JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
Yet it seems that is exactly what the MPAA, as well the RIAA, is indeed doing...
Perhaps Microsoft, secretly orchastrating these arrangements, felt the heat and did not like the way it was heading considering they have a track record with being associated with events like these; the results of which do not favor Microsofts image. OR This is Microsoft's way of getting rid of a business "ally" since it is becoming apparent to even mainstream media they have no future; which includes Microsofts primary interest in killing the FOSS movement and Unix server market mindshare. OR...
Sorry, just trying to get in character for the audience.
Qt became that after the original programmer liked the way Q was rendered under X in emacs. The 't' was for tookit. The 'Q' was because it looked "cute".
I realize (I think?) that the parent of this post was a joke.
Wouldn't it be ironic if SCO's actions were what caused Linux to become an even stronger corporate presence:-)
When an entity {company,person,people} demonstrates a scorched earth policy that tends to be exactly what happens. The offending parties and everyone associated with it as supporters are the ones that usually suffer the long term negative effects of such a move.
No the realy irony is the US justice system might just award SCO something out of this lottery style gameplan they have in motion with no reprecussions to discourage others from "buying a ticket" in the future too.
No disrespect to this parent and more of a response to the parent of the thread:
Use the same config as the app does YaST does indeed follow this rule.
never modify configuration without asking YaST does not modify anything UNTIL you tell it too. It is noted in various places, manuals, etc. that YaST will update various config scripts as well as logging them.
display, preserve, and make editable comments about a configuration item that are placed above that item (with blank lines as delimiters). If you make a modification to a configuration file outside of YaST then decided to run YaST on that same said configuration file(s) it will, in this order: A) Make a backup of your original configuration with a consistent naming/location mechanism B) If unable to do A then YaST gracefully leaves your original intact and notifies you that a problem has been encountered which it is unable to resolve "automagically" along with hints on how to resolve this issue.
I'm a Slacker myself but I usually setup SuSE for all my new Linux/Windows mentality friends & co-workers trying to switch and I personally think that YaST is a wonderful tool for their administration needs. It holds your hand when you need it and it stays the hell out of your way when you don't.
No, I have always taken it that C++ is good if you dont know C and C is good if you dont know C++. Once you learn the one you become suddendly jaded towards the other.
This is especially true when the programmer fails to recognize the mentality of one as a language of expressions and the other as an expressive language.
Seriously, do you have any clue what you're talking about? The need for preprocessor and templates are some of the largest faults with C++, introduced to try to keep backwards-compatability with C. Just preprocessor. C didn't have templates. And if it weren't for backwards compatbility, which by the new standard doesn't appear to be a feasible goal anyway, Bjarne would have gladly removed the preprocessor altogether.
A real OO-language as Java or C# doesn't need for example templates since all objects inherit Object as they should. From a purely Object Oriented perspective I have no problems with this statement at all. However that was not the goal of C++ to be a true object oriented programming language. Its goals were to have built in support for such expressive concepts. (This isn't a debate on whether it was acheived or not, syntacticly or otherwise) One could argue that templates in and of themselves are not necessary for OOP anyway, especially considering this statement from your viewpoint. An interesting note, from a C++ perspective, is that templates were not designed to facillitate OOP but to improve modular code, whether it is object oriented or procedural.
They also both have usigned types. I will be honest, I don't comprehend this statment and its weight in your comment. My apologies for being so daft.
Multiple inheritance is usually seen as A Really Bad Idea and should be done with interfaces. Much like the true problem with OOP this all boils down to the person viewing it and their interpretation. Ask 10 people to describe an apple, you'll get 10 different responses. Since this is subjective and worthy of a USENET trolling, I'll leave it at this. For the interest of "debating" you and giving you my full respect I will concede I hear and understand where your vantage point comes from as I see the pros & cons of each camp. I would like to point out my appreciation for how you qualified this statement with the word usually and because of that I am in no means labelling you a troll.
To conclude, you're a moron.
That's a harsh conclusion. I could argue that you are an OOP zealot based on the fact that you seem to critize non-[true]OOP langauges leaving one to conclude that OOP is The Only Way. Based on that observation anything you have a stance on, from a zealot perspective, is now null as those who have an unwaivering vantage point of an idea are no longer "thinking" anymore to be taken seriously. I think that's a harsh conclusion for me to come to so instead I will write that off as "fence posting a.k.a. off by one" error since the majority of your post does seem intelligent.
Find a particular functionality of the kernel that really interest you; read any documentation you can find about it; then grep the src till you see the relevant sections of code and start perusing with your $(EDITOR)
Much time is spent teaching people how to write code but never really reading it. This is a perfect example of how to do it and why you would.
Smooze up and get them to do the leg work for your proposal you will do during your presentation. If you can't get marketing to sell and idea to top management your screwed anyway at that point. Remember it is not about facts and information but buzzwords, powerpoint, charts, and lies at this level.
So? Get one anyway. Then when they both find out you been lying they'll see the sinister plot of making them think you've been with the other this whole time while actually allowing for even more time on the computer for you to code!
No amount of advanced technology can help you if you don't have a clear idea of what the end result is. Another case for the reason you shouldn't look for technological fixes to sociological problems.
Sorry but you missed it entirely. Perhaps it is my poor articulation and my apologies for that, but reread it until the context sinks in rather then the literal meaning you took from it. Hint: "I am amazed that they can 'save 3 months of development time' with as little as they have" was not the catalyst for the subjective response, it's that you can do quiet a bit with very little resouces and intelligent thinking rather than letting a tool replace what you *should* be doing in the first place. That is also regardless of your 'market'. People that don't get that usually never do though, hence my original OT response.
On a side note I am curious if you are actually inferring that implementations are not carried out on inappropriate platforms for no other reason than because it's possible? If so, that's rich...
"I'm amazed they can do it all with as little as they have."
All the more reason you can't help but laugh when people bring up arguments like "with computers/RAM/storage becoming so cheap and abundant who cares if {insert some bloated, interpreted, garbage collected language here} - just update your hardware."
It will be "innovation" if this new USENET, err I meant Mail Forums, will eliminate the top posting bastards that usually have an OUTLOOK mailer header...Hey it would justify the 4x cost increase and possibly even get their thread scores high enough to get past a kill filter.
Slashdot Mirror
JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
Yet it seems that is exactly what the MPAA, as well the RIAA, is indeed doing...
...Good lord do I hate electrical tape. As a "tool" it's a shitty one.
Just slightly above duct tape in the "tool" chain. And everyone knows nothing defines quality like wrinkles in the duct tape.
Here.
...
For the tinfoil hatters:
Perhaps Microsoft, secretly orchastrating these arrangements, felt the heat and did not like the way it was heading considering they have a track record with being associated with events like these; the results of which do not favor Microsofts image.
OR
This is Microsoft's way of getting rid of a business "ally" since it is becoming apparent to even mainstream media they have no future; which includes Microsofts primary interest in killing the FOSS movement and Unix server market mindshare.
OR
Sorry, just trying to get in character for the audience.
I have not RTFA, this is /. afterall...
Qt became that after the original programmer liked the way Q was rendered under X in emacs. The 't' was for tookit. The 'Q' was because it looked "cute".
I realize (I think?) that the parent of this post was a joke.
...I'm in therapy now.
Be thankful. You should be in court right now you IP thieving bastard.
Michael ...
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +4
50% Funny
30% Informative
20% Insightful
Extra 'Funny' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 5
Wow! Not a single negative moderation point against you. I am amazed how you managed that.
Wouldn't it be ironic if SCO's actions were what caused Linux to become an even stronger corporate presence :-)
When an entity {company,person,people} demonstrates a scorched earth policy that tends to be exactly what happens. The offending parties and everyone associated with it as supporters are the ones that usually suffer the long term negative effects of such a move.
No the realy irony is the US justice system might just award SCO something out of this lottery style gameplan they have in motion with no reprecussions to discourage others from "buying a ticket" in the future too.
No disrespect to this parent and more of a response to the parent of the thread:
Use the same config as the app does
YaST does indeed follow this rule.
never modify configuration without asking
YaST does not modify anything UNTIL you tell it too. It is noted in various places, manuals, etc. that YaST will update various config scripts as well as logging them.
display, preserve, and make editable comments about a configuration item that are placed above that item (with blank lines as delimiters).
If you make a modification to a configuration file outside of YaST then decided to run YaST on that same said configuration file(s) it will, in this order:
A) Make a backup of your original configuration with a consistent naming/location mechanism
B) If unable to do A then YaST gracefully leaves your original intact and notifies you that a problem has been encountered which it is unable to resolve "automagically" along with hints on how to resolve this issue.
I'm a Slacker myself but I usually setup SuSE for all my new Linux/Windows mentality friends & co-workers trying to switch and I personally think that YaST is a wonderful tool for their administration needs. It holds your hand when you need it and it stays the hell out of your way when you don't.
No, I have always taken it that C++ is good if you dont know C and C is good if you dont know C++. Once you learn the one you become suddendly jaded towards the other.
This is especially true when the programmer fails to recognize the mentality of one as a language of expressions and the other as an expressive language.
Seriously, do you have any clue what you're talking about? The need for preprocessor and templates are some of the largest faults with C++, introduced to try to keep backwards-compatability with C.
Just preprocessor. C didn't have templates. And if it weren't for backwards compatbility, which by the new standard doesn't appear to be a feasible goal anyway, Bjarne would have gladly removed the preprocessor altogether.
A real OO-language as Java or C# doesn't need for example templates since all objects inherit Object as they should.
From a purely Object Oriented perspective I have no problems with this statement at all. However that was not the goal of C++ to be a true object oriented programming language. Its goals were to have built in support for such expressive concepts. (This isn't a debate on whether it was acheived or not, syntacticly or otherwise) One could argue that templates in and of themselves are not necessary for OOP anyway, especially considering this statement from your viewpoint. An interesting note, from a C++ perspective, is that templates were not designed to facillitate OOP but to improve modular code, whether it is object oriented or procedural.
They also both have usigned types.
I will be honest, I don't comprehend this statment and its weight in your comment. My apologies for being so daft.
Multiple inheritance is usually seen as A Really Bad Idea and should be done with interfaces.
Much like the true problem with OOP this all boils down to the person viewing it and their interpretation. Ask 10 people to describe an apple, you'll get 10 different responses. Since this is subjective and worthy of a USENET trolling, I'll leave it at this. For the interest of "debating" you and giving you my full respect I will concede I hear and understand where your vantage point comes from as I see the pros & cons of each camp. I would like to point out my appreciation for how you qualified this statement with the word usually and because of that I am in no means labelling you a troll.
To conclude, you're a moron.
That's a harsh conclusion. I could argue that you are an OOP zealot based on the fact that you seem to critize non-[true]OOP langauges leaving one to conclude that OOP is The Only Way. Based on that observation anything you have a stance on, from a zealot perspective, is now null as those who have an unwaivering vantage point of an idea are no longer "thinking" anymore to be taken seriously. I think that's a harsh conclusion for me to come to so instead I will write that off as "fence posting a.k.a. off by one" error since the majority of your post does seem intelligent.
How can C be dead regardless?
I thought C can't die, it just gets cast to void.
Try this.
Amazing how much free information you can get when you look for it.
Find a particular functionality of the kernel that really interest you; read any documentation you can find about it; then grep the src till you see the relevant sections of code and start perusing with your $(EDITOR)
Much time is spent teaching people how to write code but never really reading it. This is a perfect example of how to do it and why you would.
...cross-platform GUI applications. (a good thing for Linux adoption by the masses) And Mono is way off for doing that.
And for cross-platform GUI development for those of you that realized the honeymoon with Java is over: wxWindows.
Smooze up and get them to do the leg work for your proposal you will do during your presentation. If you can't get marketing to sell and idea to top management your screwed anyway at that point. Remember it is not about facts and information but buzzwords, powerpoint, charts, and lies at this level.
YMMV of course
I looked back at the editor who posted this article and was surprised to find that it wasn't Micheal. Go figure.
from the eyes of a non-techie:
Could you please explain counter-clockwise to me again?
So? Get one anyway. Then when they both find out you been lying they'll see the sinister plot of making them think you've been with the other this whole time while actually allowing for even more time on the computer for you to code!
No amount of advanced technology can help you if you don't have a clear idea of what the end result is. Another case for the reason you shouldn't look for technological fixes to sociological problems.
Sorry but you missed it entirely. Perhaps it is my poor articulation and my apologies for that, but reread it until the context sinks in rather then the literal meaning you took from it. Hint: "I am amazed that they can 'save 3 months of development time' with as little as they have" was not the catalyst for the subjective response, it's that you can do quiet a bit with very little resouces and intelligent thinking rather than letting a tool replace what you *should* be doing in the first place. That is also regardless of your 'market'. People that don't get that usually never do though, hence my original OT response.
On a side note I am curious if you are actually inferring that implementations are not carried out on inappropriate platforms for no other reason than because it's possible? If so, that's rich...
"I'm amazed they can do it all with as little as they have."
All the more reason you can't help but laugh when people bring up arguments like "with computers/RAM/storage becoming so cheap and abundant who cares if {insert some bloated, interpreted, garbage collected language here} - just update your hardware."
One size fits all never does...
I wished I had mod points right now.
Sums it up rather nicely I think.
It will be "innovation" if this new USENET, err I meant Mail Forums, will eliminate the top posting bastards that usually have an OUTLOOK mailer header...Hey it would justify the 4x cost increase and possibly even get their thread scores high enough to get past a kill filter.
$>emacs
<C>-h i
mEmacs<RETURN>
BTW, d'oh!
Are there any good resources for learning how to make serious use of Emacs?
$>emacs<RETURN>
<META>-h i
mEmacs<RETURN>
BTW, vim rocks!