Finally, a web-server scripting environment giving you all the features you always missed, like coredumps, buffer overflows and format string errors...
Re:Maybe those with hope in YellowTab will wake up
on
Be Throws in the Towel
·
· Score: 4, Funny
a Free Be
I always thought they would have been more successful if they changed their name to "Beer".
Not having used PHP for about a year or so (I think it was 4.0.2 back then) and noticing that people start to use it for something roughly like real apps, could someone care to talk about whether it improved?
I always saw PHP as a nice tool for exactly one job - quickly hacking toghether dynamic web sites. It's great at that, but I never felt it suitable for bigger projects (not even bigger websites, but GUI apps - I guess typing <?php in every file gets boring really fast...)
For example, it's OO is rather weak - and it totally lacked any support for modularization, except the dirty include_once hack.
I just made the experience. The nice small company I used to work at got bought by our large competitor (having a programmer-consultant ratio of roughly 1:250). The first thing they asked me was about experience in programming languages. Learning computer languages is a hobby of mine, so I answered I knew VB, C, C++, Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Common Lisp, O'Caml, Haskell, Shell and Smalltalk, with varying levels of experience (I didn't feel mentioning Intercal and BrainF**k would impress them...).
Their next question was, of course, if I had experience with MFC. I haven't, and they let me know that my paycheck will remind me getting it.
Then again, I'm not a CS student, nor have I ever been, so I cannot say if they don't want CS students who are only able to learn _one_ programming language...
Students will pretty much do what their teachers tell them. I don't know about your side of the atlantic, but over here that is mostly Java these days - though I heard that the EE department at my university collectivly switched to.NET already.
The only thing I'd like to see from the OpenBSD guys would be a write-up of the gathered wisdom, in form of a "Code-auditing Howto". Unless everybody starts using OBSD (not due this week, unfortunatly), it would be nice if they would share their knowledge so that other platforms like, say, Linux, could benefit.
But then I guess producing a high quality operating system keeps then busy enough...
For a Visio replacement, look at theKompanys Kivio. I think its crap that it is included in KOffice, scince it is unusable when you just want the Free parts of it (stencils are not free in any sense of the word (though cheap), and the stencil builder isn't either), but for a commercial product, it might blow away Visio. If only for being completly Python-scriptable. Kiss VBA goodbye!
IIRC, it's also available for non-Unix platforms (well, at least for the only one left).
a reaction to the stance of many customers take, who out of principle do not allow free [as in beer] software to be used for mission-critical applications.
So, nobody uses Solaris for mission-critical applications, then?
I didn't intend to start a license flamewar. I didn't even mention the BSD license, and I didn't say anything about rights being denied writers - I just claim that the "freedom is a licensing issue" approach (regardless of which license, GPL od BSD or Apache etc) overlook the writers freedom.
I talk about a stylistic issue
- even when your point is valid, you shouldn't annoy people. Insisting on silly details where totally inappropriate (and the insisting on GNU/Linux in the GCC manual is as appropriate as posting command-line parameters on the/. front-page) will do the Free Software community no good. That is my point, nothing else.
Oh, and if you would care to explain how exactly the BSD license leads to feudalism...
Show me how you develop a KDE app without linking with Qt, please...
However, Qt is not only GLPed, but also available under the QPL and a commercial license - and it's not even that expensive to buy a commercial version (AFAIR ~2K$ per developer per platform) if you plan to develop proprietary apps. It's probably more about what Sun might think that those licensing issues might imply than what they really do.
(Please note that I do not want to bash KDE or Trolltech because of this. Even if it were a problem to develop proprietary apps for KDE (and the available apps e.g. from theKompany imply the opposite), I couldn't care less.)
KDE and GNOME interoperability is only of interest in the Linux world.
Uh, why? It might not be of interest to Sun[1], but both Gnome and KDE run on many more platforms than just Linux.
[1] And IMHO, it should be - there are some really nice KDE apps, why shouldn't Sun want their customers be able to use them without unnecessary quirks, once Gnome is the "official" Solaris desktop? Then again,/me is quite confident with the current state of interoperability.
Suns argument is mostly that they know C better than C++ - but I doubt that this is that relevant for a company like sun.
Another explanation is that it's easier to develop proprietary software for Gnome: GTK and most Gnome-Libs are LGPL, while, if you would use KDE, you would either have to purchase a commercial license for Qt, or to use the GPL version (and, hence, make your own app Free). Sun probably isn't comfortable telling their customers either to stop producing closed-source apps for Solaris, or to pay money to some other company.
Actually, I am posting from a FreeBSD machine right now. That's where I read the GCC manual, what actually makes it even more annoying - not because I don't want anything GNU on my holy BSD (after all, FreeBSD does use their compiler - I'm fine with that), but because the Linux vs. GNU/Linux war isn't really relevant for me.
Also, I agree that Free Software is a better concept than Open Source, although the GNU approach isn't mine - for instance, they completely miss the freedom of the people writing the software and focus on the users only. However, there are better places to discuss such stuff than a compiler manual - the philosophy pages at GNU.org come to mind (and/. of course;).
I respect the GNU approach, and wouldn't know any reason why they shouldn't point it out. But they developed an annoying practice of shouting pointless rants on quite unimportant details at inappropriate places. I'm sure most people reading the GCC manual know a bit about GNU, and if they care, about the GNU/Linux|Linux thingie. Can't we just get along and write code?
Re:People accomplish things
on
Linux and Mac OS X
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Aaah, it's nice to once again hear this, after all this focusing on how to make money with open source!
Before the Linux hype, it was quite common knowledge (or, at least, opinion) that Free Software is not only great because of its unbeatable price or even the "philosophic" implications (that come down to "be kind to your customers" when restricted to licenses), but because of its quality, which in turn is directly related to the freedom of programmers - at least as important as the freedoms of software users.
Not only do people not need management, they can build better things without worrying about deadlines (leading to "good enough" solutions), corporate politics, marketability etc. Free programmers can focus on doing the Right Thing, which is often not possible in a corporate environment. The results of this are where the pride of the free software movement should come from, not the sympathy of venture capitalists or IBM or Apple.
Could our beloved Editors perhaps consider not to post links to stories without any content?
What the heck is the point of this article? OS X is more polished than KDE/Gnome, Windows is not so stable, you can use Linux as a server for Macs... News at eleven!
One "bug" I would really like to see fixed in GCC is the bogus "Linux and the GNU project" section in the info manual. Heck, it's supposed to be a compiler documentation, not a general "The world according to the FSF" rant.
What's next, the Emacs scratch buffer explaining why Free Software is better than Open Source? ls(1) warning about Non-GNU licensed binaries?
Slashdot Mirror
"It's my gun, and I can shoot everyone I want with it." Yeah, that's America...
Finally, a web-server scripting environment giving you all the features you always missed, like coredumps, buffer overflows and format string errors...
I always thought they would have been more successful if they changed their name to "Beer".
I always saw PHP as a nice tool for exactly one job - quickly hacking toghether dynamic web sites. It's great at that, but I never felt it suitable for bigger projects (not even bigger websites, but GUI apps - I guess typing <?php in every file gets boring really fast...)
For example, it's OO is rather weak - and it totally lacked any support for modularization, except the dirty include_once hack.
oh wait, that never materialized.
Yeah - after all, who uses stuff like Delphi/Kylix outside academia?
I just made the experience. The nice small company I used to work at got bought by our large competitor (having a programmer-consultant ratio of roughly 1:250). The first thing they asked me was about experience in programming languages. Learning computer languages is a hobby of mine, so I answered I knew VB, C, C++, Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Common Lisp, O'Caml, Haskell, Shell and Smalltalk, with varying levels of experience (I didn't feel mentioning Intercal and BrainF**k would impress them...).
Their next question was, of course, if I had experience with MFC. I haven't, and they let me know that my paycheck will remind me getting it.
Then again, I'm not a CS student, nor have I ever been, so I cannot say if they don't want CS students who are only able to learn _one_ programming language...
Students will pretty much do what their teachers tell them. I don't know about your side of the atlantic, but over here that is mostly Java these days - though I heard that the EE department at my university collectivly switched to .NET already.
Try reading the article, not just the /. post. The domain in question is barcelona.com.
You mean, like providing all or your content to you for free so you get loads of page impressions?
HURD = HIRD of Unix-Replacing Daemons, where
HIRD = HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth.
But then I guess producing a high quality operating system keeps then busy enough...
IIRC, it's also available for non-Unix platforms (well, at least for the only one left).
How on earth are either KOffice of Gnome Office more "feature rich" than this bloated piece of crap?
So, nobody uses Solaris for mission-critical applications, then?
I didn't intend to start a license flamewar. I didn't even mention the BSD license, and I didn't say anything about rights being denied writers - I just claim that the "freedom is a licensing issue" approach (regardless of which license, GPL od BSD or Apache etc) overlook the writers freedom.
I talk about a stylistic issue - even when your point is valid, you shouldn't annoy people. Insisting on silly details where totally inappropriate (and the insisting on GNU/Linux in the GCC manual is as appropriate as posting command-line parameters on the /. front-page) will do the Free Software community no good. That is my point, nothing else.
Oh, and if you would care to explain how exactly the BSD license leads to feudalism...
Show me how you develop a KDE app without linking with Qt, please...
However, Qt is not only GLPed, but also available under the QPL and a commercial license - and it's not even that expensive to buy a commercial version (AFAIR ~2K$ per developer per platform) if you plan to develop proprietary apps. It's probably more about what Sun might think that those licensing issues might imply than what they really do.
(Please note that I do not want to bash KDE or Trolltech because of this. Even if it were a problem to develop proprietary apps for KDE (and the available apps e.g. from theKompany imply the opposite), I couldn't care less.)
Uh, why? It might not be of interest to Sun[1], but both Gnome and KDE run on many more platforms than just Linux.
[1] And IMHO, it should be - there are some really nice KDE apps, why shouldn't Sun want their customers be able to use them without unnecessary quirks, once Gnome is the "official" Solaris desktop? Then again, /me is quite confident with the current state of interoperability.
Another explanation is that it's easier to develop proprietary software for Gnome: GTK and most Gnome-Libs are LGPL, while, if you would use KDE, you would either have to purchase a commercial license for Qt, or to use the GPL version (and, hence, make your own app Free). Sun probably isn't comfortable telling their customers either to stop producing closed-source apps for Solaris, or to pay money to some other company.
Also, I agree that Free Software is a better concept than Open Source, although the GNU approach isn't mine - for instance, they completely miss the freedom of the people writing the software and focus on the users only. However, there are better places to discuss such stuff than a compiler manual - the philosophy pages at GNU.org come to mind (and /. of course ;).
I respect the GNU approach, and wouldn't know any reason why they shouldn't point it out. But they developed an annoying practice of shouting pointless rants on quite unimportant details at inappropriate places. I'm sure most people reading the GCC manual know a bit about GNU, and if they care, about the GNU/Linux|Linux thingie. Can't we just get along and write code?
Before the Linux hype, it was quite common knowledge (or, at least, opinion) that Free Software is not only great because of its unbeatable price or even the "philosophic" implications (that come down to "be kind to your customers" when restricted to licenses), but because of its quality, which in turn is directly related to the freedom of programmers - at least as important as the freedoms of software users.
Not only do people not need management, they can build better things without worrying about deadlines (leading to "good enough" solutions), corporate politics, marketability etc. Free programmers can focus on doing the Right Thing, which is often not possible in a corporate environment. The results of this are where the pride of the free software movement should come from, not the sympathy of venture capitalists or IBM or Apple.What the heck is the point of this article? OS X is more polished than KDE/Gnome, Windows is not so stable, you can use Linux as a server for Macs... News at eleven!
What's next, the Emacs scratch buffer explaining why Free Software is better than Open Source? ls(1) warning about Non-GNU licensed binaries?