Note: I am not claiming that the Win9x series were good general purpose OS's in any way. However, they made damn good single-user gaming boxes.
No they didn't. The Amiga was a damn good single-user gaming box. Windows 9x was just the only thing that people wrote PC games for in that era, so you have nothing to compare it to.
In other words, it's the games themselves that made Win9x seem "damn good", not the OS.
Honestly, you should need a debugger very often. Break your code into general-purpose functions, and unit test those functions. For the odd time where you actually need to run a debugger, gdb is probably good enough. If not, you can try one of the gdb front-ends. I've heard "ddd" (the data display debugger) is a nice frontend, though I prefer to just use gdb most of the time.
It's published under the GPL which has certain LIMITATIONS OF USE.*cough*
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
When developers talk about "using" source code, they usually mean 'using the source code in their own programs'. This is not the same as "using" the software, in the common interpretation.
Heh. I remember that one. It happens when RPM crashes (or is killed) in the middle of an install.
There are some files in/var/rpm you have to delete. (They start with two or three underscores, but I don't remember off-hand what their names are.)
But an advanced computer user (i.e. the person who will be doing complex things anyway) will find the configuration file much easier, and will be able to remember it next time.
The only time I ever encountered a missing DLL on my Windows box within the last few years was when I wanted to run a program which needed the.net runtimes.
You seem to have missed what "DLL hell" really means. It's not that so-and-so a DLL is missing, it's that it's extremely difficult to get different incompatible versions of the same DLL installed at the same time. When you're programming a new interface to an old DLL, you have to be very careful to make sure that you also provide the old interface in the new DLL, or programs that depend on it will break (perhaps subtly).
On Unix-type systems, different versions of a DLL have different names, so you can safely install both on the same machine. Then programs linked against the old DLL use the old version, and programs linked against the new DLL use the new version. Also, programs which need the old DLL will not try to use the new DLL (and vice versa).
It surprises me that Debian doesn't make apt-get easier for newbies to understand.
It's almost always a bad idea to add a complex interface to your core functionality. Rather than adding complexity to the low-level toolset, Debian provides several frontends to apt which are suitable for newer users.
Synaptic (apt-get install synaptic) is one such frontend. You should try it (but you might find that apt-get is easier, in the long run.)
Also, remember that Debian is a volunteer-run project. If you want a spiffy apt-get interface, and the ones available aren't good enough for you, then either create one yourself, or cause one to be created (by paying developers, or whatever).
Do a survey of debian users I bet 99.999% will say that apt-get is the main reason they use debian...
I'm not so sure that's true anymore, now that there's apt-get for rpm. I
use Debian because of all the other things it has. For example:
defoma - font management
menu - unified application menu system
alternatives - the ability to select which installed program gets a
particular common filename (e.g. "gcc" -> gcc 2.95 or gcc 3?.)
Debian Policy - gives a well-integrated system. (e.g. docs are either
manpages, info pages, or are in/usr/share/doc/packagename)
Free Software - I can easily be biased toward free software
apt-src - maintain a modified version of an installed package
debhelper - excellent set of packaging tools
Debian Bug Tracking System - just run reportbugpackagename and it fires up your default email client with a template
for submitting bug reports
diversions - allows a package (or the local admin) to rename a file, and
the package manager won't clobber your changes next time it runs.
A centrally-maintained archive - Not so much that it's central, but that
someone will actually notice if a package stops working, and there's less
frustration of trying to install a package that no londer works.
Why "yum" though? What does it mean? Why not just "install programname"? Or perhaps "update system install programname", etc.
I don't know why it's called "yum" (I run Debian, so I use apt-get instead). The other names aren't used because "install" and "update" are already Unix commands which do something else, unfortunately.
Do you think that is what they are really doing though?
Possibly.
Think about it: Let's say you're someone in Bill Gates's position, and you've been running the most successful computer company around, which you built from the ground up. You got your company where it is today by cornering a market and milking it for a long time -- such a long time that your company has come to depend on this market position. You've always talked about how some small player could topple your giant company (after all, you did the same thing to IBM in your day), but you've been careful and you've started to get the hang of preventing that from happening. Netscape (among others) almost got away with it, but by now, you've collected the resources you need to choke or buy out any small player of your choice. Life is good.
Linux comes along, and at first, you're not concerned. As it starts to gain momentum, you make some manoeuvres (as you've done many times before) to make sure it doesn't become a real threat...
Nothing happens. This is a tricky bugger, because there's nobody to buy out. So, you step up your advertising efforts...
Nothing happens. Your competitors are jumping on the Linux bandwagon. Linux is now a real threat. You purchase some ridiculous legislation to buy you some time, while you ponder about a more permanent solution...
Caldera alleges that Linux is tainted with illegally-obtained code. This is a godsend, and is better FUD than you could possibly have come up with yourself...
Nothing happens. The SCO lawsuits' effect on the market is almost completely negligible. Crap. Time to go on your regular 3-week hiatus and think about things for a bit.
You realize that nothing you've been doing has worked, and that you're in real jeopardy of losing your monopoly position. It's time to start up your old "small company" mindset again; You may lose your market dominance, but you've got enough resources to burn that you think you can be really competitive in a few years if you start right now.
-
Microsoft may have realized that it can't hold its monopoly position forever, and that it needs to be prepared to handle that situation. Right now, it's not, so the company's management might be scrambling to fix that.
Of course, I've been disappointed by Microsoft so many times before that I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. I'll buy Microsoft products when and if I see real results.
Funny... every last one of those exists for windows.
Firstly, cygwin is insecure in a multiuser environment. Secondly, it's fairly difficult to get all those languages installed and working in any reasonable amount of time in Windows (as opposed to Debian where you can apt-get install them all). And thirdly, there are nasty bugs and limitations. In reality, Windows is a second-class platform for using Free Unix programming tools.
Nowadays, those who think that they own the language insist that if you try to put copyright material into the public domain then you're contradicting yourself. Everyone unquestioningly seems to believe them by rote.
I think "Language lawyers" (also called "language nazis", etc) are essential to making sure that common language does not change too quickly and in ways which hinder communication. The purpose of language is to comunicate, after all.
Without copyright, there would be no more incentive to create public works than there is today, perhaps even less.
This is a broad assumption that is not founded in science. In reality, some types of works (high-budget movies, computer games with lots of eye-candy, etc) seem to require a profit motive, and other types of works (music, application software, etc) seem to exist regardless of profit motive.
The same situation exists with patents: software and business model patents are nearly useless (though some might be acceptable with a maximum lifetime of 2-4 years), while patents on the results of medical research are pretty much what drives that industry.
The problem of creeping intellectual property is not going to be fought effectively until we understand it in more than a it's-good-or-it's-evil fashion.
// By using this source code, you agree to the // following terms: // // 1) You may use the source code, resource // files for educational purposes only. // 2) You MAY NOT redistribute this source code // without written permission. Failure to do // so is a violation of copyright laws. // 3) The author of this code may have retained // certain "additional copyright rights". // If so, this is indicated in the author's // description.
How do you "patch" software without the original code?
You do the Windows equivalent of LD_PRELOAD, and redirect calls to a particular DLL to your own code.
// Terms of Agreement: // // By using this source code, you agree to the // following terms: // // 1) You may use the source code, resource // files for educational purposes only. // 2) You MAY NOT redistribute this source code // without written permission. Failure to do // so is a violation of copyright laws. // 3) The author of this code may have retained // certain "additional copyright rights". // If so, this is indicated in the author's // description.
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't. The Amiga was a damn good single-user gaming box. Windows 9x was just the only thing that people wrote PC games for in that era, so you have nothing to compare it to.
In other words, it's the games themselves that made Win9x seem "damn good", not the OS.
Honestly, you should need a debugger very often. Break your code into general-purpose functions, and unit test those functions. For the odd time where you actually need to run a debugger, gdb is probably good enough. If not, you can try one of the gdb front-ends. I've heard "ddd" (the data display debugger) is a nice frontend, though I prefer to just use gdb most of the time.
When developers talk about "using" source code, they usually mean 'using the source code in their own programs'. This is not the same as "using" the software, in the common interpretation.
Heh. I remember that one. It happens when RPM crashes (or is killed) in the middle of an install. There are some files in /var/rpm you have to delete. (They start with two or three underscores, but I don't remember off-hand what their names are.)
But an advanced computer user (i.e. the person who will be doing complex things anyway) will find the configuration file much easier, and will be able to remember it next time.
You seem to have missed what "DLL hell" really means. It's not that so-and-so a DLL is missing, it's that it's extremely difficult to get different incompatible versions of the same DLL installed at the same time. When you're programming a new interface to an old DLL, you have to be very careful to make sure that you also provide the old interface in the new DLL, or programs that depend on it will break (perhaps subtly).
On Unix-type systems, different versions of a DLL have different names, so you can safely install both on the same machine. Then programs linked against the old DLL use the old version, and programs linked against the new DLL use the new version. Also, programs which need the old DLL will not try to use the new DLL (and vice versa).
This still has not been changed in Windows.
It's almost always a bad idea to add a complex interface to your core functionality. Rather than adding complexity to the low-level toolset, Debian provides several frontends to apt which are suitable for newer users.
Synaptic (apt-get install synaptic) is one such frontend. You should try it (but you might find that apt-get is easier, in the long run.)
Also, remember that Debian is a volunteer-run project. If you want a spiffy apt-get interface, and the ones available aren't good enough for you, then either create one yourself, or cause one to be created (by paying developers, or whatever).
I'm not so sure that's true anymore, now that there's apt-get for rpm. I use Debian because of all the other things it has. For example:
- defoma - font management
- menu - unified application menu system
- alternatives - the ability to select which installed program gets a
particular common filename (e.g. "gcc" -> gcc 2.95 or gcc 3?.)
- Debian Policy - gives a well-integrated system. (e.g. docs are either
manpages, info pages, or are in
/usr/share/doc/packagename)
- Free Software - I can easily be biased toward free software
- apt-src - maintain a modified version of an installed package
- debhelper - excellent set of packaging tools
- Debian Bug Tracking System - just run reportbug
packagename and it fires up your default email client with a template
for submitting bug reports
- diversions - allows a package (or the local admin) to rename a file, and
the package manager won't clobber your changes next time it runs.
- A centrally-maintained archive - Not so much that it's central, but that
someone will actually notice if a package stops working, and there's less
frustration of trying to install a package that no londer works.
- Branden Robinson -
:)
And I'm sure there are others...I don't know why it's called "yum" (I run Debian, so I use apt-get instead). The other names aren't used because "install" and "update" are already Unix commands which do something else, unfortunately.
Possibly.
Think about it: Let's say you're someone in Bill Gates's position, and you've been running the most successful computer company around, which you built from the ground up. You got your company where it is today by cornering a market and milking it for a long time -- such a long time that your company has come to depend on this market position. You've always talked about how some small player could topple your giant company (after all, you did the same thing to IBM in your day), but you've been careful and you've started to get the hang of preventing that from happening. Netscape (among others) almost got away with it, but by now, you've collected the resources you need to choke or buy out any small player of your choice. Life is good.
Linux comes along, and at first, you're not concerned. As it starts to gain momentum, you make some manoeuvres (as you've done many times before) to make sure it doesn't become a real threat...
Nothing happens. This is a tricky bugger, because there's nobody to buy out. So, you step up your advertising efforts...
Nothing happens. Your competitors are jumping on the Linux bandwagon. Linux is now a real threat. You purchase some ridiculous legislation to buy you some time, while you ponder about a more permanent solution...
Caldera alleges that Linux is tainted with illegally-obtained code. This is a godsend, and is better FUD than you could possibly have come up with yourself...
Nothing happens. The SCO lawsuits' effect on the market is almost completely negligible. Crap. Time to go on your regular 3-week hiatus and think about things for a bit.
You realize that nothing you've been doing has worked, and that you're in real jeopardy of losing your monopoly position. It's time to start up your old "small company" mindset again; You may lose your market dominance, but you've got enough resources to burn that you think you can be really competitive in a few years if you start right now.
-
Microsoft may have realized that it can't hold its monopoly position forever, and that it needs to be prepared to handle that situation. Right now, it's not, so the company's management might be scrambling to fix that.
Of course, I've been disappointed by Microsoft so many times before that I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. I'll buy Microsoft products when and if I see real results.
The same thing could have been said about IBM in the 1980s...
Firstly, cygwin is insecure in a multiuser environment. Secondly, it's fairly difficult to get all those languages installed and working in any reasonable amount of time in Windows (as opposed to Debian where you can apt-get install them all). And thirdly, there are nasty bugs and limitations. In reality, Windows is a second-class platform for using Free Unix programming tools.
The game companies would flip that Microsoft is using its OS monopoly to enter the games market.
watch -n1 'python -c "import time;print hex(int(time.time()))"'
Maybe by the time Perl is 30, it (he? she?) will have mellowed out and won't be quite as unruly as it is now...
I think "Language lawyers" (also called "language nazis", etc) are essential to making sure that common language does not change too quickly and in ways which hinder communication. The purpose of language is to comunicate, after all.
Note: IANALL
This is a broad assumption that is not founded in science. In reality, some types of works (high-budget movies, computer games with lots of eye-candy, etc) seem to require a profit motive, and other types of works (music, application software, etc) seem to exist regardless of profit motive.
The same situation exists with patents: software and business model patents are nearly useless (though some might be acceptable with a maximum lifetime of 2-4 years), while patents on the results of medical research are pretty much what drives that industry.
The problem of creeping intellectual property is not going to be fought effectively until we understand it in more than a it's-good-or-it's-evil fashion.
"Open Source" is defined by the Open Source Definition, and this software doesn't even come close.
This code is called "disclosed source", since the source is disclosed, but not open.
Here is a better patch, although it's a little larger.
It is "disclosed source", not open source. There is a *BIG* difference.
Better link
How do you "patch" software without the original code? You do the Windows equivalent of LD_PRELOAD, and redirect calls to a particular DLL to your own code.
// Terms of Agreement:
//
// By using this source code, you agree to the
// following terms:
//
// 1) You may use the source code, resource
// files for educational purposes only.
// 2) You MAY NOT redistribute this source code
// without written permission. Failure to do
// so is a violation of copyright laws.
// 3) The author of this code may have retained
// certain "additional copyright rights".
// If so, this is indicated in the author's
// description.
But... if we get rid of region codes, then those poor CSS designers' work will have been for nothing!