it has nothing to do with whether or not they distributed it. they're claiming ibm stole they're ip and put it into linux without them knowing. the illegally obtained code makes it into mainstream kernels which caldera distributed. the point is, ibm never "owned" the rights to distribute the code under *any* license, much less the gpl. what you're suggesting is that i can steal all your ideas, releases them into the public domain, and you have no recourse, which is just plain silly. i am not saying that what they are saying is true (how would i know), but if ibm did in fact "re-license" code to which they didn't own rights to, then sco certainly has a leg to stand on - they were stolen from!! i use linux both professionally and recreationally, so i am not the least bit pleased that this is happening, but if it is true, i blaim ibm, not sco....
I tend to believe that everyone "psyches" themselves out in order to function properly in the world - humans are highly adaptable. Some chose or are taught to believe in god others reject belief in god and instead turn to "just trying to live the best life i can" or "try to make the world a better place for the children" or "devote themselves to scientific progress" or even the silly idea of karma (popular for some reason with "intellectuals"). I think everyone does this as a survival mechanism - the alternative is just too damn dreary.
I've given this some thought, and maybe i am just an aweful person, but if when you die that's really the end, then quite frankly i don't give a rats ass about any of you suckers. Why would i care? I no longer exist. A big freaken meteor can come and destroy the planet and i am not bothered one bit by this - because i no longer exist. I might help science along for what it can get me (fame, money, power, sex, whatever), but why would i care if my chidren live happier, longer lives? because of some internal desire to see the human race continue on after i am gone? where is this desire manufactured? is it merely the remnants of some deep animal instinct for survival of the pack? how is belief in "humanity" any less silly than, say, "religion". it is pure fantasy to think that you're going to somehow benefit from your work once your dead...yet many "intellectuals" admit that they do what they do for the "greater good"...what a crock...
no doubt many will misinterpret what i an saying. i am not saying we need religion in order to live moral/ethical lives. I am saying humans need something - if not religion, then something else. religion may be opiate for the masses, but the intellectual minority has their own opiates, and just like the religious, they do not enjoy having this fact pointed out.
Someone is going to get on that machine, go to Start -> Programs looking for "Microsoft Excel" and feel like an idiot or be completely frustrated because they couldn't find it.
I would just put OpenOffice's spread sheet in the same menu location as excel and when they "mouse-over" have a tool-tip that pops that says "like excel, only not $200".
If only Bill Gates would get a bee in hif bonnet about putting a man on mars in 10 years, I would start purchasing the software put out by his company just to support the endeavor. Maybe I am a sell out...
I watched the high-bandwidth quicktime and it didn't look nearly as good as I was hoping (certainly considering all the hype). The "burly-man" scenes looked bad - well the clothing was done better than most CGI, but my eyes still picked it out immediately as fake (plastic-looking). The worst was the trinity on the motorcycle scenes. The semi trucks looked like poorly texture-mapped cubes. If this is state of the art(not convinced it is), then we are indeed still aways from being able to fool the human eye. After seeing the trailers I've gone back to just hoping the effects are good enough to allow for a little suspension of dis-belief...
Well, it *is* monopolistic, but that doesn't implicitly mean it is illegal (moral is another question altogether). Unless of course, the monopoly is *illegal*, and in this case it has been shown that microsoft has used illegal tactics to protect its monopoly from free and fair competition.
It wouldn't even be illegal for MS to take all its profits from selling its OSs and give it to id in order to seal the exclusive console deal - unless MS is shown to have an illegal monopoly in OSs (which they have). Even with the illegal OS monopoly, they could make the deal as long as the funds came from a product where an illegal monopoly wasn't held. For example, if the funds actually came from their console business (which is impossible since it hasn't made any money). The whole point is, are they using the unfair/illegal advantage they have in the OS market to enter markets they would otherwise be unable to enter. And I think it is safe to say that without their OS business they would be unable to continue to fund a console business that has been nothing but a money hole.
With the modularization of hardware drivers in XFree86 4.x, this is much less of an issue. You can drop in your own hardware driver into a stock XFree86 (in fact, a binary hardware driver written for linux will often work on FreeBSD, it's that good). What more are you looking for?
The problem I see with this is that only XFree86 can easily use this driver. What if I want to write/use a simple graphics app but don't want X installed. Or maybe I want to try my hand at writing something better than X - you may say "good luck", but as was said somewhere above: the display server is one of the only place where linux doesn't benefit from healthy competition. Linux needs a standard graphics library - having X "pathologically coupled" to the graphics subsystem means that commercial entities release drivers that only benefit X. I would much rather they release DirectFB drivers and then let X use DirectFB (which it can do already)...Also, last I checked svgalib, directfb, X, fresco, whatever - they all have their own drivers, and many have drivers that allow them to sit on one another - this is silly. It may seem like healthy competition, but it isn't because we rely on video venders to provide us with drivers, and as far as I know only X benefits from commercial driver contributions. Why must everyone else suffer from lack of support?
Well, one of the co-founders of xfree86 disagrees with you (from the article):
"A number of people has questioned the relevence of X in general. To be
perfectly honest, I'm one of them. I've even pissed off Keith and many
others on the Core Team by pointing out that X is obsolescent. I've been
working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display
systems are utterly irrelvent to the majority of real-world computer users.
X needs to be replaced by a direct-rendered model, on which a
backwards-compatible X server can be reasonably trivially implemented."
And I tend to agree with him. Check out directfb to see a good example of how multiple applications can have "direct" access to the video card (not really "direct frame buffer").
I have often thought that XFree86 project should be broken up into more reasonably sized pieces. I once tried to play around with the source, but it was just too dang large for me to get into on my spare time. I envision a lowlevel graphics project that is only interested in bringing high performant graphics to linux. DirectFB seemed like this but they seem to be putting more and more into what I would have liked to consider a low-level graphics library. Maybe I am wrong and they'll end up being the library linux needs after all. Then you'd have multiple projects providing different "display servers": an xfree86 compatible one, maybe one based on corba, whatever - the point is with an established,low-level,high performance, easy-to-use graphics api for linux (directfb?) we could have a little healthy competition in this area. And then of course the next level would consist of approximately 2.8 billion projects providing all the various "window managers":) Another great benefit is that all of linux can benefit from the drivers commercial companies release for X (assuming that they instead release drivers for the low-level graphics layer). Linux has a lot of great APIs but when it comes to things like graphics and input devices we really need a standard. Ok, enough babbling...
I agree the competition is great, but what does capitalism have to do with it? Wouldn't free markets (those without a monopoly) have allowed someone to enter who was actually charging for a similar (yet differentiated) product? I tend to view it as a failure of capitalism when the only way to enter a market is to give a product away for free. I am not an economist...and like I said I am glad someone/something is forcing innovation in the desktop market.
Re:The only once inside the GNOME-community
on
Has GNOME Become LAME?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I hear this a lot, but people seem to forget that XML is about "extensible" syntax. Sure you could use your "ini file" syntax above, but you'd better be darned sure you never want to store anything other than string name/value pairs. Sure a simple parser for what you gave above is easy, but say you start adding capabilites to your format like multiline string CLOBS or allow for string value quoting, etc. What if you decide (or someone else decided) that one of the key/value pairs should be "icon" and the value needed to be a "png"...sure you could go and add the ability to your parser and if your a hobbiest programmer, you'll find this fulfilling, but I program professionally, and I find making good design decisions fulfilling. When my boss comes to me and says you need to add the ability to read PNGs from the config file I say "done". And with XML all this can be added *without* breaking existing apps.
I wonder if MS isn't doing this because of all the people coming out of the wood-work trying to get royalties out of MS for things like ActiveX? Anyway I wonder how useful MONO will be without the below namespaces. I didn't think you could patent an API - the implementation perhaps, but after reading the patent it really sounds like their trying to patent the API. If I were them, I'd just copyright the API that way it'll never be release to the public domain:)
I am no logician but isn't this the very definition of a slipery slope? I just think its funny how people here use slippery slopes to get across their own points of view while in the next breath trying to invalidate someone else's point of view by pointing out the use of this logical fallacy. Like I said I am no logician, so my question is when is it ok to use a logical fallacy and when is it not? Or do you just try and see what you can get away with?:) I've seen people argue that that abortion and euthanasia will eventually lead to a society that calls for the unhealthy and old to be euthaniszed - this train of thought is of course a logical fallacy (and would be torn to shreds here on slashdot), but someone says that this bill will lead to that bill and before you know it we'll be living in a communist country and you get modded up to 3...4...5?? What gives?
Re:Multiple Languages on DotNet not a Good Thing
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 1
I agree that parts of it are a good thing. However, you will usually end up writing code that uses part of the.NET class library (or only the.NET CL) and in my J# example you can see the downside: you have code that is written to JAVA syntax but can no longer even be compiled by a regular JAVA compiler. The same goes for smalltalk. In the end, I do not think that this should be thought of as some great advantage, but merely a convienience to people who don't want to learn C# syntax. Frankly, you should be able to pick up most of the syntax in a day - its the class library that'll take some time, and MS wants you to know their library regardless of the language syntax your prefer. All I am saying is that your smalltalk app won't compile with your smalltalk compiler anymore; you'll be stuck using.NET - the way MS wants it. It's brilliant especially the spin they can put on it: "you can use ay language you want on the.NET platform! YEAH!"
Multiple Languages on DotNet not a Good Thing
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've read a little about the different languages that are available for.NET and I've used J# before. What I found out was somewhat disturbing and can be found documented out on the web in several places. First, it is clearly stated by MS that the intent of J# (and other langauges available on the.NET platform) is not to be able to use JAVA as you would in its "natural habitat". They'll admit that basically they wanted to allow programmers that were familiar with the *syntax* of JAVA to feel comfortable on the.NET platform. They even provided something that resembled the JAVA class library, but is horribly out of date. Why? Because they don't want you to use the JAVA class libraries, they want you to use the.NET class libraries. The version of Java's libraries they provide is intended as a stepping stone as you port your app to use the.NET libraries. When you hear MS talking about being able to use smalltalk (or whatever) on.NET they're not talking about using smalltalk with its class library (although one may be provided by MS or a third party), they're talking about using smalltalk-ish syntax to make.NET library calls. This is also why you'll hear people who understand what.NET is calling it "themes for languages" - it merely a superficial thing.
I remember hearing (probably on slashdot) a conspiracy theory about why MS got off so easily by the justice department. Basically it went something like this: MS is not just a monopoly in the US but the globe, as such they act as a huge funnel, pumping money from over-seas into the US economy. Now, wouldn't the US gov't be crazy to close the valve on something like that? Especially in this economy. No wonder they couldn't be broken up. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar "conspiracy" keeps the US gov't from ever taking OSS seriously. The US gov't *wants* its multinational corporations to have global monopolies. They're at least willing to look the other way more than say for AT&T. The US gov't using OSS would give other coutries even more of an excuse to jump ship on MS ("look even the US gov't uses OSS! YEAH!").
I am going to start working out every day and I'll go find me a lion's mane to wear around(ebay for sure!). Once I'm really big and muscular I'll stop living by the laws of the land....I'll be able to do whatever I want because, hey, I'm not human - your laws don't apply to me. I'll make sure my lawyer cites this ruling as precedent.
You know that's why he's going. I am sure one of his advisors told him that "no, there wasn't any oil on the moon"..."how about mars?"..."well, we don't no for sure, sir."
Isn't 2010 when we're supposed to get hydrogen vehicles? Not if GW's Texas based company finds OIL on mars first:)
The reason many people think open source software should be used in gov't is so contractors can't sell closed sourced solutions to the gov't that would require the gov't to go back to the original contractor everytime a change is needed. In other words, it is more cost-effective from the tax payer's point of view. If the code modifications can be made in house or there is a lower bidder this is better for the taxpayer (cost wise). Nothing MS will ever do will allow a gov't to do this. They may let you "see" some of the code and perhaps allow for encryption plugins (or what have you), but they'll never provide a license that says "this code is yours, feel free to make your own modifications."
Q:Microsoft made a lot of noise about.Net and Hailstorm, but that seems to have died off now. Any idea what is going on?
A:For whatever reason, Microsoft was for a period of time obsessed with the notion of subscribers, whether for software, or Internet access, or whatever, but the idea of people paying an ongoing monthly fee rather than buying packaged software when they wanted to. Now they do have some subscription plans going, with MSN and Xbox Live. But with.Net, they tried to put the cart before the horse in two ways, first pushing Hailstorm instead of.Net, and then talking up the subscription features of Hailstorm. This made the company seem greedy and also confused developers who were trying to figure out what.Net actually was.
I think.Net could still be a useful platform for web services. But Microsoft has blown the explanation of.Net so completely that it may have to drop the whole thing, rename it, and start over. (emphasis mine)
Everyone always seems to talk as if once you put up PV you're set forever. Last time I checked they "wear out". I don't remember if it was 10 years or 20, but the point is they'll have to be replaced.
Maybe that's not clear, but I am at my iBook, using the just released X11, running konqueror off my linux box. Well, I was gonna post from safari, but it looks like a few others beat me to it.
Question: why is running konqueror over my 802.11b network on apple's X11 faster than running it locally (or perhaps they're the same speed)? Anyway, my point is either there is something wrong with X11 on my linux box or there is something very right about X11 on my mac. At any rate this beats the pants off terminal services.
Disney had a few people riding around the park on them and even had an exhibit in the technology center. I was and still am very skeptical but actually seeing one in action is very cool. Especially in a crowded park these guys were speeding around (with plenty of little kids around) and you could just tell by watching that they couldn't "run over" you. At the exhibit they would intentionally run into you and they just sort of stop. They literally stop on a dime. I just wish that they let you rent them to get around the park. If nothing else I certainly see the technology as a boon for parapalegics. A wheel chair that basically replaces your legs is a pretty neat idea (and based on another persons post something they're already working on).
Anyway, there wasn't much to see at Disney, but seeing the segway and digital ink at epcot was almost worth the price of admission...
Slashdot Mirror
it has nothing to do with whether or not they distributed it. they're claiming ibm stole they're ip and put it into linux without them knowing. the illegally obtained code makes it into mainstream kernels which caldera distributed. the point is, ibm never "owned" the rights to distribute the code under *any* license, much less the gpl. what you're suggesting is that i can steal all your ideas, releases them into the public domain, and you have no recourse, which is just plain silly. i am not saying that what they are saying is true (how would i know), but if ibm did in fact "re-license" code to which they didn't own rights to, then sco certainly has a leg to stand on - they were stolen from!! i use linux both professionally and recreationally, so i am not the least bit pleased that this is happening, but if it is true, i blaim ibm, not sco....
Forget that, I am waiting for the Esther-1 core, although a release date for it has not yet been prophecised...
I tend to believe that everyone "psyches" themselves out in order to function properly in the world - humans are highly adaptable. Some chose or are taught to believe in god others reject belief in god and instead turn to "just trying to live the best life i can" or "try to make the world a better place for the children" or "devote themselves to scientific progress" or even the silly idea of karma (popular for some reason with "intellectuals"). I think everyone does this as a survival mechanism - the alternative is just too damn dreary.
I've given this some thought, and maybe i am just an aweful person, but if when you die that's really the end, then quite frankly i don't give a rats ass about any of you suckers. Why would i care? I no longer exist. A big freaken meteor can come and destroy the planet and i am not bothered one bit by this - because i no longer exist. I might help science along for what it can get me (fame, money, power, sex, whatever), but why would i care if my chidren live happier, longer lives? because of some internal desire to see the human race continue on after i am gone? where is this desire manufactured? is it merely the remnants of some deep animal instinct for survival of the pack? how is belief in "humanity" any less silly than, say, "religion". it is pure fantasy to think that you're going to somehow benefit from your work once your dead...yet many "intellectuals" admit that they do what they do for the "greater good"...what a crock...
no doubt many will misinterpret what i an saying. i am not saying we need religion in order to live moral/ethical lives. I am saying humans need something - if not religion, then something else. religion may be opiate for the masses, but the intellectual minority has their own opiates, and just like the religious, they do not enjoy having this fact pointed out.
Someone is going to get on that machine, go to Start -> Programs looking for "Microsoft Excel" and feel like an idiot or be completely frustrated because they couldn't find it.
I would just put OpenOffice's spread sheet in the same menu location as excel and when they "mouse-over" have a tool-tip that pops that says "like excel, only not $200".
If only Bill Gates would get a bee in hif bonnet about putting a man on mars in 10 years, I would start purchasing the software put out by his company just to support the endeavor. Maybe I am a sell out...
I watched the high-bandwidth quicktime and it didn't look nearly as good as I was hoping (certainly considering all the hype). The "burly-man" scenes looked bad - well the clothing was done better than most CGI, but my eyes still picked it out immediately as fake (plastic-looking). The worst was the trinity on the motorcycle scenes. The semi trucks looked like poorly texture-mapped cubes. If this is state of the art(not convinced it is), then we are indeed still aways from being able to fool the human eye. After seeing the trailers I've gone back to just hoping the effects are good enough to allow for a little suspension of dis-belief...
Well, it *is* monopolistic, but that doesn't implicitly mean it is illegal (moral is another question altogether). Unless of course, the monopoly is *illegal*, and in this case it has been shown that microsoft has used illegal tactics to protect its monopoly from free and fair competition.
It wouldn't even be illegal for MS to take all its profits from selling its OSs and give it to id in order to seal the exclusive console deal - unless MS is shown to have an illegal monopoly in OSs (which they have). Even with the illegal OS monopoly, they could make the deal as long as the funds came from a product where an illegal monopoly wasn't held. For example, if the funds actually came from their console business (which is impossible since it hasn't made any money). The whole point is, are they using the unfair/illegal advantage they have in the OS market to enter markets they would otherwise be unable to enter. And I think it is safe to say that without their OS business they would be unable to continue to fund a console business that has been nothing but a money hole.
With the modularization of hardware drivers in XFree86 4.x, this is much less of an issue. You can drop in your own hardware driver into a stock XFree86 (in fact, a binary hardware driver written for linux will often work on FreeBSD, it's that good). What more are you looking for?
The problem I see with this is that only XFree86 can easily use this driver. What if I want to write/use a simple graphics app but don't want X installed. Or maybe I want to try my hand at writing something better than X - you may say "good luck", but as was said somewhere above: the display server is one of the only place where linux doesn't benefit from healthy competition. Linux needs a standard graphics library - having X "pathologically coupled" to the graphics subsystem means that commercial entities release drivers that only benefit X. I would much rather they release DirectFB drivers and then let X use DirectFB (which it can do already)...Also, last I checked svgalib, directfb, X, fresco, whatever - they all have their own drivers, and many have drivers that allow them to sit on one another - this is silly. It may seem like healthy competition, but it isn't because we rely on video venders to provide us with drivers, and as far as I know only X benefits from commercial driver contributions. Why must everyone else suffer from lack of support?
Well, one of the co-founders of xfree86 disagrees with you (from the article):
:) Another great benefit is that all of linux can benefit from the drivers commercial companies release for X (assuming that they instead release drivers for the low-level graphics layer). Linux has a lot of great APIs but when it comes to things like graphics and input devices we really need a standard. Ok, enough babbling...
"A number of people has questioned the relevence of X in general. To be perfectly honest, I'm one of them. I've even pissed off Keith and many others on the Core Team by pointing out that X is obsolescent. I've been working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display systems are utterly irrelvent to the majority of real-world computer users. X needs to be replaced by a direct-rendered model, on which a backwards-compatible X server can be reasonably trivially implemented."
And I tend to agree with him. Check out directfb to see a good example of how multiple applications can have "direct" access to the video card (not really "direct frame buffer").
I have often thought that XFree86 project should be broken up into more reasonably sized pieces. I once tried to play around with the source, but it was just too dang large for me to get into on my spare time. I envision a lowlevel graphics project that is only interested in bringing high performant graphics to linux. DirectFB seemed like this but they seem to be putting more and more into what I would have liked to consider a low-level graphics library. Maybe I am wrong and they'll end up being the library linux needs after all. Then you'd have multiple projects providing different "display servers": an xfree86 compatible one, maybe one based on corba, whatever - the point is with an established,low-level,high performance, easy-to-use graphics api for linux (directfb?) we could have a little healthy competition in this area. And then of course the next level would consist of approximately 2.8 billion projects providing all the various "window managers"
I agree the competition is great, but what does capitalism have to do with it? Wouldn't free markets (those without a monopoly) have allowed someone to enter who was actually charging for a similar (yet differentiated) product? I tend to view it as a failure of capitalism when the only way to enter a market is to give a product away for free. I am not an economist...and like I said I am glad someone/something is forcing innovation in the desktop market.
I hear this a lot, but people seem to forget that XML is about "extensible" syntax. Sure you could use your "ini file" syntax above, but you'd better be darned sure you never want to store anything other than string name/value pairs. Sure a simple parser for what you gave above is easy, but say you start adding capabilites to your format like multiline string CLOBS or allow for string value quoting, etc. What if you decide (or someone else decided) that one of the key/value pairs should be "icon" and the value needed to be a "png"...sure you could go and add the ability to your parser and if your a hobbiest programmer, you'll find this fulfilling, but I program professionally, and I find making good design decisions fulfilling. When my boss comes to me and says you need to add the ability to read PNGs from the config file I say "done". And with XML all this can be added *without* breaking existing apps.
I guess I should have said a "plus one" on each character of "WNT"....
Just do a "plus one" on "WNT" and you'll finally know the truth :)
I wonder if MS isn't doing this because of all the people coming out of the wood-work trying to get royalties out of MS for things like ActiveX? Anyway I wonder how useful MONO will be without the below namespaces. I didn't think you could patent an API - the implementation perhaps, but after reading the patent it really sounds like their trying to patent the API. If I were them, I'd just copyright the API that way it'll never be release to the public domain :)
n agerSystem.Security.Cryptography.Xml
From the patent (supposedly 94 namespaces):
System.Windows.Forms System.CodeDom.Compiler System.ComponentModel.Design System.Configuration.Assemblies System.ComponentModel System.ComponentModel.Design.Serialization System.Configuration System System.Net System.Collections System.Globalization System.Net.Sockets System.Collections.Specialized System.Xml.Schema System.Xml.Serialization System.Xml.XPath System.Xml System.Xml.Xsl System.Data.Common System.Data.OleDb System.Data.SqlClient System.Data.SqlTypes System.Diagnostics System.DirectoryServices System.Drawing.Design System.Drawing.Drawing2D System.Reflection System.Drawing System.Drawing.Imaging System.Drawing.Printing System.Drawing.Text System.EnterpriseServices System.IO System.Resources System.IO.IsolatedStorage System.Messaging System.Reflection.Emit System.Runtime.CompilerServices System.Runtime.InteropServices.Expando System.Runtime.InteropServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Activation System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Http System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Tcp System.Runtime.Remoting.Contexts System.Runtime.Remoting System.Runtime.Remoting.Lifetime System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata.W3cXsd System.Runtime.Remoting.MetadataServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies System.Runtime.Remoting.Services System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters System.Runtime.Serialization System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Soap System.Security.Cryptography System.Security.Cryptography.X509.Certificates System.Configuration.Install System.Security.Permissions System.Security System.Security.Policy System.Text System.Security.Principal System.ServiceProcess System.Text.RegularExpressions System.Threading System.Timers System.Windows.Forms.Design System.Web System.Diagnostics.SymbolStore System.Management System.Management.Instrumentation System.Web.Caching System.Web.Configuration System.Web.Hosting System.Web.Mail System.Web.Security System.Web.Services System.Web.Services.Configuration System.Web.Services.Description System.Web.Services.Discovery System.Web.Services.Protocols System.Web.SessionState System.Web.UI System.Web.UI.Design System.Web.UI.Design.WebControls System.Web.UI.HtmlControls System.Web.UI.WebControls System.CodeDom System.Data System.EnterpriseServices.Compensating.ResourceMa
I am no logician but isn't this the very definition of a slipery slope? I just think its funny how people here use slippery slopes to get across their own points of view while in the next breath trying to invalidate someone else's point of view by pointing out the use of this logical fallacy. Like I said I am no logician, so my question is when is it ok to use a logical fallacy and when is it not? Or do you just try and see what you can get away with? :) I've seen people argue that that abortion and euthanasia will eventually lead to a society that calls for the unhealthy and old to be euthaniszed - this train of thought is of course a logical fallacy (and would be torn to shreds here on slashdot), but someone says that this bill will lead to that bill and before you know it we'll be living in a communist country and you get modded up to 3...4...5?? What gives?
I agree that parts of it are a good thing. However, you will usually end up writing code that uses part of the .NET class library (or only the .NET CL) and in my J# example you can see the downside: you have code that is written to JAVA syntax but can no longer even be compiled by a regular JAVA compiler. The same goes for smalltalk. In the end, I do not think that this should be thought of as some great advantage, but merely a convienience to people who don't want to learn C# syntax. Frankly, you should be able to pick up most of the syntax in a day - its the class library that'll take some time, and MS wants you to know their library regardless of the language syntax your prefer. All I am saying is that your smalltalk app won't compile with your smalltalk compiler anymore; you'll be stuck using .NET - the way MS wants it. It's brilliant especially the spin they can put on it: "you can use ay language you want on the .NET platform! YEAH!"
I've read a little about the different languages that are available for .NET and I've used J# before. What I found out was somewhat disturbing and can be found documented out on the web in several places. First, it is clearly stated by MS that the intent of J# (and other langauges available on the .NET platform) is not to be able to use JAVA as you would in its "natural habitat". They'll admit that basically they wanted to allow programmers that were familiar with the *syntax* of JAVA to feel comfortable on the .NET platform. They even provided something that resembled the JAVA class library, but is horribly out of date. Why? Because they don't want you to use the JAVA class libraries, they want you to use the .NET class libraries. The version of Java's libraries they provide is intended as a stepping stone as you port your app to use the .NET libraries. When you hear MS talking about being able to use smalltalk (or whatever) on .NET they're not talking about using smalltalk with its class library (although one may be provided by MS or a third party), they're talking about using smalltalk-ish syntax to make .NET library calls. This is also why you'll hear people who understand what .NET is calling it "themes for languages" - it merely a superficial thing.
I remember hearing (probably on slashdot) a conspiracy theory about why MS got off so easily by the justice department. Basically it went something like this: MS is not just a monopoly in the US but the globe, as such they act as a huge funnel, pumping money from over-seas into the US economy. Now, wouldn't the US gov't be crazy to close the valve on something like that? Especially in this economy. No wonder they couldn't be broken up. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar "conspiracy" keeps the US gov't from ever taking OSS seriously. The US gov't *wants* its multinational corporations to have global monopolies. They're at least willing to look the other way more than say for AT&T. The US gov't using OSS would give other coutries even more of an excuse to jump ship on MS ("look even the US gov't uses OSS! YEAH!").
I am going to start working out every day and I'll go find me a lion's mane to wear around(ebay for sure!). Once I'm really big and muscular I'll stop living by the laws of the land....I'll be able to do whatever I want because, hey, I'm not human - your laws don't apply to me. I'll make sure my lawyer cites this ruling as precedent.
You know that's why he's going. I am sure one of his advisors told him that "no, there wasn't any oil on the moon"..."how about mars?"..."well, we don't no for sure, sir."
:)
Isn't 2010 when we're supposed to get hydrogen vehicles? Not if GW's Texas based company finds OIL on mars first
The reason many people think open source software should be used in gov't is so contractors can't sell closed sourced solutions to the gov't that would require the gov't to go back to the original contractor everytime a change is needed. In other words, it is more cost-effective from the tax payer's point of view. If the code modifications can be made in house or there is a lower bidder this is better for the taxpayer (cost wise). Nothing MS will ever do will allow a gov't to do this. They may let you "see" some of the code and perhaps allow for encryption plugins (or what have you), but they'll never provide a license that says "this code is yours, feel free to make your own modifications."
Q:Microsoft made a lot of noise about .Net and Hailstorm, but that seems to have died off now. Any idea what is going on?
.Net, they tried to put the cart before the horse in two ways, first pushing Hailstorm instead of .Net, and then talking up the subscription features of Hailstorm. This made the company seem greedy and also confused developers who were trying to figure out what .Net actually was.
I think .Net could still be a useful platform for web services. But Microsoft has blown the explanation of .Net so completely that it may have to drop the whole thing, rename it, and start over. (emphasis mine)
A:For whatever reason, Microsoft was for a period of time obsessed with the notion of subscribers, whether for software, or Internet access, or whatever, but the idea of people paying an ongoing monthly fee rather than buying packaged software when they wanted to. Now they do have some subscription plans going, with MSN and Xbox Live. But with
Everyone always seems to talk as if once you put up PV you're set forever. Last time I checked they "wear out". I don't remember if it was 10 years or 20, but the point is they'll have to be replaced.
Maybe that's not clear, but I am at my iBook, using the just released X11, running konqueror off my linux box. Well, I was gonna post from safari, but it looks like a few others beat me to it.
Question: why is running konqueror over my 802.11b network on apple's X11 faster than running it locally (or perhaps they're the same speed)? Anyway, my point is either there is something wrong with X11 on my linux box or there is something very right about X11 on my mac. At any rate this beats the pants off terminal services.
Disney had a few people riding around the park on them and even had an exhibit in the technology center. I was and still am very skeptical but actually seeing one in action is very cool. Especially in a crowded park these guys were speeding around (with plenty of little kids around) and you could just tell by watching that they couldn't "run over" you. At the exhibit they would intentionally run into you and they just sort of stop. They literally stop on a dime. I just wish that they let you rent them to get around the park. If nothing else I certainly see the technology as a boon for parapalegics. A wheel chair that basically replaces your legs is a pretty neat idea (and based on another persons post something they're already working on). Anyway, there wasn't much to see at Disney, but seeing the segway and digital ink at epcot was almost worth the price of admission...