Think back over the last 12 months and look at commercial support for Linux. As far as I can remember, this is the first piece of bad news in a long time regarding software support, and it's not like there are no other word processors available.
Perhaps the reason they are not going ahead is because they don't see a particularly empty marketplace waiting for them?
actually, although you are correct that they shipped a development gcc, and that's what the article was meant to say, they DID ship a development kernel also. It's not installed by default obviously, but it's there for those that want it. Furthermore they also installed a (arguably) more stable compiler in the form of gcc 2.95.2 but it's only set up to be used for kernel compiles iirc.
Hmm. When I condider all the good points of NetBSD, and all the good points of BeOS, I find that almost none of them coincide.
BeOS is nothing like NetBSD, so I can hardly imagine NetBSD users jumping over to BeOS just because their OS is "too popular". The same applies the other way around also.
It's available as a patch for 2.4.x already, written by Jens Axboe. Its very stable for me also (although the mailing list mentioned some ide-scsi probs lately, so I can't speak for atapi owners)
This article is about Linux (the popular OS kernel). You are talking about GNU/Linux, or some Linux based distribution.
Your suggestions should be aimed at the XFree developers who have nothing to do with Linux development.
Wow. You've hit the nail right on the head there. Most people when they complain about Linux simply give vague complaints and inaccurate statements. You however manage to get the message across perfectly with your insightful, succinct analysis of the problem.
Only yesterday, I was trying to use linux to do things and it was really hard. I phoned my support line and said "I can't seem to do things with Linux"
"We get that complaint all the time" they said. Better off with windows I say. Well, okay it's not as stable as Linux, but what good is enterprise class stability in an OS that cant even "do things" ?
> Try to think instead of believing what you are told.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this!
If anyone who knew me heard anyone telling me that they would be amazed also.
I am a sceptical scientifically minded person who takes nobodys word for anything. Paranoid, I have been called, arkward, contrary, but never that I just "believe what I am told"
That I believe strongly in capitalism surprises some people. Perhaps it's because they think my beliefs come from wanting to be different. They are mistaken. My beliefs come from knowing for a fact that there are very few questions to which there is a single correct answer from which a controlling government can decide policy. I believe that any succesful governmental system must recognise that and thus not try to find one. The only way that can happen is by giving all the power to the ppl themselves to distribute amongst themselves the way they see fit. There are 2 ways to do this IMO. capitalism (_without_ the current interventionist bullshit govermnent) and anarchy.
Oh, how I wish there were another.
BTW, Capitalism will always fool the short sighted into believing that is is "unfair" or doesn't work somehow. They will see the truth once (if/when) bullying goverments get out of the way and ppl are taught how to use their power to eliminate over-powerful compaines that the governments helped to create.
So you have to make an effort or you starve, you say. Well that sounds like nature to me. Who decided it's the job of some system of government to change that?
Don't like the company you work for? Start your own. There's the freedom. There's the choice. Before you tell me that it's easier said than done, don't bother. I know.
I was talking about capitalism. Why have you suddenly changed the subject to society? I agree with most of what you say. You are prevented from doing lots of things by society and it's government; not by capitalism.
> I never chose to live in a capitalist society,
> I was born into it. Where's the choice there?
That's a funny question, since capitalism is _all about_ freedom of choice. No, you didn't get to chose the system you we're born into, but what exactly are the choices you would like to be able to make that you can't make under capitalism?
> This is another one of those ideas, like
> Communism, which are only really going to work
> in some mythical fairy-tale land where people
> are good and work for the benefit of all.
> Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
The difference here though, is that the only people in the system are those who chose to be in it. That's what makes it nothing whatsoever like communism or any other choice-free authoritarian system.
This is about _choosing_ to do whats good for everyone, much like I do already in my spare time with open source software, and so do many others.
Communism on the other hand is about forcing others to do things for the good of others whether they like it or not.
In one system, you can be a hero and be happy to think you made good choices. In the other you are a slave and you get no choice at all.
Go into your preferences and click in the box labelled:
"Supress pseudo-random inappropriate appearance of enlightenment icon?"
And it will stop. If I had a penny for every time someone asks me about the random enlightenment icon....
;-P
Re:Open source won't survive the next decade
on
Embracing Insanity
·
· Score: 2
>...and programmers stop earning the rediculous sums of money they do for their monkey work,
>they won't have the time or the enthusiasm for "contributing to the community"
I work as a programmer for a closed source company. I often lack enthusiasm at work because everything we do seems to be driven by making profit and getting code out the door as fast as we can.
In the evenings, I go home and write more code. This time, it is done on my own terms and the focus is on the code working well, and it's much more enjoyable and I am much more motivated and enthusiastic.
Explain how that fits your "gold rush" ideas, and come to think of it, explain why you describe ppls attitude to open source as a "gold rush" if you think it doesn't make money. That doesn't sound much like a gold rush to me.
Legislation is never any good if it tends to go against the grain of what people want. If you ask ppl now, they might _say_ they want this information supressed by legislation, but in reality, ppl want to know the results as early as possible as soon as they are available.
If you stop the media doing this, not only are you restricting the freedom of the press, it won't help because the information will find another way to spread. Probably somewhere on the net.
I know from what I have written it sounds like information has a mind of its own, and although we all know that isn't true, it does behave that way. Just like water "tries" to reach the lowest point.
Probably until recently, the average MySQL user hasn't taken it seriously enough to rely on it for large amounts of data, so it was unneccesary or perhaps even undesirable - row level locking is _slower_ to a point for small data sets.
More recently though, I expect more people are starting to use MySQL "seriously" as it matures, storing much more data and suddenly the need for row locking shows itself more clearly.
It will still be slower for very small data sets, but thats a small price to pay for the scalability benefits row locking brings.
> all they need to do is take the creators of
> Wine to court over this
Fortunately, they have to do a lot more than that. Proving that the wine project actually used or even say their source for a start.
It what you are saying were true, wine could just as easily take MS to court now claiming that MS _must_ have stolen their code just because they might have read it.
It's not a matter of the judges "buying it" unless they are a corrupt judge. It's a matter of assumed innocence until proof otherwise can be established. Proving that somebody read something is not neccasarily all that easy.
Why not go one further and use SDL. That also has a target of SVGALIB (as well as GGI actually), but it's more cross platform also, having support on win32, mac, beos (iirc)
The good thing about writing for something like SDL also is that the SDL programmers have spent ages doing little optimisations and extra performance improvements for specific targets that someone writing something from scratch might not be bothered with, so in practive it's often no slower than programming for the specific target directly. For example, for X11 target, it looks to see if it has DGA authority, if not, it might try MIT-SHM extensions before resorting to Xlib otherwise.
I have to admit though, if you have the time to optimize your code and you want the fastest code possible you should code for your specific target directly.
Personally though, I would prefer fbdev over svgalib, but thats just me.
Incidentally, IIRC, someone has done a plug in replacement for svgalib that redirects access via GGI so stuff written for svgalib works on X11, fbdev, aalib etc. cool stuff and it's fast (according to the author)
Slashdot Mirror
Think back over the last 12 months and look at commercial support for Linux. As far as I can remember, this is the first piece of bad news in a long time regarding software support, and it's not like there are no other word processors available.
Perhaps the reason they are not going ahead is because they don't see a particularly empty marketplace waiting for them?
actually, although you are correct that they shipped a development gcc, and that's what the article was meant to say, they DID ship a development kernel also. It's not installed by default obviously, but it's there for those that want it. Furthermore they also installed a (arguably) more stable compiler in the form of gcc 2.95.2 but it's only set up to be used for kernel compiles iirc.
It wasn't the default. It was included as an option.
> Perhaps BeOS would be a good destination
Hmm. When I condider all the good points of NetBSD, and all the good points of BeOS, I find that almost none of them coincide.
BeOS is nothing like NetBSD, so I can hardly imagine NetBSD users jumping over to BeOS just because their OS is "too popular". The same applies the other way around also.
> without fear of theft
Why is is theft when I invent a technique that happens to have already been invented before?
It's available as a patch for 2.4.x already, written by Jens Axboe. Its very stable for me also (although the mailing list mentioned some ide-scsi probs lately, so I can't speak for atapi owners)
Get it from http://packet-cd.sourceforge.net/
This article is about Linux (the popular OS kernel). You are talking about GNU/Linux, or some Linux based distribution.
Your suggestions should be aimed at the XFree developers who have nothing to do with Linux development.
> And no easy way of doing things.
Wow. You've hit the nail right on the head there. Most people when they complain about Linux simply give vague complaints and inaccurate statements. You however manage to get the message across perfectly with your insightful, succinct analysis of the problem.
Only yesterday, I was trying to use linux to do things and it was really hard. I phoned my support line and said "I can't seem to do things with Linux"
"We get that complaint all the time" they said. Better off with windows I say. Well, okay it's not as stable as Linux, but what good is enterprise class stability in an OS that cant even "do things" ?
> Try to think instead of believing what you are told.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this!
If anyone who knew me heard anyone telling me that they would be amazed also.
I am a sceptical scientifically minded person who takes nobodys word for anything. Paranoid, I have been called, arkward, contrary, but never that I just "believe what I am told"
That I believe strongly in capitalism surprises some people. Perhaps it's because they think my beliefs come from wanting to be different. They are mistaken. My beliefs come from knowing for a fact that there are very few questions to which there is a single correct answer from which a controlling government can decide policy. I believe that any succesful governmental system must recognise that and thus not try to find one. The only way that can happen is by giving all the power to the ppl themselves to distribute amongst themselves the way they see fit. There are 2 ways to do this IMO. capitalism (_without_ the current interventionist bullshit govermnent) and anarchy.
Oh, how I wish there were another.
BTW, Capitalism will always fool the short sighted into believing that is is "unfair" or doesn't work somehow. They will see the truth once (if/when) bullying goverments get out of the way and ppl are taught how to use their power to eliminate over-powerful compaines that the governments helped to create.
So you have to make an effort or you starve, you say. Well that sounds like nature to me. Who decided it's the job of some system of government to change that?
Don't like the company you work for? Start your own. There's the freedom. There's the choice. Before you tell me that it's easier said than done, don't bother. I know.
I was talking about capitalism. Why have you suddenly changed the subject to society? I agree with most of what you say. You are prevented from doing lots of things by society and it's government; not by capitalism.
> I never chose to live in a capitalist society,
> I was born into it. Where's the choice there?
That's a funny question, since capitalism is _all about_ freedom of choice. No, you didn't get to chose the system you we're born into, but what exactly are the choices you would like to be able to make that you can't make under capitalism?
> This is another one of those ideas, like
> Communism, which are only really going to work
> in some mythical fairy-tale land where people
> are good and work for the benefit of all.
> Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
The difference here though, is that the only people in the system are those who chose to be in it. That's what makes it nothing whatsoever like communism or any other choice-free authoritarian system.
This is about _choosing_ to do whats good for everyone, much like I do already in my spare time with open source software, and so do many others.
Communism on the other hand is about forcing others to do things for the good of others whether they like it or not.
In one system, you can be a hero and be happy to think you made good choices. In the other you are a slave and you get no choice at all.
> When the situation stablises,
when do you see that as being? (not that I neccesarily think that it won't, I'm just interested)
> , the inflated wages being paid out will drop to a reasonable rate.
Of course, but what exactly has that got to do with whether they are programming open or closed source software? It's true in either case isn't it?
sigh.. not another one.
Go into your preferences and click in the box labelled:
"Supress pseudo-random inappropriate appearance of enlightenment icon?"
And it will stop. If I had a penny for every time someone asks me about the random enlightenment icon....
;-P
> ...and programmers stop earning the rediculous sums of money they do for their monkey work,
>they won't have the time or the enthusiasm for "contributing to the community"
I work as a programmer for a closed source company. I often lack enthusiasm at work because everything we do seems to be driven by making profit and getting code out the door as fast as we can.
In the evenings, I go home and write more code. This time, it is done on my own terms and the focus is on the code working well, and it's much more enjoyable and I am much more motivated and enthusiastic.
Explain how that fits your "gold rush" ideas, and come to think of it, explain why you describe ppls attitude to open source as a "gold rush" if you think it doesn't make money. That doesn't sound much like a gold rush to me.
Legislation is never any good if it tends to go against the grain of what people want. If you ask ppl now, they might _say_ they want this information supressed by legislation, but in reality, ppl want to know the results as early as possible as soon as they are available.
If you stop the media doing this, not only are you restricting the freedom of the press, it won't help because the information will find another way to spread. Probably somewhere on the net.
I know from what I have written it sounds like information has a mind of its own, and although we all know that isn't true, it does behave that way. Just like water "tries" to reach the lowest point.
> or start your own ISP. Deal with it.
.. and that's going to stop my ISPs users revieving spam from the users of other unscrupulous ISPs, is it?
> What does this give me that C does not?
IIRC, it gives you runtime portability across various hardware a la java. (but without the bloat and sloth)
It's translated into native code, yes, but not at compile time.
> Any ideas on why it took so long to add this?
Here's my guesswork:
Probably until recently, the average MySQL user hasn't taken it seriously enough to rely on it for large amounts of data, so it was unneccesary or perhaps even undesirable - row level locking is _slower_ to a point for small data sets.
More recently though, I expect more people are starting to use MySQL "seriously" as it matures, storing much more data and suddenly the need for row locking shows itself more clearly.
It will still be slower for very small data sets, but thats a small price to pay for the scalability benefits row locking brings.
Okay then..
With this news in mind, can someone explain why MS shares have gone up nearly 5% so far today?
> Actually, the Wine team could not take MS to court.
.. which was the point of my post. Neither could win in coust against the other without proof.
> Ever heard of 'prior art'?
I think you're confusing copyrights with patents.
> MS could 'technically' claim
Anyone can claim anything they like, but it's not muhc good unless it actually happened and you can prove it actually happened.
> open source can't compete on this level unless it incorporates itself under law
What on earth does that mean? Can you (or anyone) please elaborate.
> all they need to do is take the creators of
> Wine to court over this
Fortunately, they have to do a lot more than that. Proving that the wine project actually used or even say their source for a start.
It what you are saying were true, wine could just as easily take MS to court now claiming that MS _must_ have stolen their code just because they might have read it.
It's not a matter of the judges "buying it" unless they are a corrupt judge. It's a matter of assumed innocence until proof otherwise can be established. Proving that somebody read something is not neccasarily all that easy.
Why not go one further and use SDL. That also has a target of SVGALIB (as well as GGI actually), but it's more cross platform also, having support on win32, mac, beos (iirc)
The good thing about writing for something like SDL also is that the SDL programmers have spent ages doing little optimisations and extra performance improvements for specific targets that someone writing something from scratch might not be bothered with, so in practive it's often no slower than programming for the specific target directly. For example, for X11 target, it looks to see if it has DGA authority, if not, it might try MIT-SHM extensions before resorting to Xlib otherwise.
I have to admit though, if you have the time to optimize your code and you want the fastest code possible you should code for your specific target directly.
Personally though, I would prefer fbdev over svgalib, but thats just me.
Incidentally, IIRC, someone has done a plug in replacement for svgalib that redirects access via GGI so stuff written for svgalib works on X11, fbdev, aalib etc. cool stuff and it's fast (according to the author)