As I said before, "it doesn't work" is too vague a question to give a meaningful answer. What code doesn't work, and in what way does it fail? What errors are reported?
There was no Perl 5.4 - Do you mean 5.004? If so, that's a very old version of Perl - OS/X ships with the current version, which is 5.6. Check out the perldelta man page to find out what has changed.
Also, if you have the first-edition Learning Perl (the cover is pink), you should be aware that it teaches Perl 4 - it was published long before Perl 5 was released. There are *major* differences between Perls 4 and 5, and you'd be well-advised to buy the new edition.
Beyond that - do you have a specific question? "They do not work" is too vague to give a meaningful answer.
What happens when any given application installs it's own shared libraries, and those libraries become SO USEFUL, and SO USED BY OTHER APPS that they naturally become part of the OS?
While it's true that it's not there yet, one of the stated goals of the GNUStep project is to remain current with the evolution of NeXT to OpenStep and now to Cocoa. They even refer you to the Cocoa docs to refer to while programming GNUStep.
Right now the only thing holding me back from using it all the time is the fact that whatever I code using the Cocoa APIs are going to be MacOS X only.
Ummm...okay, I looked, and I don't see any servers there. The biggest machine I see is a dual-cpu workstation that maxes out at 2GB. You can get it with OS/X Server preinstalled, which is handy if you're administering a workgroup, but software alone does not a server make.
Try this: "Show Info" on the binary, and in the "General Information" section, look to see if the "Open in the Classic Environment" checkbox is active. If not, enable it.
The point of this discussion isn't what I think, it's what Aunt Tillie thinks. To her, rebuilding a kernel and rebuilding a carburetor fall into the same category - "too damned hard."
It won't make it easier for the masses, it will make it more difficult. Yes, you can get a performance boost - you can do the same for your car by rebuilding your (I'm dating myself now) carbeurator. Aunt Tillie won't do that, so what makes you think she'll want to rebuild her kernel?
This should be taken seriously, folks. Think back - The WWW caught MS napping. They never saw it coming. And yet, in just a few years, Bill turned the company around to face the "threat," and now there is serious talk of a MS-dominated internet.
There's an old saying that goes "familiarity breeds contempt." It's all too easy to dismiss MS as incompetent - easy and foolish. MS hires hordes of the best and the brightest programmers anywhere. The numerous security holes in current MS products are not the result of idiotic programming, they're the result of idiotic policies, dictated from the top, that emphasized features over security and stability.
With the rising sentiment against "bloatware" and security problems, MS can address two customer demands at once here. MS has successfully made huge and abrupt changes in strategic direction in the past, and there is every reason to think that they could do so again.
Then along came digital cable and satellite programming which required installation of a decoder for each tv (or at least each tv that didn't want to watch what everyone else was watching at that moment).
The emphasis is mine. While you do need a decoder for each TV, you're not legally required to rent them from your cable provider. If you're paying for the service, you can purchase your own decoder. That's why the decoders you see for sale in the back of electronics magazines are not considered "illegal circumvention devices" - they have a legitimate, legal use.
Customers will upgrade or face having 4 broadcast channels.
Four! Luxury! When I was a kid we only had three, and we had to crank the TV antenna around by hand, because we could only get decent reception on one of them at a time. (Yes, I lived in the sticks...)
Slashdot Mirror
As I said before, "it doesn't work" is too vague a question to give a meaningful answer. What code doesn't work, and in what way does it fail? What errors are reported?
There was no Perl 5.4 - Do you mean 5.004? If so, that's a very old version of Perl - OS/X ships with the current version, which is 5.6. Check out the perldelta man page to find out what has changed.
Also, if you have the first-edition Learning Perl (the cover is pink), you should be aware that it teaches Perl 4 - it was published long before Perl 5 was released. There are *major* differences between Perls 4 and 5, and you'd be well-advised to buy the new edition.
Beyond that - do you have a specific question? "They do not work" is too vague to give a meaningful answer.
Heh - that was my first thought. Borland's licensing terms? Borland's???
My, how times have changed...
What happens when any given application installs it's own shared libraries, and those libraries become SO USEFUL, and SO USED BY OTHER APPS that they naturally become part of the OS?
Isn't that how GTK began, as the GIMP Tool Kit?
While it's true that it's not there yet, one of the stated goals of the GNUStep project is to remain current with the evolution of NeXT to OpenStep and now to Cocoa. They even refer you to the Cocoa docs to refer to while programming GNUStep.
the two are not 100% compatible
Have you filed a bug report? Patches?
Right now the only thing holding me back from using it all the time is the fact that whatever I code using the Cocoa APIs are going to be MacOS X only.
Ever heard of GNUStep?
Apparently some tibook owners use pcmcia cards because they get better range than with the builtin card.
That's just because the metal case interferes with reception when the internal antenna is used. It's got nothing to do with the OS.
Ummm...okay, I looked, and I don't see any servers there. The biggest machine I see is a dual-cpu workstation that maxes out at 2GB. You can get it with OS/X Server preinstalled, which is handy if you're administering a workgroup, but software alone does not a server make.
Try this: "Show Info" on the binary, and in the "General Information" section, look to see if the "Open in the Classic Environment" checkbox is active. If not, enable it.
Wouldn't it be great if every Mac/WinTel computer came with a stripped-down, Timbuktu-like program as part of the operating system?
Ummm... every Mac now comes with cron and sshd already installed. What more do you need?
The point of this discussion isn't what I think, it's what Aunt Tillie thinks. To her, rebuilding a kernel and rebuilding a carburetor fall into the same category - "too damned hard."
It won't make it easier for the masses, it will make it more difficult. Yes, you can get a performance boost - you can do the same for your car by rebuilding your (I'm dating myself now) carbeurator. Aunt Tillie won't do that, so what makes you think she'll want to rebuild her kernel?
Get real. Aunt Tillie thinks kernels are something you find on a ear of corn.
In order for them to deliver on the promise, they will have to radically redesign their OS from the inside out
Yeah, that would be as hard as porting the Macintosh to a BSD personality running on a Mach microkernel. No one could ever do that.
This should be taken seriously, folks. Think back - The WWW caught MS napping. They never saw it coming. And yet, in just a few years, Bill turned the company around to face the "threat," and now there is serious talk of a MS-dominated internet.
There's an old saying that goes "familiarity breeds contempt." It's all too easy to dismiss MS as incompetent - easy and foolish. MS hires hordes of the best and the brightest programmers anywhere. The numerous security holes in current MS products are not the result of idiotic programming, they're the result of idiotic policies, dictated from the top, that emphasized features over security and stability.
With the rising sentiment against "bloatware" and security problems, MS can address two customer demands at once here. MS has successfully made huge and abrupt changes in strategic direction in the past, and there is every reason to think that they could do so again.
Then along came digital cable and satellite programming which required installation of a decoder for each tv (or at least each tv that didn't want to watch what everyone else was watching at that moment).
The emphasis is mine. While you do need a decoder for each TV, you're not legally required to rent them from your cable provider. If you're paying for the service, you can purchase your own decoder. That's why the decoders you see for sale in the back of electronics magazines are not considered "illegal circumvention devices" - they have a legitimate, legal use.
Customers will upgrade or face having 4 broadcast channels.
Four! Luxury! When I was a kid we only had three, and we had to crank the TV antenna around by hand, because we could only get decent reception on one of them at a time. (Yes, I lived in the sticks...)