the BSDs, including OSX, linux, probably all commercial Unixes, Linux, probably most of Windows (from the actual source of 2000 I've seen), with some parts C++ (the original NT programmers lamented Cutler's decision to force C++ on them for the GDI)...what else..probably QNX and most other realtime operating systems. Even BeOS used C for its kernel.
I woud say that most userspace operating system code is stil written in C over C++...even on windows.
Here you are simply saying the opposite of what I said. Any reasons that would turn it into a valid argument? Why should it be so? If free software development is capable of taking over the lower levels, why should it stop there? Is it not an uphill battle for proprietary software vendors?
OSX
Do you see games going open source anytime soon? The only reason why there is a quality open source java IDE like Eclipse is because IBM has deep pockets. Don't expect everybody to follow IBM's lead.
Open source is good at some infrastructural things and horrible at other things, such as polish, documentation, and other desktop issues.
The future is not in selling proprietary software; the future is in selling services for free software. IBM, for one thing, seems to have grasped that simple truth better than Borland, but I guess they are still learning.
That's what FSF extremists wish the model will be, but if the software is doing its job then there should be little need for "services".
The future is really proprietary software leveraging the bottom of the software stack which is free. Proprietary software can give back by making contributions to these lower layers of the software stack, by maintaining a sane business model by offering value added proprietary software at the higher ends of the stack.
I should've added that I'm sure Intellij is worried about Eclipse too, but made a smart move by instead of trying to compete directly with VS.NET they leveraged their expertise and produced a kickass addin for VS2003.
Eclipse has made the Java IDE market a commodity market. The best they can hope for is to become much smaller and sell value-added plugins. I bought the vi-plugin for Eclipse, but that model won't work for a company the current size of Borland.
But hey, if Borland dies then maybe MS will do what they've always really wanted to do, which is to give away VS for free. VS2005 beta2 rocks.
Listen, C++ is complicated because it's a 3 paradigm language. In the hands of someone that knows what they're doing it can produce nice code.
If you want to talk about half-baked, let's compare Gnome/Gtk+ to Qt/KDE. You have performance issues that would only be solved with something like C or C++, and when it comes to technical superiority there is no doubt that Qt and KDE are better.
Frankly, many unix heads and others are just afraid to learn something more complicated, but much more powerful. You can do many neat and useful things with templates. Just look at Boost.
I agree with your point that C++ fills a void. And no matter how many times I've cursed the language (I've written more lines of C++ in my professional career than any other language), I still think it was stupid that de Icaza chose C over C++.
Despite the technical superiorty of Qt Sun will not use it to draw widgets because (A) Sun uses Gnome for its desktop and (B) the dual-licensing scheme of Qt.
And I don't know where you get this information about KDE/Qt having more momentum. If anything, it's the other way around. Sun, RedHat, and Novell (the 3 biggest Linux shops) are all going with Gnome. Yeah, I know about Suse and KDE, but if you look at the resources being invested it's all Gnome/Mono.
Until Trolltech gets bought out, the license issues surrounding Qt are unlikely to go away.
It looks like they've finally addressed this issue, but I think Sun is a little late.
Personally, I can deal with non-native look-n-feel, but when the fonts look like something circa 1988 on an Amiga, how can anyone take Swing seriously.
I never understood why they couldn't use platform specific code for fonts, and if not possible then go into fallback mode and paint everything themselves.
Swing has been a disaster. I believe it was the OTI guys (who now work on Eclipse and SWT) that told Sun not to go the route of "give me a handle to a brush and we'll paint everything ourselves", but some other group won that debate.
And thank god for.NET/Mono being around to give Sun a little kick in the rear to get moving on things.
So? If Microsoft decide to start taking companies such as Novell to court over patented methods in Mono, the MIT/X11 licence is irrelevant. Noone will be able to use Mono without risking litigation.
And what does that have to do with bitkeeper...oh it doesn't because you're trying to bring patents into the discussion when bitkeeper is about licenses.
This is probably the main reason why NTFS is available in the main Linux Kernel tree but isn't in Fedora's version of the Kernel: RedHat don't want to take the risk of patent attacks from Redmond.
I wasn't aware of that, but it's another stupid move on RedHat's part. If there was ever any litigation all they would have to is take it out.
On the contrary: surprisingly enough you missed the point.
No, I understand the point all too well. Your rabid hatred of Microsoft and proprietary software companies in general, caused you to blindly throw bitkeeper into the discussion when Bitkeeper is a license question and Mono is a patent issue.
I hope Novell gets involved and has a Mono core dependancy. RedHat won't like it, but they're not the only game in town now that Novell bought Ximian.
Mono has the benefits of being able to run Python, C#, Java, C, C++, VB, and a whole slew of other languages that the JVM is incapable of. Not only do you get the benefit of automagic bindings to various libraries, but you get tons of.NET libraries that will be written now and in the future.
You still write core parts in C, but more and more in managed code. You'll need a beefier machine, but time marches on. Was 640K enough for everyone?
As far as the legalities of Mono are concerned, I'll leave that to the FUDsters who are better at cowering under the covers instead of embracing good technology.
even if VS's code completion/editor is superior (probably because it needs to be: the framework is so obtuse).
It has nothing to do with the framework being so "obtuse". Objective-C is a dynamic language and like other dynamic languages (optional or no type declarations), it's next to impossible to get "intellisense" right all the time because a lot of the time you don't know what an object is going to be until runtime.
I've never used XCode, but they should be able to get the C/C++ code intellisense right all the time, like MS does, and if they don't then the IDE isn't doing its job.
I've never heard that much praise from developers who use XCode on Apple anyway. It's more of a "well..it's there and free".
Compound with this the fact that modern society rewards less than 1% of all artists and you have a population of starving artists
Are graphic designers starving artists? Are game world/model/texture artists starving?
The development of those above mediums tends to be a much individualistic process than code. Now whether that is just cultural/traditional or otherwise is another story, but that's just the way it seems to be.
As far as "modern society rewarding less than 1% of all artists"...if the other 99% were any good then they wouldn't be starving now would they?
The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons.
Proprietary software companies have been using usability studies, feedback systems, beta testers for a long time.
Does anybody remember the whole Gnome/Eugenia/end-user flap? Or how about the bounty system that was rejected by KDE developers?
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects. In fact, if they don't code they probably have less influence than with proprietary products because there is less of an incentive for a developer to bend his vision, since it's all about "scratching an itch" anyway.
I'm not saying that developers don't listen, it's just that I don't see anything special about end-users of open source projects.
I'm attempting to compile SharpDevelop in VS2003 right now, and i'm hitting "no common output" directory with VS locking assemblies. There's something like 33 projects/assemblies in the solution and it's driving me crazy. The file locking bug will bite you even without trying to put things in a common output directory.
That said, I really don't like Java. So many little things that make C# a better language....delegates/events, unsigned, easy interop with native code, structs, enums (which java finally got), ref and out parameters, no stupid physical directory hierarchies to match packages, etc...
Letting people make their own rational purchasing devisions would be a great idea if people were rational.
Now we get to the crux of the argument. The mantra of the left that people are irrational and big mommy government needs to come to the rescue at every possible moment to save them from evil corporations.
Maybe you're right thought. There are too many people like you that aren't rational.
but there's no doubt that Linus right now has more conservative views on intellectual property and the development of ideas than many in the software community
Conservative next to who? Comrade Stallman and the FSF?
If Joe random developer creates some binary file/network protocol should they be "forced" to open it up. Or is this just one of the "But it's Microsoft" arguments?
Government is already too busy-body the way it is. Let people make their own rational purchasing decisions and leave government out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
the BSDs, including OSX, linux, probably all commercial Unixes, Linux, probably most of Windows (from the actual source of 2000 I've seen), with some parts C++ (the original NT programmers lamented Cutler's decision to force C++ on them for the GDI)...what else..probably QNX and most other realtime operating systems. Even BeOS used C for its kernel.
I woud say that most userspace operating system code is stil written in C over C++...even on windows.
Here you are simply saying the opposite of what I said. Any reasons that would turn it into a valid argument? Why should it be so? If free software development is capable of taking over the lower levels, why should it stop there? Is it not an uphill battle for proprietary software vendors?
OSX
Do you see games going open source anytime soon? The only reason why there is a quality open source java IDE like Eclipse is because IBM has deep pockets. Don't expect everybody to follow IBM's lead.
Open source is good at some infrastructural things and horrible at other things, such as polish, documentation, and other desktop issues.
The future is not in selling proprietary software; the future is in selling services for free software. IBM, for one thing, seems to have grasped that simple truth better than Borland, but I guess they are still learning.
That's what FSF extremists wish the model will be, but if the software is doing its job then there should be little need for "services".
The future is really proprietary software leveraging the bottom of the software stack which is free. Proprietary software can give back by making contributions to these lower layers of the software stack, by maintaining a sane business model by offering value added proprietary software at the higher ends of the stack.
I should've added that I'm sure Intellij is worried about Eclipse too, but made a smart move by instead of trying to compete directly with VS.NET they leveraged their expertise and produced a kickass addin for VS2003.
Eclipse has made the Java IDE market a commodity market. The best they can hope for is to become much smaller and sell value-added plugins. I bought the vi-plugin for Eclipse, but that model won't work for a company the current size of Borland.
But hey, if Borland dies then maybe MS will do what they've always really wanted to do, which is to give away VS for free. VS2005 beta2 rocks.
Listen, C++ is complicated because it's a 3 paradigm language. In the hands of someone that knows what they're doing it can produce nice code.
If you want to talk about half-baked, let's compare Gnome/Gtk+ to Qt/KDE. You have performance issues that would only be solved with something like C or C++, and when it comes to technical superiority there is no doubt that Qt and KDE are better.
Frankly, many unix heads and others are just afraid to learn something more complicated, but much more powerful. You can do many neat and useful things with templates. Just look at Boost.
I agree with your point that C++ fills a void. And no matter how many times I've cursed the language (I've written more lines of C++ in my professional career than any other language), I still think it was stupid that de Icaza chose C over C++.
C++ fills a rather difrent void and there is place for all
How many operating systems are coded in C++? I know a lot that have been coded in C, but none that have been coded in C++.
Despite the technical superiorty of Qt Sun will not use it to draw widgets because (A) Sun uses Gnome for its desktop and (B) the dual-licensing scheme of Qt.
And I don't know where you get this information about KDE/Qt having more momentum. If anything, it's the other way around. Sun, RedHat, and Novell (the 3 biggest Linux shops) are all going with Gnome. Yeah, I know about Suse and KDE, but if you look at the resources being invested it's all Gnome/Mono.
Until Trolltech gets bought out, the license issues surrounding Qt are unlikely to go away.
It looks like they've finally addressed this issue, but I think Sun is a little late.
.NET/Mono being around to give Sun a little kick in the rear to get moving on things.
Personally, I can deal with non-native look-n-feel, but when the fonts look like something circa 1988 on an Amiga, how can anyone take Swing seriously.
I never understood why they couldn't use platform specific code for fonts, and if not possible then go into fallback mode and paint everything themselves.
Swing has been a disaster. I believe it was the OTI guys (who now work on Eclipse and SWT) that told Sun not to go the route of "give me a handle to a brush and we'll paint everything ourselves", but some other group won that debate.
And thank god for
So? If Microsoft decide to start taking companies such as Novell to court over patented methods in Mono, the MIT/X11 licence is irrelevant. Noone will be able to use Mono without risking litigation.
And what does that have to do with bitkeeper...oh it doesn't because you're trying to bring patents into the discussion when bitkeeper is about licenses.
This is probably the main reason why NTFS is available in the main Linux Kernel tree but isn't in Fedora's version of the Kernel: RedHat don't want to take the risk of patent attacks from Redmond.
I wasn't aware of that, but it's another stupid move on RedHat's part. If there was ever any litigation all they would have to is take it out.
On the contrary: surprisingly enough you missed the point.
No, I understand the point all too well. Your rabid hatred of Microsoft and proprietary software companies in general, caused you to blindly throw bitkeeper into the discussion when Bitkeeper is a license question and Mono is a patent issue.
You mean like the FUDsters that derided the use of BitKeeper?
Mono is licensed under MIT/X11, GPL, and LGPL..
Your analogy is so obviously flawed and stupid, but I'm sure the zealot crowd will be trying to milk that one for years to come.
I hope Novell gets involved and has a Mono core dependancy. RedHat won't like it, but they're not the only game in town now that Novell bought Ximian.
.NET libraries that will be written now and in the future.
Mono has the benefits of being able to run Python, C#, Java, C, C++, VB, and a whole slew of other languages that the JVM is incapable of. Not only do you get the benefit of automagic bindings to various libraries, but you get tons of
You still write core parts in C, but more and more in managed code. You'll need a beefier machine, but time marches on. Was 640K enough for everyone?
As far as the legalities of Mono are concerned, I'll leave that to the FUDsters who are better at cowering under the covers instead of embracing good technology.
If you had half a clue, then you would know that Microsoft will ship you the VS2005 beta2 for free (including shipping).
Or you can download the express editions for free too.
But hey, you're hoping that people might think you're cool by joining the groupthink. Good job.
As a developer that has been programming on Linux professionally since 1997, I've always enjoyed sidetrip projects that allow me to use Visual Studio.
Open source could learn a thing or two from Microsoft's IDEs. Especially in the non-java realm.
even if VS's code completion/editor is superior (probably because it needs to be: the framework is so obtuse).
It has nothing to do with the framework being so "obtuse". Objective-C is a dynamic language and like other dynamic languages (optional or no type declarations), it's next to impossible to get "intellisense" right all the time because a lot of the time you don't know what an object is going to be until runtime.
I've never used XCode, but they should be able to get the C/C++ code intellisense right all the time, like MS does, and if they don't then the IDE isn't doing its job.
I've never heard that much praise from developers who use XCode on Apple anyway. It's more of a "well..it's there and free".
Compound with this the fact that modern society rewards less than 1% of all artists and you have a population of starving artists
Are graphic designers starving artists? Are game world/model/texture artists starving?
The development of those above mediums tends to be a much individualistic process than code. Now whether that is just cultural/traditional or otherwise is another story, but that's just the way it seems to be.
As far as "modern society rewarding less than 1% of all artists"...if the other 99% were any good then they wouldn't be starving now would they?
The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons.
The interview had nothing to do with open source.
Proprietary software companies have been using usability studies, feedback systems, beta testers for a long time.
Does anybody remember the whole Gnome/Eugenia/end-user flap? Or how about the bounty system that was rejected by KDE developers?
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects. In fact, if they don't code they probably have less influence than with proprietary products because there is less of an incentive for a developer to bend his vision, since it's all about "scratching an itch" anyway.
I'm not saying that developers don't listen, it's just that I don't see anything special about end-users of open source projects.
I hope this rock hits our planet. I really do.
Only on Slashdork would this be +5 interesting.
How about this. I hope we have a massive nuclear war. This may be the spur humanity needs to implement a comprehensive missle defense system.
Would that be +5 interesting?
Use your heads moderators.
I'm attempting to compile SharpDevelop in VS2003 right now, and i'm hitting "no common output" directory with VS locking assemblies. There's something like 33 projects/assemblies in the solution and it's driving me crazy. The file locking bug will bite you even without trying to put things in a common output directory.
That said, I really don't like Java. So many little things that make C# a better language....delegates/events, unsigned, easy interop with native code, structs, enums (which java finally got), ref and out parameters, no stupid physical directory hierarchies to match packages, etc...
C#/CLR is nice and has promise, but if you want UI consistency I would suggest sticking with Java/Swing for the meantime.
Yeah, if he wants his apps to be fugly. Swing still doesn't have decent fonts in Java-5
Letting people make their own rational purchasing devisions would be a great idea if people were rational.
Now we get to the crux of the argument. The mantra of the left that people are irrational and big mommy government needs to come to the rescue at every possible moment to save them from evil corporations.
Maybe you're right thought. There are too many people like you that aren't rational.
but there's no doubt that Linus right now has more conservative views on intellectual property and the development of ideas than many in the software community
Conservative next to who? Comrade Stallman and the FSF?
Forced? Why?
If Joe random developer creates some binary file/network protocol should they be "forced" to open it up. Or is this just one of the "But it's Microsoft" arguments?
Government is already too busy-body the way it is. Let people make their own rational purchasing decisions and leave government out of it.