I would like generic interfaces to utilities. Everything should be a library that implements different interfaces.
1) A CLI interface 2) A GUI Interface 3) Linking against it of course
The interfaces to these utilities should never be hardcoded, but should follow a single standard way of exposing the functionality. Of course, configuration files should follow the same behaveour.
It should all be some kind of huge API or set of complementary libraries (or classes if you want).
if "grep", or "find" have functionality hardcoded in them, it makes it harder for GUI apps to benefit from them.
- GUI wrappers arround CLI utils will always be a bad thing, - Duplicating functionality is also bad. - GUI only apps limit you to a great degree if you know more that to click buttons.
I think of the CLI not as text-only duplication of a GUI system or the inverse. The CLI is kind of a "vertical chain" between apps (combines what would be different subparts of apps) where as the GUI is a coherent crosssectional integration of utils "that fullfill specific goals". They use the same resources in different ways (say Find only Finds stuff, where a word processor may want to use find services but in a very limited fashion).
As I see it, the.NET Framework spirit makes a lot of sense to me, it's a step in the right direction.
"Sometimes I think they measure success by number of entries in the Interface Hall Of Shame."
Woah wait a second, the most usable OS in the world probably should be the ruler for the Interface Hall of Fame. Not perfect, but works for hundred on millions of us.
Haha, I haven't read that part before. Stop dreaming, that ain't gonna happen in at least 100 centuries.
People can't eat software, not yet. Software works because if you produce 1 (for yourself or whoever) you have infinite. But on any other market where scarcity is the rule, you are SOL. Who would like to grow crops, cure infections, wash the public baths toilets, etc.
I can only grant you that in the future we may see a more fair society, I am looking forward to that day still.
1) Most people study and work had so that they don't have to sell fries at McDonalds. That's the main goal, some other would like to study things that do not pay well, and they are adviced by friends, relatives and everyone else to not do so if they want to live decently. That's showing them "poverty" as a carrot to do something that "pays". Money shapes your choices.
2) It works better than comunism.
I think they are pretty complementary. We know capitalism is not perfect (by any means) yet we don't know anything better that will work on the real word.
The thing is, shoudn't we look for alternative and have our eyes open?
That's like advertizing "Low fat water, with NO cholesterol". Windows 2000 and on do not give BSOD. I know it's stable enough (I get proxied by one of those), but you can't keep any uptime up if you stay "updated".
What a reboot doesn't restart your uptime? That's really funny, you can know how stable it is untill you let it on for 151 real days (when you reboot, you are making a clean start, and it means it's at least 18 days stable average).
"Yes, you SHOULD be able... You SHOULD be able... SHOULD."
Hey, did it ever ocurred to you that they just don't FEEL like losing time doing all the tasks you describe? They COULD, but the WON'T and they have AN EXCUSE (a good one also).
I found out one of the benefits of not using a MS OS is not to have to answer the: * "word crashes when I open XY.doc!" * "my windows if full of thingies, will you reinstall it for me pleeeeeeaaaase?" * "i have these virues, will you clean my PC" * large list of etcs.
These people (friends, relatives, etc) are doing they jobs while they are asking us to waste our time on something from which: * You can't learn anything that will last * Doesn't offer an intelectuall challenge * Takes a lot of time, UNNECESARILY
"The offer curve is flat, so the one that has the most R&D has a higher return..."
Please do note the link between flat offer curve and the fact if you have more cash, you can also (and always) have more R&D than your competitors. So you can always have a better product if you want (and you DO want to). So you are almost always (almost = if you miscalculate R&D in one period, you just add extra R&D for the next products) selling better products, have better fabs and lead the market, ad infinitum, untill and if some other technology you did not foresee and cannot buy takes over you.
It's just another example showing that it's very hard to compete against an entrenched monopoly.
No, this is just an example that in industries where marginal cost in negligible, it favours the creation of a monopoly in the mid or long term.
That actually happens in ANY industry that has this cost equation. The math is very simple. The offer curve is flat, so the one that has the most R&D has a higher return, and so in the next phase they have more cash to spend in R&D.
It's the famous winner takes it all, and if AMD lives today is because Intel is better of having them around than not.
The software is realised either only in binary form or restrictive license (no rights to modify/use unless you pay whatever they ask, as an example). When the ramson is paid, the release the code under an OSI approved license. Untill that day, the sources are held prisoners so basically you can "fork it" nor offer anything for a lower ramson. You can only with yourself good luck.
That's the problem with it, though I am not saying it's unworkable, but it comes with that risk at least.
The problem of weather it keeps beign supported after the ramson is paid is another thing. If it's a very usefull app and developers in general or even companies have an interest in it, it will keep getting updated. But the best would be to have the same developers working on it and the ramson model does deal with that.
I don't like CE because it looks like Windows. I like windows on the desktop. I don't like windows in a PDA. Too damn small:)
I mean, I don't care about the OS, as long as the apps are thought out like the best PalmOS apps: Sleek usefull apps that go straing to the point and focus on usability.
I mean ActionNames and the likes. I couldn't care less if they run under Linux, Windows, etc. as long as they behave and look like the fine palm apps. It's concept more than a technology. I particulary like the simple way to install an app , though that is just a tiny detail.
The ramson model has one problem ...
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you expect the ransom will be relatively "cheap", and they promise it to be ransomised in the future you may start using it now. And as many people use it, they have more and more incentive to increase the ransom.
At some point you may either find the ransom is not what you expected (and way off the hooks) or that you have been left locked into a 100% propietary solution and have a huge cost to move to another one. Also, the "other" solution may not be arround, because everyone was using this "good looking" ransom app.
Alternative C# compilers have the potential to undermine rather than extend the MS monopoly
Didn't Microsoft itself provided a reference implementation that would work perfectly under BSD? What, they are shooting themselves in their feet?
It's crystal clear they want it embraced by other Operating Systems, but I don't really know why yet. But our pockets will sure find out sooner or later, as well as everyone else's pockets.
"C$", at some point, someone is going to try to use it. Probably Microsoft. Or maybe they wanted to patent C$ but made a typo (they are next to each other). Or maybe it's just what they meant, but of course, they couldn't just go and name it C$, so they chosed the closest thing that looked right.
We know Microsoft choses names by methaphores or analogies, and never by pure luck or randomly.
Now the big question is what are the dangers of embaracing they IP that now looks "free" but may not be so in the future. I don't know, there must be something I am missing here.
The sum of the alternatives makes you better. If you have everything + more, you are better. If you have your own strength but none of your competitors strength, you are not just better in the usualy sense.
Having a.NET implementation doesn't take options away from you and people can do whatever they like with their time, so if they offer one more option, i don't see the problem.
We all wish.NET was "owned" by somebody else, so that there would be no fears of a danger of trusting that technology (patent and IP wise), that's the only danger i see.
Now I see an article praising those who work hard to let Microsoft's.NET succeed.
1) The language and the technology may be good. 2) Creates more choice for the programmer. 3) Will have support (from Microsoft, so companies will demand it) 4) Will be known to many developers, that will expect C# support. Probably, you couldn't care less, but let's not forget some Windows apps are most desired under Linux or any os. 5) Nobody is talking about taking away options 6).NET has a nicelely laid out set of classes, though you may not like it, some people are really productive with them
The things that I don't like are the suit fear, or bad moves that Microsoft may have in mind to leverage they IP on their.NET or kids learning C# in college as "the language".
"If you can shoehorn a whole PC into a palm-sized device, who needs PalmOS?"
Me? I like my Palm with PalmOS thanks. I like my desktop with Linux. I don't use them as replacement, they are complimentary. I do NOT like Windows CE. I want it lightweight, lasting and thin and with apps that make my life really easier when looking at a 6 cm screen.
Re:If MS, Intel and AMD ever really do Palladium..
on
Transmeta Astro Processor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Either expect to see Palladium and non Palladium versions for years, and the non-Palladium beign more expensive and unable to run certain "media" features or expect it to be mandated by law.
Companies are no stupid, especially the ones that are in a fast moving industry and have proved to survive for at least 20 years.
Capitalism and individualism to a maximum we are talking about. Everything MUST have a price, so that there can be a monetary incentive. If you have someone that may have other motives than money, show them POVERTY:) and you'll get them on your side.
Really, capitalism still works better than comunism (comunism = no matter what you do, you wont have ANY of it).
We need to realize there are more egos or wishes in the human soul than mere money. We should let them work in our favour too. (Simple example: say Linus likes to be important, but money does not enter into that equation, granted he has enought green to do whatever he wants).
For example the IT industry in the near past (not 100% but to an important degree)). They say that it was more important than patents the secrecy and time2market.
After that was gone, most of the game is getting patents so that you can have a nice deck of cards (patent portfolio) so you can "play" with your competitors. If you don't have patents, you can't play (can't play without cards).
Patents are a way to divide the pie, not to promote technological advance. YES, the promote "this particular advance" and thus delay all related advances 20 years. They "kill a line" or way of doing something, so more research is needed to find an alternative way of doing the same (this is usually common when the monopoly patenty doesnt want to license the patent for a logical price, which is... MOST OF THE TIME. And when they do offer it for a resonable price is because economically that makes sense to them, specially in applications where it is not hard to use an alternative techology - read: there are competing technologies. If there are no competing technologies because the PO granted them with a monopoly on the ONLY way to do something, then....).
There should be some other way to reward research, for example, with beign the first to market, or with having a good brand and a good image, or a grant up to certain limited amount of profit from the research, or maybe....that you can keep the invention in secrecy for your own use untill somebody else finds about it be it by coincidence or whatever.
Also, let's not forget that 99% of the usefull inventions are ever patented, and the people patenting stuff never pay a dime for them, and usually use that knowledge to lock people that truly contributed to society and facilitated this very research that is being patented.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like generic interfaces to utilities. Everything should be a library that implements different interfaces.
.NET Framework spirit makes a lot of sense to me, it's a step in the right direction.
1) A CLI interface
2) A GUI Interface
3) Linking against it of course
The interfaces to these utilities should never be hardcoded, but should follow a single standard way of exposing the functionality. Of course, configuration files should follow the same behaveour.
It should all be some kind of huge API or set of complementary libraries (or classes if you want).
if "grep", or "find" have functionality hardcoded in them, it makes it harder for GUI apps to benefit from them.
- GUI wrappers arround CLI utils will always be a bad thing,
- Duplicating functionality is also bad.
- GUI only apps limit you to a great degree if you know more that to click buttons.
I think of the CLI not as text-only duplication of a GUI system or the inverse. The CLI is kind of a "vertical chain" between apps (combines what would be different subparts of apps) where as the GUI is a coherent crosssectional integration of utils "that fullfill specific goals". They use the same resources in different ways (say Find only Finds stuff, where a word processor may want to use find services but in a very limited fashion).
As I see it, the
"Sometimes I think they measure success by number of entries in the Interface Hall Of Shame."
Woah wait a second, the most usable OS in the world probably should be the ruler for the Interface Hall of Fame. Not perfect, but works for hundred on millions of us.
" ... an egalitarian society created in its place"
Haha, I haven't read that part before. Stop dreaming, that ain't gonna happen in at least 100 centuries.
People can't eat software, not yet. Software works because if you produce 1 (for yourself or whoever) you have infinite. But on any other market where scarcity is the rule, you are SOL. Who would like to grow crops, cure infections, wash the public baths toilets, etc.
I can only grant you that in the future we may see a more fair society, I am looking forward to that day still.
1) Most people study and work had so that they don't have to sell fries at McDonalds. That's the main goal, some other would like to study things that do not pay well, and they are adviced by friends, relatives and everyone else to not do so if they want to live decently. That's showing them "poverty" as a carrot to do something that "pays". Money shapes your choices.
2) It works better than comunism.
I think they are pretty complementary. We know capitalism is not perfect (by any means) yet we don't know anything better that will work on the real word.
The thing is, shoudn't we look for alternative and have our eyes open?
Total Bluescreens: 0
That's like advertizing "Low fat water, with NO cholesterol". Windows 2000 and on do not give BSOD. I know it's stable enough (I get proxied by one of those), but you can't keep any uptime up if you stay "updated".
"... you're not going to get it out of a single command"
/var/logs/*
$ less
(filter as you like if you wish)
What a reboot doesn't restart your uptime? That's really funny, you can know how stable it is untill you let it on for 151 real days (when you reboot, you are making a clean start, and it means it's at least 18 days stable average).
"Yes, you SHOULD be able ... You SHOULD be able ... SHOULD."
Hey, did it ever ocurred to you that they just don't FEEL like losing time doing all the tasks you describe? They COULD, but the WON'T and they have AN EXCUSE (a good one also).
I found out one of the benefits of not using a MS OS is not to have to answer the:
* "word crashes when I open XY.doc!"
* "my windows if full of thingies, will you reinstall it for me pleeeeeeaaaase?"
* "i have these virues, will you clean my PC"
* large list of etcs.
These people (friends, relatives, etc) are doing they jobs while they are asking us to waste our time on something from which:
* You can't learn anything that will last
* Doesn't offer an intelectuall challenge
* Takes a lot of time, UNNECESARILY
It should be +5 Insightfull! I knew the "play the fool" tactic, but haven't heard a word before about the tshirt solution. Neat!
"The offer curve is flat, so the one that has the most R&D has a higher return ..."
Please do note the link between flat offer curve and the fact if you have more cash, you can also (and always) have more R&D than your competitors. So you can always have a better product if you want (and you DO want to). So you are almost always (almost = if you miscalculate R&D in one period, you just add extra R&D for the next products) selling better products, have better fabs and lead the market, ad infinitum, untill and if some other technology you did not foresee and cannot buy takes over you.
It's just another example showing that it's very hard to compete against an entrenched monopoly.
No, this is just an example that in industries where marginal cost in negligible, it favours the creation of a monopoly in the mid or long term.
That actually happens in ANY industry that has this cost equation. The math is very simple. The offer curve is flat, so the one that has the most R&D has a higher return, and so in the next phase they have more cash to spend in R&D.
It's the famous winner takes it all, and if AMD lives today is because Intel is better of having them around than not.
The software is realised either only in binary form or restrictive license (no rights to modify/use unless you pay whatever they ask, as an example). When the ramson is paid, the release the code under an OSI approved license. Untill that day, the sources are held prisoners so basically you can "fork it" nor offer anything for a lower ramson. You can only with yourself good luck.
That's the problem with it, though I am not saying it's unworkable, but it comes with that risk at least.
The problem of weather it keeps beign supported after the ramson is paid is another thing. If it's a very usefull app and developers in general or even companies have an interest in it, it will keep getting updated. But the best would be to have the same developers working on it and the ramson model does deal with that.
I don't like CE because it looks like Windows. I like windows on the desktop. I don't like windows in a PDA. Too damn small :)
I mean, I don't care about the OS, as long as the apps are thought out like the best PalmOS apps: Sleek usefull apps that go straing to the point and focus on usability.
I mean ActionNames and the likes. I couldn't care less if they run under Linux, Windows, etc. as long as they behave and look like the fine palm apps. It's concept more than a technology. I particulary like the simple way to install an app , though that is just a tiny detail.
Certainly makes a lot of sense!
If you expect the ransom will be relatively "cheap", and they promise it to be ransomised in the future you may start using it now. And as many people use it, they have more and more incentive to increase the ransom.
At some point you may either find the ransom is not what you expected (and way off the hooks) or that you have been left locked into a 100% propietary solution and have a huge cost to move to another one. Also, the "other" solution may not be arround, because everyone was using this "good looking" ransom app.
Alternative C# compilers have the potential to undermine rather than extend the MS monopoly
Didn't Microsoft itself provided a reference implementation that would work perfectly under BSD? What, they are shooting themselves in their feet?
It's crystal clear they want it embraced by other Operating Systems, but I don't really know why yet. But our pockets will sure find out sooner or later, as well as everyone else's pockets.
"C$", at some point, someone is going to try to use it. Probably Microsoft. Or maybe they wanted to patent C$ but made a typo (they are next to each other). Or maybe it's just what they meant, but of course, they couldn't just go and name it C$, so they chosed the closest thing that looked right.
We know Microsoft choses names by methaphores or analogies, and never by pure luck or randomly.
Now the big question is what are the dangers of embaracing they IP that now looks "free" but may not be so in the future. I don't know, there must be something I am missing here.
1) .NET != C#
2) Not everything is part of the ECMA standard, i think just the language and part of CIL spec.
Being a standard, it doesn't mean it's not patented stuff, so it's free now, but will it be free tomorrow?
The sum of the alternatives makes you better. If you have everything + more, you are better. If you have your own strength but none of your competitors strength, you are not just better in the usualy sense.
.NET implementation doesn't take options away from you and people can do whatever they like with their time, so if they offer one more option, i don't see the problem.
.NET was "owned" by somebody else, so that there would be no fears of a danger of trusting that technology (patent and IP wise), that's the only danger i see.
Having a
We all wish
Now I see an article praising those who work hard to let Microsoft's .NET succeed.
.NET has a nicelely laid out set of classes, though you may not like it, some people are really productive with them
.NET or kids learning C# in college as "the language".
1) The language and the technology may be good.
2) Creates more choice for the programmer.
3) Will have support (from Microsoft, so companies will demand it)
4) Will be known to many developers, that will expect C# support. Probably, you couldn't care less, but let's not forget some Windows apps are most desired under Linux or any os.
5) Nobody is talking about taking away options
6)
The things that I don't like are the suit fear, or bad moves that Microsoft may have in mind to leverage they IP on their
"If you can shoehorn a whole PC into a palm-sized device, who needs PalmOS?"
Me? I like my Palm with PalmOS thanks. I like my desktop with Linux. I don't use them as replacement, they are complimentary. I do NOT like Windows CE. I want it lightweight, lasting and thin and with apps that make my life really easier when looking at a 6 cm screen.
Either expect to see Palladium and non Palladium versions for years, and the non-Palladium beign more expensive and unable to run certain "media" features or expect it to be mandated by law.
Companies are no stupid, especially the ones that are in a fast moving industry and have proved to survive for at least 20 years.
Better yet, we need a crusade to acquire every senator or politician WORKING (as opposed to published) email and send those to the spammers.
I would be my eyes you'd see spam turned into a federal offense and ruled as high treason in a matter of days.
Capitalism and individualism to a maximum we are talking about. Everything MUST have a price, so that there can be a monetary incentive. If you have someone that may have other motives than money, show them POVERTY :) and you'll get them on your side.
Really, capitalism still works better than comunism (comunism = no matter what you do, you wont have ANY of it).
We need to realize there are more egos or wishes in the human soul than mere money. We should let them work in our favour too. (Simple example: say Linus likes to be important, but money does not enter into that equation, granted he has enought green to do whatever he wants).
For example the IT industry in the near past (not 100% but to an important degree)). They say that it was more important than patents the secrecy and time2market.
... MOST OF THE TIME. And when they do offer it for a resonable price is because economically that makes sense to them, specially in applications where it is not hard to use an alternative techology - read: there are competing technologies. If there are no competing technologies because the PO granted them with a monopoly on the ONLY way to do something, then....).
After that was gone, most of the game is getting patents so that you can have a nice deck of cards (patent portfolio) so you can "play" with your competitors. If you don't have patents, you can't play (can't play without cards).
Patents are a way to divide the pie, not to promote technological advance. YES, the promote "this particular advance" and thus delay all related advances 20 years. They "kill a line" or way of doing something, so more research is needed to find an alternative way of doing the same (this is usually common when the monopoly patenty doesnt want to license the patent for a logical price, which is
There should be some other way to reward research, for example, with beign the first to market, or with having a good brand and a good image, or a grant up to certain limited amount of profit from the research, or maybe....that you can keep the invention in secrecy for your own use untill somebody else finds about it be it by coincidence or whatever.
Also, let's not forget that 99% of the usefull inventions are ever patented, and the people patenting stuff never pay a dime for them, and usually use that knowledge to lock people that truly contributed to society and facilitated this very research that is being patented.