So it'll be released next year and I should care today because!??!?!
Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances ..
on
GNOME 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
And yes, I am a developer...
The horror, the horror!!!
Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances ..
on
GNOME 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Windows != more resources.
You're not a developer are you? That was so stupid that only the most pointy haired salesperson could have said it! Then again you contradict yourself in the next sentence, which only goes to show...
Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances ..
on
GNOME 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Because the GUI is simpler, and because it's the default it's more heavily optimized.
Either you're full of it or else something is wrong with Gnome. The GUI isn't simpler, it's the same friggin GUI! How do one optimize especially for spatial support, especially since the browser support both modes?
Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances ..
on
GNOME 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
If you use spatial nautilus it's extremely fast. If you don't, then it's not so fast. Pick your poison.
Why on earth would it be faster using spatial? If that is the case it must be seriously broken!!!
All contributors to the MySQL codebase have to sign-off on their code and the dual licensing
I've seen earlier interviews with MySQL staff where they said that they haven't included any code that was made by sources outside of MySQL, nor do they intend to...
If there really is a need for all these articles that explain what spatial file browsing is, how it works, and how it should be used -- then there is something seriously wrong with spatial browsing.
The ordinary tree structure has worked for millions of users, most were of them newbies when they got introduces to file browsing. I wager that there are no one (or very close to no one) who'll complain about the idea of a tree structure.
If people can use an ordinary index in a book, they can understand a tree structure. Most people will think in a manner that is similar to a tree structure; Let's see, pictures, vacation, 2003..
People like having multiple views of the same information. Why are virtual folders in e-mail applications so popular? Because they provide simple, logical views of the same date, used in different context!
It will be really interesting to hear Miguel's views on this! Earlier on, he stated that MS patents wouldn't be an obstacle for Mono and.Net based development on non-MS platforms...
(AMD and Qualcomm) would probably be very interested.
Those guys are probably the least interested. Their engineers know exactly how to make similar devices. The only ones that might be interested are some third world country's bootleg industry. And they can/will reverse engineer the devices anyhow.
All these "Oh, we can't release the specs, that would reveal our secrets!", are pretty full of it. There are very, very few hardware/software solutions that aren't widely known. It gets really silly when companies such as NVidia refuse to release info to the XFree community, due to their hardware secrets. For heaven's sake! Even the insides of such (more or less) proprietary devices as the PS2, the GameCube, and so on are well known...
Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows.
Why is it more expensive to develop using QT than Windows? Tools cost money as well and it isn't like all development libraries are free in the Windows world. Just take a look at what some third party suppliers charge for their Windows stuff!
The most important point is; with QT only the developer needs a license, not all end users. You know what? With Windows you need, at least, a Windows license...
Especially if they are operating on low margins, which are becoming more commonplace.
Bruce keeps referring to this being an enterprise distro. So it isn't target at your typical mom'n'pop store. A company that calls itself an enterprise and can afford a couple of QT licenses is seriously screwed up (ala the old dot-com:ers.)
I was looking for ideas against SPAM and nothing there
Spam is no biggie, use spamassassin or something similar. It cuts out some 99% of all spam.
The big problem is that people are scared that they'll miss out on a single valid mail. Because of this they don't want to use an aggressive anti-spam policy on their incoming mails
How many phone calls have you missed in your life? How many TV-/radio shows have you missed? How many times have a friend visited your house when you weren't home? I would think that those things have happend time and time again and it haven't wrecked your life. But missing out on a single email - Ohmigod!!!
Considering the time and effort that has gone into this file selector, the previews of porn pics ought to be able to jump out and give you a blow job...
Lack of a clear roadmap- Well, the idea with linux is to make it more stable, faster, and
Let's not forget that Microsoft totally redesign their roadmap every six months. If you are a software developer and have been developing for Windows, you've seen some 10 different ways of connecting to databases. Everytime MS comes out with a new development methodology it is announced as the ONE way to develop for the future. And if you wait around for one year, there is a completely different methodology being pushed by MS...
even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.
Sadly enough the "Don't hesitate, litigate" mentality of the public is holding technology back in many fields. If it's a good ol' idea that's killing people, such as guns and booze, it's OK. But if anything new comes along and even as much as distress someone it's got to go. "Oh, my god! I broke a fingernail on the computer keyboard. I'm gonna sue the manufacturer!!!"
Of course, this is only valid in the US. Which goes to show that you don't have to live in Iraq for the americans to come along and drag you into the dark ages.
Fuck it, not even I know if I'm trolling or being serious...
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
Well, perhaps you should take your own advice and actually READ the article. I'll quote you one passage that is especially incoherent;
What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?
SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement.
Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. But that doesn't mean that--well, let's use an example. Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files. So I don't think it's going to have an impact.
Is that a coherent answer? Hardly.
And since you wrote;
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier
public domain sources.
I can only assume that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand the question/answer I quoted above. The reporter is specifically asking about what will happen if it turns out that the source code in question was already released under a "Free" license.
As to the interviewer asking the hard questions we all want to ask... Almost every question has been asked and answered (albeit not very good) in other interviews and I can think of any number of new and more interesting questions.
And how the hell you can get modded up, when you're only spouting nonsense is beyond me!
And finally, NO! IBM didn't pay/sponsor me to write this. But if they wanted give me large sums of cash, I wouldn't turn them down!
Slashdot Mirror
So it'll be released next year and I should care today because!??!?!
And yes, I am a developer ...
The horror, the horror!!!Windows != more resources.
You're not a developer are you? That was so stupid that only the most pointy haired salesperson could have said it! Then again you contradict yourself in the next sentence, which only goes to show...Because the GUI is simpler, and because it's the default it's more heavily optimized.
Either you're full of it or else something is wrong with Gnome. The GUI isn't simpler, it's the same friggin GUI! How do one optimize especially for spatial support, especially since the browser support both modes?If you use spatial nautilus it's extremely fast. If you don't, then it's not so fast. Pick your poison.
Why on earth would it be faster using spatial? If that is the case it must be seriously broken!!!I hope you are reporting them!
All contributors to the MySQL codebase have to sign-off on their code and the dual licensing
I've seen earlier interviews with MySQL staff where they said that they haven't included any code that was made by sources outside of MySQL, nor do they intend to...
If there really is a need for all these articles that explain what spatial file browsing is, how it works, and how it should be used -- then there is something seriously wrong with spatial browsing.
The ordinary tree structure has worked for millions of users, most were of them newbies when they got introduces to file browsing. I wager that there are no one (or very close to no one) who'll complain about the idea of a tree structure.
If people can use an ordinary index in a book, they can understand a tree structure. Most people will think in a manner that is similar to a tree structure; Let's see, pictures, vacation, 2003..
People like having multiple views of the same information. Why are virtual folders in e-mail applications so popular? Because they provide simple, logical views of the same date, used in different context!
I'll make out like a bandit!
It will be really interesting to hear Miguel's views on this! Earlier on, he stated that MS patents wouldn't be an obstacle for Mono and .Net based development on non-MS platforms...
It's pronounced same ol'
(AMD and Qualcomm) would probably be very interested.
Those guys are probably the least interested. Their engineers know exactly how to make similar devices. The only ones that might be interested are some third world country's bootleg industry. And they can/will reverse engineer the devices anyhow.
All these "Oh, we can't release the specs, that would reveal our secrets!", are pretty full of it. There are very, very few hardware/software solutions that aren't widely known. It gets really silly when companies such as NVidia refuse to release info to the XFree community, due to their hardware secrets. For heaven's sake! Even the insides of such (more or less) proprietary devices as the PS2, the GameCube, and so on are well known...
1) You need to learn forth (I mean properly) to appreciate it.
In this case the word to use is "love", rather than "appreciate". Darn it, it's a lovely language!
The original GBA display also sucked. This was fixed with GBA SP but it was too late.
Too late? Dude, do you know how many GBA Nintendo sold? Yup, gazillions. And that's before the GBA SP...
Further more, I'm close to 40, and I love all those first party games you listed!
...once and for all, so that we needn't go through this darned discussion every second week!
I suppose it will be easy to run a company-standard customization script to install whatever was not installed that is needed.
But then you are pretty muched screwed when it comes to commercial support. Then you might as well use a standard Debian distro!
Many companies would cringe if they were told that developing for Linux is more expensive than developing for Windows.
Why is it more expensive to develop using QT than Windows? Tools cost money as well and it isn't like all development libraries are free in the Windows world. Just take a look at what some third party suppliers charge for their Windows stuff!
The most important point is; with QT only the developer needs a license, not all end users. You know what? With Windows you need, at least, a Windows license...
Especially if they are operating on low margins, which are becoming more commonplace.
Bruce keeps referring to this being an enterprise distro. So it isn't target at your typical mom'n'pop store. A company that calls itself an enterprise and can afford a couple of QT licenses is seriously screwed up (ala the old dot-com:ers.)
>>The gtk file selector was a joke, for example)
...and a bad one at that!
>It's still a joke!
I was looking for ideas against SPAM and nothing there
Spam is no biggie, use spamassassin or something similar. It cuts out some 99% of all spam.
The big problem is that people are scared that they'll miss out on a single valid mail. Because of this they don't want to use an aggressive anti-spam policy on their incoming mails
How many phone calls have you missed in your life? How many TV-/radio shows have you missed? How many times have a friend visited your house when you weren't home? I would think that those things have happend time and time again and it haven't wrecked your life. But missing out on a single email - Ohmigod!!!
Considering the time and effort that has gone into this file selector, the previews of porn pics ought to be able to jump out and give you a blow job...
Lack of a clear roadmap- Well, the idea with linux is to make it more stable, faster, and
Let's not forget that Microsoft totally redesign their roadmap every six months. If you are a software developer and have been developing for Windows, you've seen some 10 different ways of connecting to databases. Everytime MS comes out with a new development methodology it is announced as the ONE way to develop for the future. And if you wait around for one year, there is a completely different methodology being pushed by MS...
RMS is only the person, the whole entity is GNU/RMS!
...and I'm suing the army for a gazillion dollars!
even 1 accident would launch liability lawsuits galore.
Sadly enough the "Don't hesitate, litigate" mentality of the public is holding technology back in many fields. If it's a good ol' idea that's killing people, such as guns and booze, it's OK. But if anything new comes along and even as much as distress someone it's got to go. "Oh, my god! I broke a fingernail on the computer keyboard. I'm gonna sue the manufacturer!!!"
Of course, this is only valid in the US. Which goes to show that you don't have to live in Iraq for the americans to come along and drag you into the dark ages.
Fuck it, not even I know if I'm trolling or being serious...
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
Well, perhaps you should take your own advice and actually READ the article. I'll quote you one passage that is especially incoherent;
What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?
SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. But that doesn't mean that--well, let's use an example. Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files. So I don't think it's going to have an impact.
Is that a coherent answer? Hardly.
And since you wrote;
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier public domain sources.
I can only assume that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand the question/answer I quoted above. The reporter is specifically asking about what will happen if it turns out that the source code in question was already released under a "Free" license.
As to the interviewer asking the hard questions we all want to ask... Almost every question has been asked and answered (albeit not very good) in other interviews and I can think of any number of new and more interesting questions.
And how the hell you can get modded up, when you're only spouting nonsense is beyond me!
And finally, NO! IBM didn't pay/sponsor me to write this. But if they wanted give me large sums of cash, I wouldn't turn them down!