Programming is about knowledge , it is definitely not about having hundreds of followers and giving interviews to magazines and newspapers. You can be a good programmer, and at the same time, a famous one, but you don't need to be famous so you can have good programming skills.
The famous open source developers didn't get famous because of their looks.
But most of them aren't famous as programmers, but as activists and revolutionaries. Everyone talks about how Linus was a revolutionary when he released his kernel as GPL code and opened the development process to everyone, but you won't see any mainstream magazine talking about his programming skills ("look, he planned and documented every single detail before implementing, wow, what a well designed structure he wrote in foo.c").
And, about the "famous" part: Famous to who? To the Open Source "community" (sic)? Well, I believe that Torvalds is the only OSS programmer who is "super pop" outside the OSS community.
Famous in the community. Not the OSS community, the developer one. If you don't know the people in high profile positions that do pretty much the same thing as you, maybe you should become involved in your industry. I know windows based developers. Even some Mac based developers. They know who a lot of the high profile open source developers are even though they don't do any open source development. It's hard when they get interviewed in Wired, and other high visibility magazines.
Knowing them because they are famous is not the same thing as knowing them because they are good developers. Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
And yes, I know a lot of programmers who I consider as "high profile"* programmers, but most of them aren't OSS programmers.
* I consider as "high profile" those who plan and document everything before they implement. You have be be a good engineer to be "high profile" programmer, just knowing C/C++ And Assembly won't make you "high profile".
You people should stop making unfounded affirmations, they're as empty and biased as saying "XYZ is the best person in the world".
In all honesty, you are the one being stupid. Your comment about knowledge reeks of bias. If you honestly believed programming is about knowledge, why else would they be famous? Think about it. What part of this is unfounded? It's pretty much a given that the OSS community has more developers than Microsoft. It's also logical to assume since there are several "famous" developers involved in OSS and, well, none in the Microsoft camp that we don't have to worry to much about MS's innovation to outsmart the OSS movement. The day MS innovation can fool a 6th grader, maybe I'll give them some credit.
"If you honestly believed programming is about knowledge, why else would they be famous?", "The day MS innovation can fool a 6th grader, maybe I'll give them some credit".
Well, you don't have to be a genius to know that what you just said was plain stupid and baseless. If you believe that programming is all about giving interviews to magazines, I'm sorry to tell you that you are confusing "programming" with something else. Is it just me or wasn't "high-profile" programming about good software engineering? I mean, I didn't knew that it was about being "pop".
And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.
I'm not saying that OSS developers are not smart, but do you have any data to prove that? Arrogance is not the best way of doing things, you should be aware of that. Try to avoid this kind of affirmation in the future.
I'm mostly speaking of the high-profile, genius developers that the OSS community has. Torvalds, Stallman, Wall, etc. How many star developers that are famous does Microsoft employ?
Well, don't think I am classifying Torvalds and other "famous" OSS developers as dumb programmers or any other kind of negative classification, but the whole "high-profile" part is unfounded. You have absolutely no base to say that Microsoft programmers aren't as "high-profile" as Torvalds and his friends. And, like any other kind of relative adjective, your view of a "high-profile programmer" might be extremely biased (like: only OSS programmers can be high-profile, for some obscure reason you will never admit).
Programming is about knowledge, it is definitely not about having hundreds of followers and giving interviews to magazines and newspapers. You can be a good programmer, and at the same time, a famous one, but you don't need to be famous so you can have good programming skills.
And, about the "famous" part: Famous to who? To the Open Source "community" (sic)? Well, I believe that Torvalds is the only OSS programmer who is "super pop" outside the OSS community.
You people should stop making unfounded affirmations, they're as empty and biased as saying "XYZ is the best person in the world".
Outsmarting some of the smartest developers on the planet is going to be very difficult.
I'm not saying that OSS developers are not smart, but do you have any data to prove that? Arrogance is not the best way of doing things, you should be aware of that. Try to avoid this kind of affirmation in the future.
BTW: A lot of OSS developers act like they are not even close to smart, judging by the way they organize their code and plan (most of them won't do any planning at all) their software.
The machines will be used to create free public computer labs across South America, networked with donated wireless 802.11b cards.
Their project is being implementar just in Ecuador, not in the whole continent.
BTW: They should focus on helping other people, not on their useless agenda, they are not going to be able to stop any continent-wide agreements, PERIOD.
If they refuse to use their resources to help people (like giving computers to a public school), they'll be proving that they're a much bigger part of the problem than everyone else in their country, because they are moving computers across continents just to have their little comunist ideology-spreading network, instead of helping poor people.
Useless activism *doesn't* help people, what the third world needs now is less corruption and more *serious* representation, not some whiny geeks speding resources that could be used in places like public schools. If they want to fight against ALCA, then they should become (or support) politicians, very polite and eligible politicians, not whiny bearded communists that will never get elected because they don't look like help, they look more like a threat.
Microsoft and Intel have already outlined a DRM partnership called CDS [bbspot.com].
Now that I can actually see happening. How far will we be from this in just a few years?
Geeez. Moderators: BBSPOT - "BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you are easily offended, gullible, or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you go elsewhere. "
I find this very disturbing, especially in light of the fact that IBM and Sun are supposed to be open soure allies.
Sun and IBM are both "profit-wise organisations", they want profit, PERIOD. They are obviously not interested in your little "crusade", their don't see the world as "Open source allies" and "Open source enemies".
And yes, Linux's process context switches are on a par (possibly faster - can't be bothered to look up benchmarks) with NT's thread context switches.
And why do we need a low-latency patch just to listen to a mp3 and move windows without having to listen a lot of noise (when you move a window)?
What you just said is just plain BS, hoping for karma, if Linux had a good context switching performance, we wouldn't need a low latency patch.
One great advantage of Linux, besides being free, is that when correctly tuned it works on very cheap hardware. Even if you just have a 386 or 486, you can still use thousands of decent console applications (including stuff like MP3 players and web browsers -- heck, you can even use mplayer with an EGA graphics card [mplayerhq.hu]) and get drivers for modern hardware. An old Pentium is fast enough for a simple X11 setup with small desktop aps like WindowMaker, LyX etc.
Or you could just run the damn Windows license that came with the computer, wich is not a "small desktop" and runs much faster than X+WindowMaker on a Pentium 166.
If HP is so threatened by a single person like Perens, they must really be in deep trouble.
Bruce wasn't a competitor, an enemy, he was an employee. I don't think that anyone would like to give paychecks to the guy who constantly bashes and tries to damage his own employer, like bruce used to do.
So HP wasn't felling 'threatened' by Bruce, they were just feeling that Bruce wasn't performing his duties as an employee.
When you are someone's employee, you're supposed to defend your emplorer's interests and profit, not the opposite.
Re:what a bunch of morons you all are
on
Penguin Airlines
·
· Score: 1
What they're selling is freedom, and it's freedom at a reasonable price.
What are you talking about? Freedom from what? What difference does it make if the airline runs Linux, Windows, etc. etc. etc.?
Who would run a lean, small-footprint second window manager ON TOP OF the first window manager that already takes 75% of their CPU resources? What is the world coming to? We already have window manager managers. I suppose someone might want to use Matchbox for their window manager manager window manager.
For testing purposes, "Weasel"...:D If you can run the WM on Windows, programmers inclined to develop systems using your Window Manager, because this way they can test the solutions wherever they want to.
Keep in mind that Access XP includes a desktop version of SQL server that I believe is installed by default. Microsoft is trying to move away from the Jet engine that Access is based on and towards using SQL for all databases, both large and small. I'm sure that some of the thousands of infected systems are desktop systems.
This shrinked-down version of MS-SQL is called "MSDE", and it doesn't allow any remote connections.
"I'm sure that some of the thousands of infected systems are desktop systems" < lol.
You know what's funny? Typing "web browser" in the address bar DOES bring you to a Internet Explorer download page.
No, it brings you to a MSN Search results page (only if you have address-bar automatic searches turned on), that shows the Internet Explorer download webpage as the first result.
gcc wasn't the only compiler available at the time, you know.
Re:What a non story! A waste of space!
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
> 2) IF I can make Search Assistant
> use another search engine (like Google),
If you want to search google, just go to www.google.com, PERIOD
> it's none of Microsofts business what
> I search for.
Of course it is, how the search script is going to redirect your search to google? All searches are redirected to Microsoft website so any changes in the search engines list (like google changing file paths) will not require patches or modifications on your Windows installation.
FYI, Sony still manufactures Beta cassettes, you can buy them from all sorts of video places, I get mine at the local Radio Shack [radioshack.com] though. Very nice picture, great for porting over to MPEG2 (it beats those crappy 8mm dealies)
This is not BETAMAX, Sony haves all sorts of stuff called "Beta".
2 - The Amiga can do pretty much anything any other machine can do with a fraction of the processor and RAM (My old 68030-25MHz performed about as well as a P200 easily, so now think about how a G3-600 will perform...)
A lot of people have this impression... The sad think is that they just don't notice that the Amiga could edit video better than a P200 because they were using a 20.000 video card.
Truth is Windows costs hundreds of dollars whether it's pre-bundled with the hardware or not, and it always has.
Not for OEMs. That's why they are Microsoft bitches: They get very generous discounts, so small manufacturers can't compete with their prices.
Believe me, it makes a huge difference when your company buys Windows for $ 50 USD a piece, and the competition buys for 180.
Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
This part of the license says that you must own a Windows copy on the client side of the remote desktop connection. Nothing against VNC, only the VNC client running under other OSes.
Microsoft built Windows 95 to load a few resources up at the 1GB memory address just to prevent OS/2 from running Windows 95 apps just like it ran Windows 3.x apps. You see, OS/2 could ONLY access 512MB of address space.
On a 32-bit platform that doesn't make any sense at all. If IBM wanted to run Windows 95 applications on their OS, they should have built an OS that can map 4GB of address space.
Believe me, try doing a complex 8 table data joins in sql server. it will die like a little bitch. dont know about oracle but im sure it cant handle it either.
Better tell SAP about that, they use both SQL Server and Oracle.
There is no such thing as a database "dying like a little bitch", if you are talking about aa complex situation, things might just work slower.
One of these clusters handles up to two hundred millions transactions / day.
You cannot do that with x86, sorry.
"I am sorry", but Compaq and tpc.org disagree with you, read this. Mainframe processors aren't that powerful, the Xeon series beats all of them, and you can also find reliable and fault-tolerant hardware on the x86 market.
BTW, you should tell Google.com that they can't have such a busy and critical service (as their x86 boxes represent the whole bussiness of Google.com, they're the most critical part of their company), they would be glad to listen to your opinion.
<flame>Just because your admin is lazy enough to not want a distributed environment, and wants systems where all the hardware work is done by IBM support staff, it doesn't mean that x86 aren't capable of performing the same task as mainframes</flame>
Slashdot Mirror
But most of them aren't famous as programmers, but as activists and revolutionaries. Everyone talks about how Linus was a revolutionary when he released his kernel as GPL code and opened the development process to everyone, but you won't see any mainstream magazine talking about his programming skills ("look, he planned and documented every single detail before implementing, wow, what a well designed structure he wrote in foo.c").
Famous in the community. Not the OSS community, the developer one. If you don't know the people in high profile positions that do pretty much the same thing as you, maybe you should become involved in your industry. I know windows based developers. Even some Mac based developers. They know who a lot of the high profile open source developers are even though they don't do any open source development. It's hard when they get interviewed in Wired, and other high visibility magazines.
Knowing them because they are famous is not the same thing as knowing them because they are good developers. Again, the whole "high-profile" part is an relative adjective that you are assigning to them, just because they are famous and you're one of their followers.
And yes, I know a lot of programmers who I consider as "high profile"* programmers, but most of them aren't OSS programmers.
* I consider as "high profile" those who plan and document everything before they implement. You have be be a good engineer to be "high profile" programmer, just knowing C/C++ And Assembly won't make you "high profile". In all honesty, you are the one being stupid. Your comment about knowledge reeks of bias. If you honestly believed programming is about knowledge, why else would they be famous? Think about it. What part of this is unfounded? It's pretty much a given that the OSS community has more developers than Microsoft. It's also logical to assume since there are several "famous" developers involved in OSS and, well, none in the Microsoft camp that we don't have to worry to much about MS's innovation to outsmart the OSS movement. The day MS innovation can fool a 6th grader, maybe I'll give them some credit.
"If you honestly believed programming is about knowledge, why else would they be famous?", "The day MS innovation can fool a 6th grader, maybe I'll give them some credit".
Well, you don't have to be a genius to know that what you just said was plain stupid and baseless. If you believe that programming is all about giving interviews to magazines, I'm sorry to tell you that you are confusing "programming" with something else. Is it just me or wasn't "high-profile" programming about good software engineering? I mean, I didn't knew that it was about being "pop".
And well, about the "Microsoft is stupid" affirmation: I believe it's so plain obvious that you are an ignorant zealot, that I don't need to write any comments about it.
Well, don't think I am classifying Torvalds and other "famous" OSS developers as dumb programmers or any other kind of negative classification, but the whole "high-profile" part is unfounded. You have absolutely no base to say that Microsoft programmers aren't as "high-profile" as Torvalds and his friends. And, like any other kind of relative adjective, your view of a "high-profile programmer" might be extremely biased (like: only OSS programmers can be high-profile, for some obscure reason you will never admit).
Programming is about knowledge , it is definitely not about having hundreds of followers and giving interviews to magazines and newspapers. You can be a good programmer, and at the same time, a famous one, but you don't need to be famous so you can have good programming skills.
And, about the "famous" part: Famous to who? To the Open Source "community" (sic)? Well, I believe that Torvalds is the only OSS programmer who is "super pop" outside the OSS community.
You people should stop making unfounded affirmations, they're as empty and biased as saying "XYZ is the best person in the world".
Outsmarting some of the smartest developers on the planet is going to be very difficult.
I'm not saying that OSS developers are not smart, but do you have any data to prove that? Arrogance is not the best way of doing things, you should be aware of that. Try to avoid this kind of affirmation in the future.
BTW: A lot of OSS developers act like they are not even close to smart, judging by the way they organize their code and plan (most of them won't do any planning at all) their software.
The machines will be used to create free public computer labs across South America, networked with donated wireless 802.11b cards.
Their project is being implementar just in Ecuador, not in the whole continent.
BTW: They should focus on helping other people, not on their useless agenda, they are not going to be able to stop any continent-wide agreements, PERIOD.
If they refuse to use their resources to help people (like giving computers to a public school), they'll be proving that they're a much bigger part of the problem than everyone else in their country, because they are moving computers across continents just to have their little comunist ideology-spreading network, instead of helping poor people.
Useless activism *doesn't* help people, what the third world needs now is less corruption and more *serious* representation, not some whiny geeks speding resources that could be used in places like public schools. If they want to fight against ALCA, then they should become (or support) politicians, very polite and eligible politicians, not whiny bearded communists that will never get elected because they don't look like help, they look more like a threat.
Microsoft and Intel have already outlined a DRM partnership called CDS [bbspot.com]. Now that I can actually see happening. How far will we be from this in just a few years?
Geeez. Moderators: BBSPOT - "BBspot is a satirical news and comedy source and meant to be funny. If you are easily offended, gullible, or don't have a sense of humor we suggest you go elsewhere. "
I find this very disturbing, especially in light of the fact that IBM and Sun are supposed to be open soure allies.
Sun and IBM are both "profit-wise organisations", they want profit, PERIOD. They are obviously not interested in your little "crusade", their don't see the world as "Open source allies" and "Open source enemies".
And yes, Linux's process context switches are on a par (possibly faster - can't be bothered to look up benchmarks) with NT's thread context switches.
And why do we need a low-latency patch just to listen to a mp3 and move windows without having to listen a lot of noise (when you move a window)?
What you just said is just plain BS, hoping for karma, if Linux had a good context switching performance, we wouldn't need a low latency patch.
One great advantage of Linux, besides being free, is that when correctly tuned it works on very cheap hardware. Even if you just have a 386 or 486, you can still use thousands of decent console applications (including stuff like MP3 players and web browsers -- heck, you can even use mplayer with an EGA graphics card [mplayerhq.hu]) and get drivers for modern hardware. An old Pentium is fast enough for a simple X11 setup with small desktop aps like WindowMaker, LyX etc.
Or you could just run the damn Windows license that came with the computer, wich is not a "small desktop" and runs much faster than X+WindowMaker on a Pentium 166.
If HP is so threatened by a single person like Perens, they must really be in deep trouble.
Bruce wasn't a competitor, an enemy, he was an employee. I don't think that anyone would like to give paychecks to the guy who constantly bashes and tries to damage his own employer, like bruce used to do.
So HP wasn't felling 'threatened' by Bruce, they were just feeling that Bruce wasn't performing his duties as an employee.
When you are someone's employee, you're supposed to defend your emplorer's interests and profit, not the opposite.
What they're selling is freedom, and it's freedom at a reasonable price.
What are you talking about? Freedom from what? What difference does it make if the airline runs Linux, Windows, etc. etc. etc.?
Who would run a lean, small-footprint second window manager ON TOP OF the first window manager that already takes 75% of their CPU resources? What is the world coming to? We already have window manager managers. I suppose someone might want to use Matchbox for their window manager manager window manager.
:D If you can run the WM on Windows, programmers inclined to develop systems using your Window Manager, because this way they can test the solutions wherever they want to.
For testing purposes, "Weasel"...
I lulls sysadms into the belief that their system is save, making them unaware of the fact that a system is never secure at all.
This is a honeypot, It was engineered to be *vulnerable*, they are not talking about OpenBSD as a whole, only this installation.
Keep in mind that Access XP includes a desktop version of SQL server that I believe is installed by default. Microsoft is trying to move away from the Jet engine that Access is based on and towards using SQL for all databases, both large and small. I'm sure that some of the thousands of infected systems are desktop systems.
This shrinked-down version of MS-SQL is called "MSDE", and it doesn't allow any remote connections.
"I'm sure that some of the thousands of infected systems are desktop systems" < lol.
You know what's funny? Typing "web browser" in the address bar DOES bring you to a Internet Explorer download page.
No, it brings you to a MSN Search results page (only if you have address-bar automatic searches turned on), that shows the Internet Explorer download webpage as the first result.
gcc wasn't the only compiler available at the time, you know.
> 2) IF I can make Search Assistant
> use another search engine (like Google),
If you want to search google, just go to www.google.com, PERIOD
> it's none of Microsofts business what
> I search for.
Of course it is, how the search script is going to redirect your search to google? All searches are redirected to Microsoft website so any changes in the search engines list (like google changing file paths) will not require patches or modifications on your Windows installation.
FYI, Sony still manufactures Beta cassettes, you can buy them from all sorts of video places, I get mine at the local Radio Shack [radioshack.com] though. Very nice picture, great for porting over to MPEG2 (it beats those crappy 8mm dealies)
This is not BETAMAX, Sony haves all sorts of stuff called "Beta".
2 - The Amiga can do pretty much anything any other machine can do with a fraction of the processor and RAM (My old 68030-25MHz performed about as well as a P200 easily, so now think about how a G3-600 will perform...)
A lot of people have this impression... The sad think is that they just don't notice that the Amiga could edit video better than a P200 because they were using a 20.000 video card.
Truth is Windows costs hundreds of dollars whether it's pre-bundled with the hardware or not, and it always has.
Not for OEMs. That's why they are Microsoft bitches: They get very generous discounts, so small manufacturers can't compete with their prices.
Believe me, it makes a huge difference when your company buys Windows for $ 50 USD a piece, and the competition buys for 180.
If you want better control over emailed viruses why do you still use Outlook or Windows? Give everyone a Linux desktop and no root password.
Same as Windows 2000 "with no Admin password".
Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
This part of the license says that you must own a Windows copy on the client side of the remote desktop connection. Nothing against VNC, only the VNC client running under other OSes.
Microsoft built Windows 95 to load a few resources up at the 1GB memory address just to prevent OS/2 from running Windows 95 apps just like it ran Windows 3.x apps. You see, OS/2 could ONLY access 512MB of address space.
On a 32-bit platform that doesn't make any sense at all. If IBM wanted to run Windows 95 applications on their OS, they should have built an OS that can map 4GB of address space.
Believe me, try doing a complex 8 table data joins in sql server. it will die like a little bitch. dont know about oracle but im sure it cant handle it either.
Better tell SAP about that, they use both SQL Server and Oracle.
There is no such thing as a database "dying like a little bitch", if you are talking about aa complex situation, things might just work slower.
>
.
:)
:-P
> well, you know the concept of clusters, do you
>
Yeah, that's when a bunch of them are close enough to one another that the fire can spread from one to another . .
That's a beowulfire then. Ohhh, the joys of distributed silicon-burnin',
One of these clusters handles up to two hundred millions transactions / day.
You cannot do that with x86, sorry.
"I am sorry", but Compaq and tpc.org disagree with you, read this. Mainframe processors aren't that powerful, the Xeon series beats all of them, and you can also find reliable and fault-tolerant hardware on the x86 market.
BTW, you should tell Google.com that they can't have such a busy and critical service (as their x86 boxes represent the whole bussiness of Google.com, they're the most critical part of their company), they would be glad to listen to your opinion.
<flame>Just because your admin is lazy enough to not want a distributed environment, and wants systems where all the hardware work is done by IBM support staff, it doesn't mean that x86 aren't capable of performing the same task as mainframes</flame>