"...but you know, $99/yr for the latest-and-greatest version on 5 PCs, which covers my whole family and my laptop (not to mention the ability to move licenses around very easily and the ability to temporarily run it somewhere else if needed) isn't a bad deal at all as it turns out."
It is a bad deal when compared to LibreOffice that doesn't have a limit on number of PCs, and doesn't require a subscription/year amount of money. Their updates are available anytime you want, too.
...... "God complex" is really justified when most of the idiots on the system can easily cause significant problems, which are then blamed onto the IT because "it's the software that's broken!" The users are never at fault.
So why is it that the users doing their work on the system that (for which they are blamed when they don't get their work done) cause the significant problems, according to the "God complex" Administrators? Why is it that the only system problems is the work that the users must do?
1. The Patent Office actually does searches on prior software & methods before granting/rubber-stamping that application, and expecting the courts to do the searching for them. 2. Only Software Experts/Engineers, on more than just Microsoft Development Programming minimally, should be doing the patent examinations/patent searches/patent approvals. 3. USPO should have the power to reject an approved patent at any time, for a minimum of 'patent application in bad faith.
These points would be a start for my satisfaction.
I have 40 years experience porting code and Drivers to various OSes and processors...OSes like Freescale MQX, TI DSP Bios, WxWidgets APIs, and/or Linux. Most of my C code is written with the 'write once' philosophy.
I know I shouldn't reply to an obvious troll like this, but this attitude of yours bothers me. I've seen that 'can't be done' attitude fthat you are demonstrating in your post.....quite frankly it sucks.
Saying "easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms" does not imply that the software is easy to write to begin with. I was implying that the 98% more effort to consider your approach was actually more work up-front when writing your code.....like maybe making your code 'Modular' to begin with, and also follow the standards that all compilers follow (C programming following ANSI standards for example) rather than picking those shortcuts that, for example, only MS compilers let you use, or the Qt macros that require the MOC compiler (ie - compiler shortcuts that no other compiler for other platforms understand).
I'm sorry you are working 60 hour weeks....I used to do that too, until I learned how to work more efficiently (Write source once again) which lets me work normal business hours. Maybe you should consider the 'Work smarter, not harder philosophy', instead of this 'It can't be done because I can't imagine it philosophy' you seem to have.
And, with your post, you have proven it is you without any experience. Maybe you should back off and learn something?
"Making software cross platform can be extremely time consuming"
BULL! Do your software right, and you'd be surprised how easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms. Of course, that would require you to consider well your approach as you start to code, which would be 98% more work than most developers want to do.
This is my only reply to this topic: Anything the MOC (QT metacompiler) understands is a good example of something that doesn't conform to the C++ standard in my view. My point is not that you don't have to use the MOC, but that because it exists, a lot of developers do use it, causing them to not be following C++ standards (ie - not even recognizing that they are not using correct C++ syntax). I have seen myself a few Qt programmers that simply couldn't understand why their moc-based program would not build on embedded hardware that only had a C++ compiler....one of those was an MSVC++ compiler too. It is another subject entirely on how much MSVC++ follows the C++ standard.
That's your opinion, not mine.
Let me know when Qt finally starts conforming to the C++ standard instead of hiding where they don't want to conform to the C++ standard... via macros nobody else in the real C++ world uses.
Let the rebuttals from upset Qt fans begin......
Obviously you haven't had the joy of using something after MS took it over. I've seen a few programs go down the tubes after MS bought the company. Sure, they didn't go down the tubes immediately, but they did die a long slow painful death. And the customers who stuck with those acquired programs got screwed ultimately.
Now that Microsoft is going to assimilate Nokia, I am sure QT is in great danger. I pray that someone would get it and continue making it great as it is.
Hopefully they'll make Qt totally C++ compliant too without all of those extensions to the language they added from day 1. Reminds me of another company we've heard about.
It is impossible to take you seriously when you worship Microsoft above all others....(Heaven forbid someone should abbreviate the name or use symbols).
Has Nobody ever wondered why TV stations aren't broadcasting in h.264? There's something about them having to pay royalties for broadcasting in the format. I'm not sure what the fee schedule is for them, but I know it is a lot more expensive than the ATSC MPEG2 (in the USA) format they are using now.
Gee, another article declaring Linux dead again from a magazine that has years of pushing WIndows on their reading public. I have a feeling that 90% of their readers are exclusively Windows Users....the rest of us find magazines that actually write articles about our preferred OS without comparison to Windows.
Gee, another article declaring that the victim has to be the one to get help to change their behavior, while the Bullies just continue on their way untouched.
Don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of the victims being cited as the root of the problems here.
Ugh...no thanks. This doesn't address the quality of the software programmer, but it sure works to keep 'good ole boys' in power... and makes certain a whole lot of others who would be gifted to work in programming, can't work in the programming.
Don't believe me? Look at the sham called 'Professional Engineer' as defined in Texas.
Unfortunately, only a small number of OSS developers would even consider taking up the file system.
There was a time when OSS stood for people who actually liked to program tools and develop a better OSS system, but with the advent of such things like Ubuntu, and "easy to install--don't have to do anything--it just works", people won't deal with it unless it already exists in.deb packages.
In other words, Its the Windowization of Linux with too many 'Windows Users/trolls' coming to take instead of giving to the OSS community. Just like they do with Windows. Personally, I'd wish they'd just stick to Windows, instead of trying to make Linux/BSD, etc. another Windows 2.0.
Keep telling yourself that...but it isn't the full story. A lot of companies/independent developers wouldn't mind using KDE except for 1)dealing with the trolltech Qt license, and 2) the commercial terms are expensive for development...and they aren't allowed to develop their program on the free qtlib libraries first, then switch to the commercial libs.
On top of that, at least with regular GPL'd programs, the sources as well as the sources of the version required for GPL'd libraries to run the application can be distributed. Not so, with Qt. Instead, the user of any program relying on a GPL'd version of qt has to download their own copy qt (including trying to get the correct version of it). The Author of the GPL'd program is not permitted to redistribute any GPL'd versions (aka as the free-qt version) of Qt with the program.
Don't believe me? Check the Trolltech licensing. It's the reason I won't develop anything using Qtlib.
Since this is for a 'MS Vista launch', probably funded by some Windows interest somewhere, what makes anyone but Windows advocates think that this will be a fair debate? Seems to me that MS Vista will be the winner despite the debate or presentation. Are you guys really that naive to believe that MS Vista isn't already the winner in this particular debate presentation?
An idea: Why not have a website that lists exactly which songs zune won't let be shareable, and make certain that the artist, who doesn't let their work be shareable (according to the story), gets a good bunch of publicity on it?
I, for one, would make certain to not buy anything from 'non-shareable' artists. If enough people did that, the artists might rethink their stance. (Yes, I know that the artist may not even know what their company is doing with their product, but maybe its time for them to make a stand instead of accepting whatever their recording company dish out.)
I worked under it for at least a year. Its another one of those methods that looks good on paper, but sucks in practicality. What's unpracticle?
1. No company in their right minds wants to pay for TWO programmers to do a single job. But then, again, you can always get 2 programmers at half-price to do the job (and have half the quality of one full price programmer).
2. As with any other method, it assumes all the specs and implementation have been worked out before the code is even written....nobody has the freedom to write experimental throwaway code to even see if their approach is even feasible in the coding, or, if programming a device, if the device will even work with the approach being made (for you people not in the embedded world, most device datasheets are incorrect and seldom get corrected).
3. While its great at letting the mundane functions be rewritten (refactored) as many times as possible, it gives a mechanism where newer features are *always* put off (by managers usually) indefinitely....its an illusion, under a few managers, that the programmers will ever get to implement the newer features wanted by customers (its amazing how most new features are always rated as low priority by someone other than the customer....even more amazing about how many 'stories' aren't written by the customer.).
4. Even in the XP books it is explained that XP is not meant to work for every single software environment/situation....yet there are managers who will do their best to try to force it to work when it won't.
I always find it really is better for a group of Programmer Peers to sit down together and review the code AFTER it has been written (with tests). Trouble is, most companies/managers refuse to understand that 'Programming Peers' do not include the stock boy in shipping.
Just my $.02. Can you tell I didn't really like being under the XP model myself?
Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every
on
Explorer Destroyer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"...but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO."
Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)? IMHO, this is long overdue and it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.
I Stopped Going to my local LUG years ago.
on
Do LUGs Still Matter?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My local LUG had a lot of potential (btw, I deliberately did not say which LUG it is that I am talking about; they wouldn't recognize themselves anyhow), but it became very apparent to me that this LUG was a good guide on how not to run a LUG. Things this LUG did was to:
1. Become a Tax-Free Non-Profit Organization in order to be a Cheapbytes or Linux Central Disk Reseller (heaven forbid they burn their own disks and give some proceeds to linuxiso.org).
2. When given a choice between involving the members to write or document a nice Linux item for the community, or to send their users to pay a small fortune for a professional 'sponsor' to make a program, they send their users over to pay a 'sponsor' to do it for them...after all, why reinvent the wheel? Even if it does teach a user anything? Answer: They think that the more money the 'sponsor' makes, the more the 'sponsor' may throw back their way. From what I've seen, it hasn't worked out that way.
3. Model themselves after the local PC User's group, the group of people who seek out what new gadget or gizmo that can be BOUGHT for the machine, rather than to teach anyone how to get full use out of their machine that they've already got, AND get educated enough to find that they don't need the new gizmos or gadgets since it is already built in.
4. Make fun of other LUGs who actually try to do something to promote Linux. ie-the Kansas City LUG trying to hold a big Linux expo...my local LUG ridiculed them. Personally I salute the Kansas City LUG for holding an event like that (successful or not)...it is much more than my local LUG would ever consider.
--Nah, I get more benefits from my #linuxfriends IRC channel than I do from my local LUG.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM ... Everything is in the documentation....
"...but you know, $99/yr for the latest-and-greatest version on 5 PCs, which covers my whole family and my laptop (not to mention the ability to move licenses around very easily and the ability to temporarily run it somewhere else if needed) isn't a bad deal at all as it turns out."
It is a bad deal when compared to LibreOffice that doesn't have a limit on number of PCs, and doesn't require a subscription/year amount of money. Their updates are available anytime you want, too.
......
"God complex" is really justified when most of the idiots on the system can easily cause significant problems, which are then blamed onto the IT because "it's the software that's broken!" The users are never at fault.
So why is it that the users doing their work on the system that (for which they are blamed when they don't get their work done) cause the significant problems, according to the "God complex" Administrators? Why is it that the only system problems is the work that the users must do?
1. The Patent Office actually does searches on prior software & methods before granting/rubber-stamping that application, and expecting the courts to do the searching for them.
2. Only Software Experts/Engineers, on more than just Microsoft Development Programming minimally, should be doing the patent examinations/patent searches/patent approvals.
3. USPO should have the power to reject an approved patent at any time, for a minimum of 'patent application in bad faith.
These points would be a start for my satisfaction.
I have 40 years experience porting code and Drivers to various OSes and processors...OSes like Freescale MQX, TI DSP Bios, WxWidgets APIs, and/or Linux. Most of my C code is written with the 'write once' philosophy.
I know I shouldn't reply to an obvious troll like this, but this attitude of yours bothers me. I've seen that 'can't be done' attitude fthat you are demonstrating in your post.....quite frankly it sucks.
Saying "easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms" does not imply that the software is easy to write to begin with. I was implying that the 98% more effort to consider your approach was actually more work up-front when writing your code.....like maybe making your code 'Modular' to begin with, and also follow the standards that all compilers follow (C programming following ANSI standards for example) rather than picking those shortcuts that, for example, only MS compilers let you use, or the Qt macros that require the MOC compiler (ie - compiler shortcuts that no other compiler for other platforms understand).
I'm sorry you are working 60 hour weeks....I used to do that too, until I learned how to work more efficiently (Write source once again) which lets me work normal business hours. Maybe you should consider the 'Work smarter, not harder philosophy', instead of this 'It can't be done because I can't imagine it philosophy' you seem to have.
And, with your post, you have proven it is you without any experience. Maybe you should back off and learn something?
"Making software cross platform can be extremely time consuming" BULL! Do your software right, and you'd be surprised how easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms. Of course, that would require you to consider well your approach as you start to code, which would be 98% more work than most developers want to do.
I got a notice to upgrade my Skype to add Games for Windows there as well. Anyone else get that notice? So the demise of Skype begins....
This is my only reply to this topic: Anything the MOC (QT metacompiler) understands is a good example of something that doesn't conform to the C++ standard in my view. My point is not that you don't have to use the MOC, but that because it exists, a lot of developers do use it, causing them to not be following C++ standards (ie - not even recognizing that they are not using correct C++ syntax). I have seen myself a few Qt programmers that simply couldn't understand why their moc-based program would not build on embedded hardware that only had a C++ compiler....one of those was an MSVC++ compiler too. It is another subject entirely on how much MSVC++ follows the C++ standard.
That's your opinion, not mine. Let me know when Qt finally starts conforming to the C++ standard instead of hiding where they don't want to conform to the C++ standard... via macros nobody else in the real C++ world uses. Let the rebuttals from upset Qt fans begin......
Obviously you haven't had the joy of using something after MS took it over. I've seen a few programs go down the tubes after MS bought the company. Sure, they didn't go down the tubes immediately, but they did die a long slow painful death. And the customers who stuck with those acquired programs got screwed ultimately.
Now that Microsoft is going to assimilate Nokia, I am sure QT is in great danger. I pray that someone would get it and continue making it great as it is.
Hopefully they'll make Qt totally C++ compliant too without all of those extensions to the language they added from day 1. Reminds me of another company we've heard about.
It is impossible to take you seriously when you worship Microsoft above all others....(Heaven forbid someone should abbreviate the name or use symbols).
Has Nobody ever wondered why TV stations aren't broadcasting in h.264? There's something about them having to pay royalties for broadcasting in the format. I'm not sure what the fee schedule is for them, but I know it is a lot more expensive than the ATSC MPEG2 (in the USA) format they are using now.
Gee, another article declaring Linux dead again from a magazine that has years of pushing WIndows on their reading public. I have a feeling that 90% of their readers are exclusively Windows Users....the rest of us find magazines that actually write articles about our preferred OS without comparison to Windows.
Gee, another article declaring that the victim has to be the one to get help to change their behavior, while the Bullies just continue on their way untouched. Don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of the victims being cited as the root of the problems here.
For many, it's a no-brainer, so QT gets a lot more developers.
Until the Developer sees the bill for themselves just to develop any program using Qt that they don't want to put under the GPL.
... nominated by their peers, like a state bar.
Ugh...no thanks. This doesn't address the quality of the software programmer, but it sure works to keep 'good ole boys' in power ... and makes certain a whole lot of others who would be gifted to work in programming, can't work in the programming.
Don't believe me? Look at the sham called 'Professional Engineer' as defined in Texas.
Unfortunately, only a small number of OSS developers would even consider taking up the file system.
There was a time when OSS stood for people who actually liked to program tools and develop a better OSS system, but with the advent of such things like Ubuntu, and "easy to install--don't have to do anything--it just works", people won't deal with it unless it already exists in .deb packages.
In other words, Its the Windowization of Linux with too many 'Windows Users/trolls' coming to take instead of giving to the OSS community. Just like they do with Windows. Personally, I'd wish they'd just stick to Windows, instead of trying to make Linux/BSD, etc. another Windows 2.0.
Keep telling yourself that...but it isn't the full story. A lot of companies/independent developers wouldn't mind using KDE except for 1)dealing with the trolltech Qt license, and 2) the commercial terms are expensive for development...and they aren't allowed to develop their program on the free qtlib libraries first, then switch to the commercial libs.
On top of that, at least with regular GPL'd programs, the sources as well as the sources of the version required for GPL'd libraries to run the application can be distributed. Not so, with Qt. Instead, the user of any program relying on a GPL'd version of qt has to download their own copy qt (including trying to get the correct version of it). The Author of the GPL'd program is not permitted to redistribute any GPL'd versions (aka as the free-qt version) of Qt with the program.
Don't believe me? Check the Trolltech licensing. It's the reason I won't develop anything using Qtlib.
Since this is for a 'MS Vista launch', probably funded by some Windows interest somewhere, what makes anyone but Windows advocates think that this will be a fair debate? Seems to me that MS Vista will be the winner despite the debate or presentation. Are you guys really that naive to believe that MS Vista isn't already the winner in this particular debate presentation?
An idea: Why not have a website that lists exactly which songs zune won't let be shareable, and make certain that the artist, who doesn't let their work be shareable (according to the story), gets a good bunch of publicity on it?
I, for one, would make certain to not buy anything from 'non-shareable' artists. If enough people did that, the artists might rethink their stance. (Yes, I know that the artist may not even know what their company is doing with their product, but maybe its time for them to make a stand instead of accepting whatever their recording company dish out.)
1. No company in their right minds wants to pay for TWO programmers to do a single job. But then, again, you can always get 2 programmers at half-price to do the job (and have half the quality of one full price programmer).
2. As with any other method, it assumes all the specs and implementation have been worked out before the code is even written....nobody has the freedom to write experimental throwaway code to even see if their approach is even feasible in the coding, or, if programming a device, if the device will even work with the approach being made (for you people not in the embedded world, most device datasheets are incorrect and seldom get corrected).
3. While its great at letting the mundane functions be rewritten (refactored) as many times as possible, it gives a mechanism where newer features are *always* put off (by managers usually) indefinitely....its an illusion, under a few managers, that the programmers will ever get to implement the newer features wanted by customers (its amazing how most new features are always rated as low priority by someone other than the customer....even more amazing about how many 'stories' aren't written by the customer.).
4. Even in the XP books it is explained that XP is not meant to work for every single software environment/situation....yet there are managers who will do their best to try to force it to work when it won't.
I always find it really is better for a group of Programmer Peers to sit down together and review the code AFTER it has been written (with tests). Trouble is, most companies/managers refuse to understand that 'Programming Peers' do not include the stock boy in shipping.
Just my $.02. Can you tell I didn't really like being under the XP model myself?
"...but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO."
Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)? IMHO, this is long overdue and it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.
My local LUG had a lot of potential (btw, I deliberately did not say which LUG it is that I am talking about; they wouldn't recognize themselves anyhow), but it became very apparent to me that this LUG was a good guide on how not to run a LUG. Things this LUG did was to:
1. Become a Tax-Free Non-Profit Organization in order to be a Cheapbytes or Linux Central Disk Reseller (heaven forbid they burn their own disks and give some proceeds to linuxiso.org).
2. When given a choice between involving the members to write or document a nice Linux item for the community, or to send their users to pay a small fortune for a professional 'sponsor' to make a program, they send their users over to pay a 'sponsor' to do it for them...after all, why reinvent the wheel? Even if it does teach a user anything? Answer: They think that the more money the 'sponsor' makes, the more the 'sponsor' may throw back their way. From what I've seen, it hasn't worked out that way.
3. Model themselves after the local PC User's group, the group of people who seek out what new gadget or gizmo that can be BOUGHT for the machine, rather than to teach anyone how to get full use out of their machine that they've already got, AND get educated enough to find that they don't need the new gizmos or gadgets since it is already built in.
4. Make fun of other LUGs who actually try to do something to promote Linux. ie-the Kansas City LUG trying to hold a big Linux expo...my local LUG ridiculed them. Personally I salute the Kansas City LUG for holding an event like that (successful or not)...it is much more than my local LUG would ever consider.
--Nah, I get more benefits from my #linuxfriends IRC channel than I do from my local LUG.