> On that thread what the hell is/usr/etc used for, or/usr/local/etc? won't it make more sense to move/etc here instead?
When you use autoconf for instance, you can define the installation prefix of your software, which means that everything gets under/usr/local. This is IMHO a good thing, as it allows to install programs in a limited area and use tools like Stow to manage it...
Maybe it's the same effect than when a machine gets hacked by a script kiddy only hours after being put online: it's quite easy to download a kit that helps you scanning random addresses or web pages... therefore there are more spammers than servers on Google's clusters...
It reminds me of a nice virus that worked by scrambling your files one by one, but who also intercepted the read/write operations so that everything looked "fine" from the user point of view. Then one day, the virus decided to kill itself, and let the user with a bunch of scambled files (which were even carefully backuped long enough to let you with no working copy)
:-}
Licencing
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you intend to develop a closed-source product, the licence of both library will probably need to be evaluated too. If you go for
an open licence, then it's of minor importance.
(Qt requires licencing fees if you want to keep
your sources closed).
It's rather a matter of being capable to interface to other languages. Having an explicit object implementation makes it possible to hook into the native object mechanism of higher-level languages (see the list of available gtk and gnome bindings !)
> If IE users find themselves unable to view... oooh, the 20% of the web that might follow these
> IETF standards, then Microsoft will soon change its tune, much as the push towards
> CSS-styled web sites has helped IE's CSS compliance. Who knows? In the meantime it
> could even be an excellent way of reducing the dominance of IE in the browser market.
What could restrain IE to be able to follow this new open standard *in addition* to the locked W3C standard ? Then we would be left with 20%, whereas IE has the full 100%...
It reminds me of what happens with democracy: by allowing free speech, you make the work of extremists easier. But you wouldn't give this freedom away, would you ?
I was a bit pessimistic about this issue and considered your previous post as going in the direction of "do what you want if you pay us good bucks". But you're right, there is probably more than that in the agreement.
Without speaking of quantum level behavior, all the previous comments assumed that humain intelligence can be represented as a Turing machine, which is what every computer is limited to (I'm not sure for "quantic computers"...). But Turing machine does not cover everything: who proved that (human/animal) intelligence does not fall outside of this boudary ? If it is the case, the problem won't be solved by more memory and CPU power...
Slashdot Mirror
When you use autoconf for instance, you can define the installation prefix of your software, which means that everything gets under /usr/local. This is IMHO a good thing, as it allows to install programs in a limited area and use tools like Stow to manage it...
Maybe it's the same effect than when a machine gets hacked by a script kiddy only hours after being put online: it's quite easy to download a kit that helps you scanning random addresses or web pages... therefore there are more spammers than servers on Google's clusters...
It reminds me of a nice virus that worked by scrambling your files one by one, but who also intercepted the read/write operations so that everything looked "fine" from the user point of view. Then one day, the virus decided to kill itself, and let the user with a bunch of scambled files (which were even carefully backuped long enough to let you with no working copy)
:-}
If you intend to develop a closed-source product, the licence of both library will probably need to be evaluated too. If you go for
an open licence, then it's of minor importance.
(Qt requires licencing fees if you want to keep
your sources closed).
It's rather a matter of being capable to interface to other languages. Having an explicit object implementation makes it possible to hook into the native object mechanism of higher-level languages (see the list of available gtk and gnome bindings !)
> If IE users find themselves unable to view... oooh, the 20% of the web that might follow these
> IETF standards, then Microsoft will soon change its tune, much as the push towards
> CSS-styled web sites has helped IE's CSS compliance. Who knows? In the meantime it
> could even be an excellent way of reducing the dominance of IE in the browser market.
What could restrain IE to be able to follow this new open standard *in addition* to the locked W3C standard ? Then we would be left with 20%, whereas IE has the full 100%...
It reminds me of what happens with democracy: by allowing free speech, you make the work of extremists easier. But you wouldn't give this freedom away, would you ?
Ooops, lesson 2: read the name of the poster...
I was a bit pessimistic about this issue and considered your previous post as going in the direction of "do what you want if you pay us good bucks". But you're right, there is probably more than that in the agreement.
An answer has been given in a previous discussion.
In the case of CD copy protection, do you know how to detect it before you attempt to rip it ?
I've installed tinderbox and bonsai where I work and it works just fine. Is tinderbox2 worth the upgrade ?
Without speaking of quantum level behavior, all the previous comments assumed that humain intelligence can be represented as a Turing machine, which is what every computer is limited to (I'm not sure for "quantic computers"...). But Turing machine does not cover everything: who proved that (human/animal) intelligence does not fall outside of this boudary ? If it is the case, the problem won't be solved by more memory and CPU power...