in even greater use.
Again, without copyright, there is no need for GPL.
Macs also have a higher resell value, so you get more value from them.
Getting Linux does not mean getting rid of your IT department, so I don't know why you think that Hancom will be taking care of all 120k computers.
No, CNET says they bid. They did not say that Microsoft's bid made it more costly. As the CNET article says, the person who sold the domain did NOT take the top bid. So, they bid on it, but that did not affect what the others had to bid on it to get it.
1) It adds complexity
Depends. If you're going to write object oriented code, it's a hell of a lot simpler to write it using well documented, standardised semantics than trying to write C++ code in C. In the case of GNOME, complaints about it "adding complexity" are moot -- GTK/GNOME add complexity by using obscure idioms to emulate what C++ supports using well-defined semantics.
***
To say the semantics of C++ is well-defined are true, but the semantics are not really that logical.
***
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries).
The KDE people have been working on a library that generates C wrappers for C++ applications.
***
You are missing the point. The C wrappers are fine, but they don't help C++ people using a different compiler.
***
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers.
If they're really skilled, they shouldn't have much trouble learning C++.
***
But why? C++ adds little but complexity.
***
Anything but C++, huh ? A standard ABI would be nice, but it's not a be-all-end-all.
***
Yes, anything but C++. I teach C++, so I know it quite well, and all of it's magic templating, virtual base class features. And I can tell you that trying to write useful C++ libraries is just plain a bug-ridden, pain-in-the-butt nightmare. Especially if you are using libraries from multiple developers. You have to wonder if pass-by-value might invoke the copy constructor. You have to make sure that all of the templates support the features you want, just right. And then, there's function overloading, which is just a plain bad idea (it's basically setting you up for calling the wrong version of a function accidentally). C++ has a lot of features. It even has one feature (the ability to pass templates as template parameters) that no other language has. However, the way that the features are put together is so wretched, that I can't imagine a worse way to do it.
And on top of that, there is no standard ABI.
Usually X-Windows runs slower because most distributions have it running as a low priority (why is this, especially desktop versions?). Anyway, if you find the PID of X Windows, and do
renice -20 PUTTHEPIDHERE
You will be happy. You might also do the same for sawfish & panel.
C++ ADDS complexity. It does not reduce it. The language is the biggest frankenstein language I've ever seen. There are several reasons not to use C++:
1) It adds complexity
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries). This means if Solaris' GNOME was compiled with Sun's C++ compiler, you couldn't use gcc to build GNOME applications.
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers. C++ programmers generally do not know enough of the strange nuances of C++ to adequately implement libraries.
If there were another OO language with a standard ABI, then there might be a case. Maybe Objective C. However, C++ is definitely a bad implementation choice because of the complexity it adds.
The developer API has a lot to do with ease-of-use. If the API makes it easy to write easy-to-use applications, people will.
Think about old X applications. They were difficult to use, because Xlib is impossible to program in. A better API brings better applications.
Also, haven't you been looking at the recent announcements? Evolution 1.0, Galeon 1.0, and Gnumeric 1.0. These are all programs that are extremely easy-to-use while being powerful.
Actually, the packaging makes sense as far as the flexibility goes.
glib is useful on its own. Without anything else. it gets its own package.
Gtk+ is the widget set. It gets its own package (you can write applications just to Gtk+ if you want).
CORBA stuff is independent. They get their own packages.
Some things are likely to install even in distributions without GNOME. They get their own package as separate downloads.
Each application needs to be independently installable.
If you want something easy and organized, why not just either a) skip the direct download, and wait for your distribution, or b) use Red Carpet for download, and let it resolve the dependencies for you.
If the complexity of compiling bothers you, don't compile.
The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.
***
I don't think so. If I remember right, the person selling that domain only wanted a "serious" bid, but it was mainly based on what plans they had for it. It did not go to the highest bidder.
HURD is better for massively parallel processors and user-customizability. It is massively multithreaded, has a message-passing-based kernel, and the user can load their own O.S. drivers without violating the integrity of the system.
It is quite possible going to be the open-source architecture to power the future power-architectures consisting of hundreds of CPUs.
Another nice thing about the HURD, even if it doesn't do that, is it's an interesting test-bed of new Operating System ideas. That's one reason it hasn't reached 1.0 - everyone keeps testing new things out. There's no problem with that - it brings new innovations to a lot of other stuff.
Anyway, HURD shows the true power of free software. There's almost noone working on it (comparitively), but it has just as rich an environment as everything else because of the large mass of free software that can be ported. It shows that with Free Software, innovation can happen easily, because the developers can focus on the new stuff, and just use the existing tools to make a complete environment. Think about the uphill battle the HURD would have to go through if they had to write all of the userland themselves, too!
They're not a non-profit, but http://www.transgaming.com/ could have the keys to Linux conquering the desktop. Sign up for a membership. I personally don't even use it, but I'm signed up because I think it will help out.
piss-poor quality? Yeah, I guess that's why Windows is used on more than 90% of desktops and that MS Office is so popular.
****
You don't see McDonald's winning any product-of-the-year awards, do you? That's because the business behind McDonalds works so well, not the product itself. Just like Microsoft.
You know, I haven't seen anyone who has rolled out Linux in the past year who has turned back. In the schools where they are trying it, it is actually proving to be a great success.
_Programming_ actually is kind of a universal. Learning to program a computer helps people understand many things about logic, sequence, and other stuff.
It's really sad when the _schools_ are afraid to learn new things.
Actually, _programming_ is a skill that helps thinking. It helps you learn to break problems down into discrete manageable steps.
Noone has a problem with companies making money. Even the Free Software Foundation sells their packages. The problem people have is with people trying to take away freedoms from individual users on their own software and computers, including the freedom to share.
Hm, if only the API's are Beta and the UI isn't even that level, I have a hard time believing they have a realistic time schedule.
*****
Ummm...., you have to have the API's BEFORE the applications. If the APIs is only beta quality, how could the applications which depend on them be more so?
You also have to remember that the applications themselves are already written, they only need to be ported to the new API, so it's not like they are going to be rewritten from scratch or anything.
Also, fast turnaround times are essential for feedback and testing. If two weeks after Beta 1 users are still reporting bugs that were fixed a week ago, you have a bad situation. The faster the turnaround time between betas, the better. Remember, "release early, release often". That's how you find and fix bugs.
Actually, a Beta should be suitable for general use.
**************
Not a platform beta. The platform beta means that they've got all of the pieces of the platform together, and they are testing the API's to make _them_ production quality. The DESKTOP betas are scheduled for next year, in which case end-user functionality will be tested.
That's why its a PLATFORM BETA. It's not a release beta, it's a PLATFORM BETA. This means that they are working on the PLATFORM. Then they will be working on the applications. Joe Sixpack is NOT MEANT for this release. Period. When they have a DESKTOP release, and after distributions package it, then it will be ready for Joe Desktop. Don't complain simply because you don't understand the process. The process is the same for Windows, it's just that with Linux, anyone can view the progress.
This is mostly true. Some applications have additional functionality if the panel or other servers are running.