Re:I don't like it
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is oh such a troll !
Giving choice has never been a problem in the Open source world, and the good ol' argument about "all those people are wasting their energy, they should team up !" doesn't take into account the way people work.
If anyone likes a project, he will join it. But if he doesn't, he will start hims. Is this a problem ? There is no such think as a best solution for the environment/distro/kernel choice ; being able to take whatever best fits your need is hence a big plus.
I am a CS teacher (hum, preparing a PhD actually), and let me tell you that this kind of tool isn't necessary (-:
When you read/correct code, cheaters are usually the cluess, panicked students ; hence, they copy whatever they can, included the stupidest mistakes. Tracking them is rather easy, really.
But this is for "paper work" ; note that we never ask students to perform computer assignments alone, we just want to know who they worked with.
What I personnaly don't understand there is that, either if this idea may explain the origin of life on Earth, its recursive nature doesn't shed any light on the origin of life, generally speaking.
Isn't the problem more about choosing between keeping a BSD-style license and restricting it to a GPL-like one ? Anyway, I don't see your point : why would suppressing all licensing on the code allow "big companies" to make "profit off the hard work of volunteer developers" ? Note that BSD-style licenses
don't prohibit this ; and GPL-like neither !
The main difference between them, if I understand correctly, is about the contribution of modified parts of the code back to the main source. A BSD-like license doesn't enforce this (which explains the quoted coder's explanation of his company's behaviour) where the GPL makes illegal to distribute a modified code without giving its source to the people who you gave the binaries to.
In either case, note that all of this has nothing to do with money : as an exemple, with a GPL source you aren't even allowed to give a modified version of the code and to keep its source.
May I precise that, even it it can be fooled into generating any kind of document, its main purpose is in documenting source code ? It then exports to HTML, RTF, LaTeX, man, info, you name it. Oh, and it parses at least C, C++ and Java, probably other langages too.
The interesting bit is that they didn't try to reinvent the wheel : the documentation is just a specific kind of comment (/*! My doc */ or//! My doc in C++) which is parsed by doxygen, which associates it with the following language entity (class, member, function, whatever). If you need more subtleties, specific commands can be embedded in those comments also.
The parser understands QT's and javadoc comments,
also, so the switching from those will be a non-brainer.
Bad points are the software releases, even thou most of the software is free, it can either not compile, not like the version of libraries you have, or need libraries you cant find. You don't have these problems on the windows os.
Give me a break.
If you like to fiddle with software compilation, reading./configure's options and messages will help you setting up a software without much problems.
If you don't, downloading any compiled software will probably not work, yes.
But, seriously : I use debian's package system, at the "unstable" level, and I never had the kind of problems you relate because apt-get checks the system and installs what is needed. And if really I had a problem with a poorly packaged binary (which debian's policies makes rather unlikely), I can download a source package and have it compiled.
I love/. for this. The OP was american-centered, and here you come adding some more.
I am french, and being told that the only opportunities of development work are weel-paid jobs in the US or cheap routine work anywhere else makes me laught. Whatever.
I agree with you on the "not from scratch" part ; but note that I'm being told that the only approching tool biologists have nowadays is taking cells and putting them in an specially iradiated enucleated egg, which grows a full organism.
The problem I have with this article (hum, or this fifteen lines summary, should I say) is that they leap directly from "we took undifferentiated cells" to "we implanted the new eyeball in the toadpole".
So, if they've been able to grow a single organ and not a total organism, that's already very interesting, even if it's not "from scratch" (which is a totally different, and much more complicated problem).
Hum, I agree with you on the fact that most educated linux users wouldn't run a binary as root (but what about the a friend just installed linux on my box, and now here's a DVD player I can download ! This is so k3wl ! population ?).
Nevertheless, think about the good ol' ./configure
make
(become root)
make install
Seems familiar, anyone ? Tell me about software engineering...
Note that this is a way better mode of propagation, since you are given the opportunity to compile for a particular architecture, test all the security holes your want during the configure process, and mess with the system without troubling most of us...
I think they're very right about the brain needing training to adapt to this. I'm pretty confident it could do it, but I don't know how much training it would take.
IANAB, but I remember some experiments about human vision which involved wearing during some days glasses-like devices which comprised prisms and reverted the left/right, up/down or both.
It took people some hours to adjust, but then they could react properly again to their environment (walking and the like).
So, yes, our visual cortex is very flexible to unexpected visual stimuli modifications, and seems to adjusts in a relatively short time...
Without windows, full spectrums lights are as close as I can get.
Humm, watch out here. Are you understating that better lighting applications exists under Windows ?
I can hear the/. crowd hitting at your door from here...
Olivier
Re:answers : no & no - Re:Impressive [...] ske
on
LindowsOS Marches On
·
· Score: 1
> 2. they won't contribute back to GPL. They are here to make money you know.
I don't understand your point. Making money is not something which is a priori incompatible with the GPL. And anyway, the fact of distributing some GPLed code, modified or not (selling it or not doesn't make any difference) impose you to make its source code available (at least to your clients).
They can choose to ignore the GPL, but on such a sensible project it will be shortly screened ; note that their letter insist on the fact that they target "sophisticated" users.
> 2. They fail. We are all deeply fucked because evryone will laugh saying : "linux is not for the desktop", "windows is easier", etc.
How deeply fucked I will get, indeed ! Seriously, where did you get the idea that Linux's goal was "the desktop" ? There is no roadmap, the system will evolve by integrating its users' developments, as it always has.
Slashdot Mirror
I do concur. I just finished the atrocity archives; definitely worth a read for us slashdot geeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant). Yucky.
This is oh such a troll !
Giving choice has never been a problem in the Open source world, and the good ol' argument about "all those people are wasting their energy, they should team up !" doesn't take into account the way people work.
If anyone likes a project, he will join it. But if he doesn't, he will start hims. Is this a problem ? There is no such think as a best solution for the environment/distro/kernel choice ; being able to take whatever best fits your need is hence a big plus.
I am a CS teacher (hum, preparing a PhD actually), and let me tell you that this kind of tool isn't necessary (-:
When you read/correct code, cheaters are usually the cluess, panicked students ; hence, they copy whatever they can, included the stupidest mistakes. Tracking them is rather easy, really.
But this is for "paper work" ; note that we never ask students to perform computer assignments alone, we just want to know who they worked with.
What I personnaly don't understand there is that, either if this idea may explain the origin of life on Earth, its recursive nature doesn't shed any light on the origin of life, generally speaking.
Isn't the problem more about choosing between keeping a BSD-style license and restricting it to a GPL-like one ? Anyway, I don't see your point : why would suppressing all licensing on the code allow "big companies" to make "profit off the hard work of volunteer developers" ? Note that BSD-style licenses don't prohibit this ; and GPL-like neither !
The main difference between them, if I understand correctly, is about the contribution of modified parts of the code back to the main source. A BSD-like license doesn't enforce this (which explains the quoted coder's explanation of his company's behaviour) where the GPL makes illegal to distribute a modified code without giving its source to the people who you gave the binaries to.
In either case, note that all of this has nothing to do with money : as an exemple, with a GPL source you aren't even allowed to give a modified version of the code and to keep its source.
I use Doxygen also, and I love it.
//! My doc in C++) which is parsed by doxygen, which associates it with the following language entity (class, member, function, whatever). If you need more subtleties, specific commands can be embedded in those comments also.
May I precise that, even it it can be fooled into generating any kind of document, its main purpose is in documenting source code ? It then exports to HTML, RTF, LaTeX, man, info, you name it. Oh, and it parses at least C, C++ and Java, probably other langages too.
The interesting bit is that they didn't try to reinvent the wheel : the documentation is just a specific kind of comment (/*! My doc */ or
The parser understands QT's and javadoc comments, also, so the switching from those will be a non-brainer.
Olivier.
Bad points are the software releases, even thou most of the software is free, it can either not compile, not like the version of libraries you have, or need libraries you cant find. You don't have these problems on the windows os.
./configure's options and messages will help you setting up a software without much problems.
If you don't, downloading any compiled software will probably not work, yes.
Give me a break.
If you like to fiddle with software compilation, reading
But, seriously : I use debian's package system, at the "unstable" level, and I never had the kind of problems you relate because apt-get checks the system and installs what is needed. And if really I had a problem with a poorly packaged binary (which debian's policies makes rather unlikely), I can download a source package and have it compiled.
So, what's your point ?
Olivier.
I love /. for this. The OP was american-centered, and here you come adding some more.
I am french, and being told that the only opportunities of development work are weel-paid jobs in the US or cheap routine work anywhere else makes me laught. Whatever.
No offence intended...
Olivier
I agree with you on the "not from scratch" part ; but note that I'm being told that the only approching tool biologists have nowadays is taking cells and putting them in an specially iradiated enucleated egg, which grows a full organism.
The problem I have with this article (hum, or this fifteen lines summary, should I say) is that they leap directly from "we took undifferentiated cells" to "we implanted the new eyeball in the toadpole".
So, if they've been able to grow a single organ and not a total organism, that's already very interesting, even if it's not "from scratch" (which is a totally different, and much more complicated problem).
Olivier
Hum, I agree with you on the fact that most educated linux users wouldn't run a binary as root (but what about the a friend just installed linux on my box, and now here's a DVD player I can download ! This is so k3wl ! population ?).
./configure
Nevertheless, think about the good ol'
make
(become root)
make install
Seems familiar, anyone ? Tell me about software engineering...
Note that this is a way better mode of propagation, since you are given the opportunity to compile for a particular architecture, test all the security holes your want during the configure process, and mess with the system without troubling most of us...
Olivier.
I think they're very right about the brain needing training to adapt to this. I'm pretty confident it could do it, but I don't know how much training it would take.
IANAB, but I remember some experiments about human vision which involved wearing during some days glasses-like devices which comprised prisms and reverted the left/right, up/down or both.
It took people some hours to adjust, but then they could react properly again to their environment (walking and the like).
So, yes, our visual cortex is very flexible to unexpected visual stimuli modifications, and seems to adjusts in a relatively short time...
Olivier.
Without windows, full spectrums lights are as close as I can get.
/. crowd hitting at your door from here...
Humm, watch out here. Are you understating that better lighting applications exists under Windows ?
I can hear the
Olivier
> 2. they won't contribute back to GPL. They are here to make money you know.
I don't understand your point. Making money is not something which is a priori incompatible with the GPL. And anyway, the fact of distributing some GPLed code, modified or not (selling it or not doesn't make any difference) impose you to make its source code available (at least to your clients).
They can choose to ignore the GPL, but on such a sensible project it will be shortly screened ; note that their letter insist on the fact that they target "sophisticated" users.
> 2. They fail. We are all deeply fucked because evryone will laugh saying : "linux is not for the desktop", "windows is easier", etc.
How deeply fucked I will get, indeed ! Seriously, where did you get the idea that Linux's goal was "the desktop" ? There is no roadmap, the system will evolve by integrating its users' developments, as it always has.
Olivier.