>>>Actually, a quick look into my crystal ball shows me fewer semicolons in the future, not more.
Your crystal ball needs a tune up. Its forcasting a little too far into the future; where semi-colons are fewer because no one programs in code any longer. That's the epoch of self-programming AI systems.
In the meantime...in the world of Java, C/C++, and C# domination, semi-colons abound a-plenty. At least if you're working for a living.
Fuck you Bill Gates. What a hypocrite! He tells us to buy commercial products, yet he enjoys reading and posting to a Free site like./ that runs on Open Source software.
May your billions turn to bouillons, you nasty rat bastard.
Whenever a book comes out that changes the perception of science fiction. After all, isn't that what Science Fiction is all about? Nothing has affected Science Fiction as did the Dangerous Vision books. They redefined the genre, influencing just about every SF author out there, pushing them to see farther and to come back and tell us what they saw.
I thought they we're foolish at first, but then I realized they're doing something that M$ itself has done to other technologies and standards. Embrace and extend. I believe there will be a minimal amount of catch-up at first. Then, when other people and corporations see the viability of such a project, they will lend their resources to warp.NET into their own specific image. But, they will be using this Open Source implementation. The result will be M$ being beaten on two fronts. One on the Java side, the other on the Portable.NET side (in a sense, their own tool).
That's just the language battles. If we move on to the server OS side, they will be beaten by Linux. If you question that, please name one supercomputer on the top ten list running Windows. Linux has been there and done that, and is there now and doing that.
It wouldn't be too outlandish to say that in the next few years, we'll see M$'s dominion limited to their almost total control over the desktop and their office suite. With the constant threat to those growing everyday by Mozilla, Linux/KDE/Gnome, OpenOffice/Gobe Productive Office, M$ will have to improve or eventually be sold off piece-meal in 7-10 years. And, since M$ has proven that you can't beat FREE (IE), the result will be the latter.
I'll agree to naming it 3.0 when it washes my laundry, irons it, and hands me a cup of Java on my way out the door.
People...please, lets stick by our versioning conventions. They serve a purpose beyond marketing hype. I don't wish Linux to be caught up in an escalation war when it doesn't deserve the 3.0 moniker. I mean, when does it stop? We're not marketing toadies, are we?
I use this everyday as well. Its excellent, and tiny! Can't imagine working without it.
Quite a few features that you can turn on by removing the "comments" character from the configuration file. Also, some very cool effects like magnify and more...
Someone mod this up! I had no idea this was in the works.
Wait a second. Wasn't there a Microsoft License issue that stated something like "You can't develop GPL code with our products.". AFAIK, the.NOT Framework and compiler is a M$ product. This product seems to have made been made using the.NOT Framework.
They figured how Gecko's stick to glass surfaces, but they never figured out how they let go!
Another fifty years of research to figure that out...sheesh!
The name game may have alot to do with their decision.
Caldera has released Open Source products in the past, and currently maintain existing Open Source products like the excellent WebAdmin.
They've probably come to the realization that their bonehead attempts to make Linux proprietary (in use, if not in license), has tarnished what little image they had for Open Source releases, and their GPL ambiguity. Now they're falling back on their other property, the SCO name, to re-image themselves with SCO-Linux.
"Developers can view the source and are able to make changes which can then be submitted back. That is open source software. It just happens to be 'non-free' open source. But still open source none the less."
Excuse me. That wasn't the most inane comment I've heard, but its bucking for the title. By your definition, Microsoft would be an "Open Source" company because it shares the source code for its products to other companies.
In no way or fashion does showing your sourcecode mean "Open Source" as everyone understands it. Microsoft would be the first to adamantly disagree with your statement.
Your concept of "Open Source" further solidifies my fear that these companies who try to get a free ride on the Open Source bandwagon, are diluting the spirit or even the IDEA of what Open Source is all about. Sun wasn't allowed to do it (thought they tried), so why should the makers of Resin? Or, perhaps what they really want is the free publicitly or a controversy; in which case, I say let them be forgotten in obscurity.
I think I'll start using the term Free Software in future reference to things I previously refered to as Open Source.
Although they were a monopoly, even the U.S. Department of Justice couldn't stop them from showing those clever shadow-people commercials.
But, even the mighty have trouble.
BSD is much more mature than Linux in years and codebase. It's capabilities and stability are well known and respected. BSD has had a very long time (in computer industry terms) to capture mindshare with coders and users alike. With all those advantages, why did Linux's growth rate outstrip *BSD's? To put it simply, it comes down to the license (and history).
The history part relegates BSD to the Clone Wars era, as it was a participant, and is now a victim of that period.
The license part is related to the Unix Clone Wars. The BSD license is weak and flacid in a very specific sense. It doesn't discourage selfishness. The BSD developers are probably at the height of altruism, where they are willing to literally give away their hard work without to others who are willing to take it, add to it, and refuse to share their additions. BSD developers don't care whether individuals or corporations take their code and make it proprietary.
The GNU license that Linux is under, protects Linux from a vicious Clone War. Even if the Linux codebase should split, either side will always be legally able to add innovations introduced by anyone who's taken the Linux code and attempted to make their own version. In fact, that happens quite often with Linux as different groups create different capabilities for specific purposes. This mechanism propogates innovation. But, everyone still understands that there is only one Linux, and those who change the code are careful to ensure compatibility. If they don't, anyone is capable of making sure that they do by changing the code themselves, since it is not hidden.
Younger people understand that as part of true participation, one needs to share. They've just come out of their 'teens, and growing lessons are fresh in their minds. *BSD has no rules in regards to sharing other than its almost non-existant license requires perpetuity.
Younger programmers distrust corporations, and prefer protection for their code. They don't see anyone as being a part of 'their' team if their hard work is taken and made proprietary. They see that as selfish. Basically, fairness in a game is strong encouragement to continue playing.
This is why Linux is currently fashionable in regards to mindshare and *BSD's mindshare steadily gets older. GNU/Linux is truly an OS for the people, by the people. BSD has a mixed history of altruism, elitism, and proprietism.
The reason I find it possible is because the same page shows a reference to Linux Utilities (an application similar to Norton Utilities) as being one of the technologies that Xandros claims it will integrate into their new Linux distribution.
Seeing the ease with which you've succumbed to this masterful swindle, a quote comes to mind from one who had an idea as to what the future held:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Here's some wisdom in regards to divorce, a matter which affects 50 percent of our population every day:
"Don't make long-term decisions when you are upset --your judgment isn't sound and you don't want to build the rest of your life on decisions based on anger, guilt or fear."
Yet, here we are, taken advantage of in our most vulnerable moment, by those who've waited for this opportunity to strip our rights away from us. They've used our current emotions against us in a brilliant maneuver. Those foreign terrorists handed our own special group of terrorists unprecedented powers that require NO judiciary oversight.
They've sidestepped one of the foundations of our political system and liberty, the checks and balances between the three divisions of the government. This is good for us?
If this, and legislations like this, are the future, I feel sorry for those who come after us. They'll never experience the freedoms we've enjoyed and taken for granted.
But, as the obvious nature of this hasn't immediately been apparent to you, I doubt anything I've said will have changed your opinion. Take the blue pill, the red has a bitter aftertaste.
In general programming terms, a function is a procedure that returns a value to be stored in a variable.
So, if postgresql supports functions, perhaps they're being more specific in their purpose. But, it might still fall into the broader category of a procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay BillGatus of Borg, why don't you goosestep out from behind your anonymity and face our enmity.
Why even bother posting random propaganda when you should be busy driving that tired old rust-bucket, MacroShaft, into oblivion. Please, proceed.
>>>Actually, a quick look into my crystal ball shows me fewer semicolons in the future, not more.
Your crystal ball needs a tune up. Its forcasting a little too far into the future; where semi-colons are fewer because no one programs in code any longer. That's the epoch of self-programming AI systems.
In the meantime...in the world of Java, C/C++, and C# domination, semi-colons abound a-plenty. At least if you're working for a living.
Fuck you Bill Gates. What a hypocrite! He tells us to buy commercial products, yet he enjoys reading and posting to a Free site like ./ that runs on Open Source software.
May your billions turn to bouillons, you nasty rat bastard.
Whenever a book comes out that changes the perception of science fiction. After all, isn't that what Science Fiction is all about? Nothing has affected Science Fiction as did the Dangerous Vision books. They redefined the genre, influencing just about every SF author out there, pushing them to see farther and to come back and tell us what they saw.
Dangerous Visions
ISBN: 0743452615
Again, Dangerous Visions
ASIN: 0425061825
Enjoy...and be careful.
That's just the language battles. If we move on to the server OS side, they will be beaten by Linux. If you question that, please name one supercomputer on the top ten list running Windows. Linux has been there and done that, and is there now and doing that.
It wouldn't be too outlandish to say that in the next few years, we'll see M$'s dominion limited to their almost total control over the desktop and their office suite. With the constant threat to those growing everyday by Mozilla, Linux/KDE/Gnome, OpenOffice/Gobe Productive Office, M$ will have to improve or eventually be sold off piece-meal in 7-10 years. And, since M$ has proven that you can't beat FREE (IE), the result will be the latter.
I'll agree to naming it 3.0 when it washes my laundry, irons it, and hands me a cup of Java on my way out the door.
People...please, lets stick by our versioning conventions. They serve a purpose beyond marketing hype. I don't wish Linux to be caught up in an escalation war when it doesn't deserve the 3.0 moniker. I mean, when does it stop? We're not marketing toadies, are we?
I use this everyday as well. Its excellent, and tiny! Can't imagine working without it.
Quite a few features that you can turn on by removing the "comments" character from the configuration file. Also, some very cool effects like magnify and more...
Holey Canalone!!
.NOT Framework and compiler is a M$ product. This product seems to have made been made using the .NOT Framework.
Someone mod this up! I had no idea this was in the works.
Wait a second. Wasn't there a Microsoft License issue that stated something like "You can't develop GPL code with our products.". AFAIK, the
This will bomb just like Microsoft Bob did.
They figured how Gecko's stick to glass surfaces, but they never figured out how they let go! Another fifty years of research to figure that out...sheesh!
The name game may have alot to do with their decision.
Caldera has released Open Source products in the past, and currently maintain existing Open Source products like the excellent WebAdmin.
They've probably come to the realization that their bonehead attempts to make Linux proprietary (in use, if not in license), has tarnished what little image they had for Open Source releases, and their GPL ambiguity. Now they're falling back on their other property, the SCO name, to re-image themselves with SCO-Linux.
Excuse me. That wasn't the most inane comment I've heard, but its bucking for the title. By your definition, Microsoft would be an "Open Source" company because it shares the source code for its products to other companies.
In no way or fashion does showing your sourcecode mean "Open Source" as everyone understands it. Microsoft would be the first to adamantly disagree with your statement.
Your concept of "Open Source" further solidifies my fear that these companies who try to get a free ride on the Open Source bandwagon, are diluting the spirit or even the IDEA of what Open Source is all about. Sun wasn't allowed to do it (thought they tried), so why should the makers of Resin? Or, perhaps what they really want is the free publicitly or a controversy; in which case, I say let them be forgotten in obscurity.
I think I'll start using the term Free Software in future reference to things I previously refered to as Open Source.
Although they were a monopoly, even the U.S. Department of Justice couldn't stop them from showing those clever shadow-people commercials. But, even the mighty have trouble.
Zilla is a name for shadow.
According to this, zilla is a business-minded insomniac.
BSD is much more mature than Linux in years and codebase. It's capabilities and stability are well known and respected. BSD has had a very long time (in computer industry terms) to capture mindshare with coders and users alike. With all those advantages, why did Linux's growth rate outstrip *BSD's? To put it simply, it comes down to the license (and history).
The history part relegates BSD to the Clone Wars era, as it was a participant, and is now a victim of that period.
The license part is related to the Unix Clone Wars. The BSD license is weak and flacid in a very specific sense. It doesn't discourage selfishness. The BSD developers are probably at the height of altruism, where they are willing to literally give away their hard work without to others who are willing to take it, add to it, and refuse to share their additions. BSD developers don't care whether individuals or corporations take their code and make it proprietary.
The GNU license that Linux is under, protects Linux from a vicious Clone War. Even if the Linux codebase should split, either side will always be legally able to add innovations introduced by anyone who's taken the Linux code and attempted to make their own version. In fact, that happens quite often with Linux as different groups create different capabilities for specific purposes. This mechanism propogates innovation. But, everyone still understands that there is only one Linux, and those who change the code are careful to ensure compatibility. If they don't, anyone is capable of making sure that they do by changing the code themselves, since it is not hidden.
Younger people understand that as part of true participation, one needs to share. They've just come out of their 'teens, and growing lessons are fresh in their minds. *BSD has no rules in regards to sharing other than its almost non-existant license requires perpetuity.
Younger programmers distrust corporations, and prefer protection for their code. They don't see anyone as being a part of 'their' team if their hard work is taken and made proprietary. They see that as selfish. Basically, fairness in a game is strong encouragement to continue playing.
This is why Linux is currently fashionable in regards to mindshare and *BSD's mindshare steadily gets older. GNU/Linux is truly an OS for the people, by the people. BSD has a mixed history of altruism, elitism, and proprietism.
= Appi =
The reason I find it possible is because the same page shows a reference to Linux Utilities (an application similar to Norton Utilities) as being one of the technologies that Xandros claims it will integrate into their new Linux distribution.
~Quid Pro Quo~
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Here's some wisdom in regards to divorce, a matter which affects 50 percent of our population every day:
"Don't make long-term decisions when you are upset --your judgment isn't sound and you don't want to build the rest of your life on decisions based on anger, guilt or fear."
Yet, here we are, taken advantage of in our most vulnerable moment, by those who've waited for this opportunity to strip our rights away from us. They've used our current emotions against us in a brilliant maneuver. Those foreign terrorists handed our own special group of terrorists unprecedented powers that require NO judiciary oversight.
They've sidestepped one of the foundations of our political system and liberty, the checks and balances between the three divisions of the government. This is good for us?
If this, and legislations like this, are the future, I feel sorry for those who come after us. They'll never experience the freedoms we've enjoyed and taken for granted.
But, as the obvious nature of this hasn't immediately been apparent to you, I doubt anything I've said will have changed your opinion. Take the blue pill, the red has a bitter aftertaste.
~Quid Pro Quo~
In general programming terms, a function is a procedure that returns a value to be stored in a variable. So, if postgresql supports functions, perhaps they're being more specific in their purpose. But, it might still fall into the broader category of a procedure.