I mentioned this is my other post. A developer said a Power Point compatible product was their next step. If it's anything like SoftMaker, it's going to be pretty decent software.
I'm downloading the trial version now.... more on that in a minute. My question would be, "How much better is it than OpenOffice, and how razor thin is the difference between it and Microsoft Office, and how compatible compared with Open Office?"
To be honest, this isn't exactly a direct answer to your question.
My experience with OpenOffice has not been nice. Two years ago, I used for serious stuff and, boy, did I regret it. This friggin' bug made me loose all pagination. They told me OpenOffice was production-ready. So they told me. They lied, they were just a buch of free software fanboys who never wrote more than 20 pages with the thing. So, this is from someone who actually had to used OpenOffice for more than 20 pages.
It has gotten better with time. But I don't have the time. Recently, I tried installing it on FreeBSD and I had problems with the dictionary and other bugs. Always little stupid bugs with OpenOffice. Also, Excel support still sucks. Portuguese language support sucks. It just sucks, please don't reply with work-around hacks. I have followed the instructions. I has to resort to giving up work time to reading instructions on the internet in order to provdie for my wife a decent, usable installation. Now, I know some Linux fanboy kids love that. They think they are "hackers", when they have to work around the little problems all the time. They think they are system administrators. That they grok Unix (this is one of the reasons you always hear more about Linux in the internet forums then you head *BSD people - BSD, which is mostly the crowd you'll hear tell you that there are no problems with OpenOffice. doesn't really have those stupid little problems - at least, not as much as Linux. And, oh yeah, I used Debian for way, way, longer than I should have). So, me, I am tired of the FLOSS community expecting a bug report for little stupid bugs that should never exist in the first place and that are there just because of lazyness. When you don't have the time, it's best that you pay somebody for a well-done job. IMHO, SoftMaker is doing a fine job.
Also, I think it is extremely important that an ISV takes this step (supporting FLOSS - and, most importantly, _not_ just Linux - because, in fact, there's little reason for Linux-only software, unless you don't give a damn about POSIX, which some Linux software developers apparently don't). I would have bought the software for this reason alone, considering its price (honest price). You will notice I am a FreeBSD user, so my world view has room for proprietary software. I do not think open source will survive unless ISVs make software for our free operating systems. I also am very happy that there are people looking at FreeBSD from a commercial standpoint. So, it's not just Linux anymore. And it's not just SoftMaker. Currently, other vendors support FreeBSD too, such as virtualization software, mathematical softwares and IDEs. So things are looking good. I think the best scenario is to have a mix of both worlds. This, I believe, is realistic. The anihilation of proprietary software, at least in this century, is highly unlikely. I am not one of those Debian zealots, who revel in long threads about the "freedomness" of the Firefox icon. Microsoft products are a standard in 99% of businesses. It's important that the FLOSS community get this simple fact of life. Unless we are able to support such an evironment - an ISV-friendly environment - rant all you like, our beloved operating systems will not make it to the desktop.
SoftMaker did a fine job, in my opinion. In terms of word processing, so far it seems perfect. It fires up fast, it's totally Microsoft-compatible, AFAIK. They have told me they will develop presentation software next. The spreadsheet software has some Excel-functionality missing, like the solver. I hope they add these two things. My opinion is that it's well worth the (honest) price, and I also see it as a very important thing that people actually want to _sell_ us software, that they actually want to seize this business opportunity. Now, I am not somebody whose daily life revolves around Excel, but they demonstrate on their site they the match more features than OpenOffice.
Let this be a lesson regarding the GPL and the dual-licensing trap some companies set up, such as MySQL. What we see is the unfolding of another development of the loophole that the GPL license creates.
It just proves there is no dual-licensing choice. This is effectively a proprietary licensing scheme (or scam). It's just another form of making the customer fall prey to the vendor. Now we see yet another facet of this loophole: the company ties support to vendors that charge per-seat licenses. A perfect scheme, a +/+ game for the vendors, both of the software and the OS. You loose, sucker.
The BSD license does not have this loophole, and leverages the playing field for everyone. You want to "close" the BSD solution, and package it as a proprietary solution? Do it. You want it as free software? It's there. The GPL, on the other hand, by a flaw in design is used for the type of maneuvering we see in this case.
Is it any wonder Google has chosen non-GPL licenses for a lot of their released open-source code?
Software such as this is not really new. IIRC, the LAPD has been using a software called MOSAIC, made by an expert in violent behaviour, Mr. Gavin De Baker (and associates).
The software is deployed in, for instance, a setting where a women has been battered by her husband. By feeding some data on the perpretator and the victim, the police department might recomend a women that she not return home, due to a huge statistical chance of her being murdered, according to data compounded from previous cases like hers.
This is pretty interesting stuff. I don't really think there anything new here, though, in terms of statistics or software. The new thing is that criminologist are learning how to make smarter tools. Which is Good Thing.
I fail to see how a binary pixel can fail to take less space than a printed geometric shape. You can squirt an ink dot a lot smaller than you can a recognizable microscopic shape.
If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Which conveys more information: ASCII character "9" or a pixel?
Your claim that paper last less because it gets exposed to elements has no data to support it.
Paper lasts 2000 years, as archaelogists will tell you. If you have error-correcting code, it sounds achievable. I believe NIST has made a study about this, IIRC, some years ago. Digital media is bad media. I mean, for starters, large business have trouble with 1995.doc files...Imagine something you want to last 100 years. Maybe LaTeX files can, if you print the code.
Regarding the use of paper, one begins to imagine the use of robotics to handle huge "Rainbow Formats" paper archives. I'm not so sure how you can have very large databases using this format. I can't envision this being feasible. Maybe it is, time will tell.
By the way, this begs the question: how useful is such a technology without open source software? Much more interesting it would be if the specification was open, and if the technology could be made to work with any old scanner and any lousy home printer. *Then* you'd have a revolution. Right now, it seems he wants a monopoly. We all know how Great Proprietary Ideas finnish sometimes: nobody cares about it; it dies.
Also, I hope a patent for "saving data on paper" is not filed, we'd loose our right to use pencils. However, he did let the cat out of the box. I expect to see copycats, just like there are many HD manufacturers.
Anyways, this is one of the most ground-breaking things I've read in years. Sainul Abideen is a genius.
First, the author is not against open source. In fact, Coverity is helping projects like FreeBSD by providing tools for developers.
Second, he is not comparing apples to oranges. He is using a metric, bug-rate in a wide sample. Then, he finds, interestingly enough, that proprietary software is very much scattered, but the ones on the top are 5 X less buggy than open source. This begs the question: why? This is what people should be discussing. Not saying he works for Microsoft and all that childish bullshit...
The *real* question is: what are those methods people developing mission-critical software use that open source hackers do not? My hunch is: formal methods, safe languages.
For instance, Ocaml http://www.astree.ens.fr/ was used in a sofware verification system for the Airbus A340 fly-by-wire system. Haskell is used by Galois Connection http://www.galois.com/ to develop secure protocols for the DoD. And there are many other examples, just look at the clients of vendors of Erlang (well known), Common Lisp, and Eiffel.
As long as the open source community sticks to C (and C++), we're all going to remain in this ridiculous situation that we are in today. In this day and age you can use a fast compiler for safer languages like ML, Lisp or Eiffel, but people insist programming like we're in the 70s.
Somebody please explain to me exactly what kind of software bug can be found by automatic scanning that isn't found by standard debugging and compile-time checks?
I was looking at creating a server just for my electronic documents (which, due to professional reasons, are growing to a much to large ammount). But I don't have time nor skills nor wish to administer a full-blown professional server; I thought of creating a safe server on a BSD, in some off-the-beaten-track programming language (like Oz, or Erlang), or just use Common Lisp (Araneida web server). Put the thing in my home network for my use. Now I read about FreeNAS.
If I understand this correctly, this would save me a lot of work (writing the little server software notwithstanding). Right?
So, does this thing have a firewall? Is it safe?
Can I install other softwares on it (suppose I want to write software for indexing my documents)? Can I install a FreeBSD port (like if I need a lisp port)?
And the F# license is one of those sick jokes by Microsoft: SCOPE OF RIGHTS: You may use, copy, reproduce, and distribute this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in this MSR-SSLA. Some purposes which can be non-commercial are teaching, academic research, public demonstrations and personal experimentation. You may also distribute this Software with books or other teaching materials, or publish the Software on websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non-commercial purposes.
This isn't software for the Real World. So I guess that leaves us with Iron Python, if you fancy that experiment in language design by Guido.
Yeah. Two. Proves my point. (F# is not Ocaml, it's not SML.) And I couldn't even figure out the license. Probably not open source, since its from Microsoft Research. And Iron Python had its development stalled. Are they back on track? My point was that CLI integration isn't easy, apparently, or we'd have seen more. Thank you for the suggestions. I was already aware of them (I said SML, remember?).
How can you say this? I don't agree with all of RMS's statements, but he is perfectly free to hold them.
Of course! Why don't we do like in Monty Python's Life of Brian and agree that he has a right to have the right to agree (or disagree) with Sun's views on licenses?
The fact the Java shouldn't be forked only makes sense because Sun oversees its development. People therefore learn what to expect from the JVMs, and Sun offers some "garantee" in what regards that behavior. Because people expect consistent behavior of Java code in various platforms, it's something that pleases everyone and all agree it is to each one's best interest. If Sun were to release Java as FOSS, there would be forks, and competition for the niche space, because Java has shortcomings, like everything else does. However, not one would really know what "NewJava", "ExpJava" or whatever means. I don't think the corporate market likes that idea. In the end, you would have a language war. Think about the languages that have survived all these years: C, C++, Smalltalk, Fortran, Lisp, etc. You will see a pattern: they have a kind of standard, a kind of agreement. Now, this new languages ("scripting" languages) are surging. They are moving targets. They are language experiments, written by people learning how to write programming languages. By comparison, they are just hacks. They keep web programmers employed, but some stuff needs software for decades: medical, telecomm, military, financial. Etc. Java caters much more to the same market that C/C++/Smalltalk/Fortran/Cobol/Lisp caters to than to the market served by the likes of Ruby on Rails or PHP.
Wow. You really took some time off to write that list, huh? Apparently, however, everybody uses Sun JDK, don't they? What significant projects use other JVMs?
That in a theoretical, rhetorical sense, right? Some time ago, developers from Allegro Common Lisp (www.franz.com) said they were looking at CLI, and they said it was hard to accomplish that. And I'm talking people with expertise and commercial interest in achieving said goal. Dynamic languages (typing decided at run-time) apparently don't fit so well with C# as the hype would have you believe. So, it doesn't seem as marvelous as it first sounded. We are - what 4 or 5 years? - down the road with.NET and we still don't see that promise being fulfilled. Can I use SML with Mono? Do we have a Scheme? Python, even? ("Note that this package does not implement Python as a first-class CLR language - it does not produce managed code (IL) from Python code." from: URL:http://www.zope.org/Members/Brian/PythonNet/)
My question is where are the C# equivalents for Java 3D, Java for embedded systems, Java for distributed computation, etc, all those offshoots of Java, in the.NET world ? GDI+; and what else? Honest question...
I, for one, think it would be great if Sun came up with a If-I-cease-to-exist-I-shall-be-released-as-Free-So ftware form kinda license, like Trolltech's Qt has. That would garantee that if Sun goes out of business, code Java lives on (I'm thinking here of a 20-years horizon). Because there are long-lived applications out there in C, Fortran, Common Lisp (one conspicuous open source case in point: Maxima CAS), etc., but I'm not sure there can be long-lived Java applications.
Yeah, they do. If they have it in their repository for download, they do. Let's drop this Debian sainthood bullshit. Want an uncompromising OS? Look elsewhere.
I think you've figured it out. Jboss was the missing link. I mean, RedHat has per-seat licenses, has released code without makefiles, they even threatened CentOS. So, for them to pose as paladins of free software...you'd be a fool to take that PR spin for real concern about children in the 3rd world. It's even fucking grotesque. I believe they should even fire the PR people who put that crap on the media. For having the sickest bad taste of them all. It always was about RedHat vs. Sun. Sun just won this round.
When Brad Cox brought OOP to C via Object C was right about the time AT & T was pushing C++ for its applications. Guess what? AT & T flexed its powerfull muscles and now C++ is everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I mentioned this is my other post. A developer said a Power Point compatible product was their next step.
If it's anything like SoftMaker, it's going to be pretty decent software.
I don't know about the Windows version, but on FreeBSD you can open and save in ODF.
I'm downloading the trial version now.... more on that in a minute. My question would be, "How much better is it than OpenOffice, and how razor thin is the difference between it and Microsoft Office, and how compatible compared with Open Office?"
To be honest, this isn't exactly a direct answer to your question.
My experience with OpenOffice has not been nice. Two years ago, I used for serious stuff and, boy, did I regret it. This friggin' bug made me loose all pagination. They told me OpenOffice was production-ready. So they told me. They lied, they were just a buch of free software fanboys who never wrote more than 20 pages with the thing. So, this is from someone who actually had to used OpenOffice for more than 20 pages.
It has gotten better with time. But I don't have the time. Recently, I tried installing it on FreeBSD and I had problems with the dictionary and other bugs. Always little stupid bugs with OpenOffice. Also, Excel support still sucks. Portuguese language support sucks. It just sucks, please don't reply with work-around hacks. I have followed the instructions. I has to resort to giving up work time to reading instructions on the internet in order to provdie for my wife a decent, usable installation. Now, I know some Linux fanboy kids love that. They think they are "hackers", when they have to work around the little problems all the time. They think they are system administrators. That they grok Unix (this is one of the reasons you always hear more about Linux in the internet forums then you head *BSD people - BSD, which is mostly the crowd you'll hear tell you that there are no problems with OpenOffice. doesn't really have those stupid little problems - at least, not as much as Linux. And, oh yeah, I used Debian for way, way, longer than I should have). So, me, I am tired of the FLOSS community expecting a bug report for little stupid bugs that should never exist in the first place and that are there just because of lazyness. When you don't have the time, it's best that you pay somebody for a well-done job. IMHO, SoftMaker is doing a fine job.
Also, I think it is extremely important that an ISV takes this step (supporting FLOSS - and, most importantly, _not_ just Linux - because, in fact, there's little reason for Linux-only software, unless you don't give a damn about POSIX, which some Linux software developers apparently don't). I would have bought the software for this reason alone, considering its price (honest price). You will notice I am a FreeBSD user, so my world view has room for proprietary software. I do not think open source will survive unless ISVs make software for our free operating systems. I also am very happy that there are people looking at FreeBSD from a commercial standpoint. So, it's not just Linux anymore. And it's not just SoftMaker. Currently, other vendors support FreeBSD too, such as virtualization software, mathematical softwares and IDEs. So things are looking good. I think the best scenario is to have a mix of both worlds. This, I believe, is realistic. The anihilation of proprietary software, at least in this century, is highly unlikely. I am not one of those Debian zealots, who revel in long threads about the "freedomness" of the Firefox icon. Microsoft products are a standard in 99% of businesses. It's important that the FLOSS community get this simple fact of life. Unless we are able to support such an evironment - an ISV-friendly environment - rant all you like, our beloved operating systems will not make it to the desktop.
SoftMaker did a fine job, in my opinion. In terms of word processing, so far it seems perfect. It fires up fast, it's totally Microsoft-compatible, AFAIK. They have told me they will develop presentation software next. The spreadsheet software has some Excel-functionality missing, like the solver. I hope they add these two things. My opinion is that it's well worth the (honest) price, and I also see it as a very important thing that people actually want to _sell_ us software, that they actually want to seize this business opportunity. Now, I am not somebody whose daily life revolves around Excel, but they demonstrate on their site they the match more features than OpenOffice.
No, the GNU operating system crowd.
Let this be a lesson regarding the GPL and the dual-licensing trap some companies set up, such as MySQL. What we see is the unfolding of another development of the loophole that the GPL license creates.
It just proves there is no dual-licensing choice. This is effectively a proprietary licensing scheme (or scam). It's just another form of making the customer fall prey to the vendor. Now we see yet another facet of this loophole: the company ties support to vendors that charge per-seat licenses. A perfect scheme, a +/+ game for the vendors, both of the software and the OS. You loose, sucker.
The BSD license does not have this loophole, and leverages the playing field for everyone. You want to "close" the BSD solution, and package it as a proprietary solution? Do it. You want it as free software? It's there. The GPL, on the other hand, by a flaw in design is used for the type of maneuvering we see in this case.
Is it any wonder Google has chosen non-GPL licenses for a lot of their released open-source code?
Software such as this is not really new. IIRC, the LAPD has been using a software called MOSAIC, made by an expert in violent behaviour, Mr. Gavin De Baker (and associates).
http://www.mosaicsystem.com/
The software is deployed in, for instance, a setting where a women has been battered by her husband. By feeding some data on the perpretator and the victim, the police department might recomend a women that she not return home, due to a huge statistical chance of her being murdered, according to data compounded from previous cases like hers.
This is pretty interesting stuff. I don't really think there anything new here, though, in terms of statistics or software. The new thing is that criminologist are learning how to make smarter tools. Which is Good Thing.
PS: I am not affiliated with GdB & assoc.
I fail to see how a binary pixel can fail to take less space than a printed geometric shape. You can squirt an ink dot a lot smaller than you can a recognizable microscopic shape.
If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.
Which conveys more information: ASCII character "9" or a pixel?
Your claim that paper last less because it gets exposed to elements has no data to support it.
.doc files...Imagine something you want to last 100 years. Maybe LaTeX files can, if you print the code.
Paper lasts 2000 years, as archaelogists will tell you. If you have error-correcting code, it sounds achievable.
I believe NIST has made a study about this, IIRC, some years ago. Digital media is bad media. I mean, for starters, large business have trouble with 1995
Regarding the use of paper, one begins to imagine the use of robotics to handle huge "Rainbow Formats" paper archives. I'm not so sure how you can have very large databases using this format. I can't envision this being feasible. Maybe it is, time will tell.
By the way, this begs the question: how useful is such a technology without open source software? Much more interesting it would be if the specification was open, and if the technology could be made to work with any old scanner and any lousy home printer. *Then* you'd have a revolution. Right now, it seems he wants a monopoly. We all know how Great Proprietary Ideas finnish sometimes: nobody cares about it; it dies.
Also, I hope a patent for "saving data on paper" is not filed, we'd loose our right to use pencils. However, he did let the cat out of the box. I expect to see copycats, just like there are many HD manufacturers.
Anyways, this is one of the most ground-breaking things I've read in years. Sainul Abideen is a genius.
For a list:
http://www.12207.com/safety.htm
First, the author is not against open source. In fact, Coverity is helping projects like FreeBSD by providing tools for developers.
Second, he is not comparing apples to oranges. He is using a metric, bug-rate in a wide sample. Then, he finds, interestingly enough, that proprietary software is very much scattered, but the ones on the top are 5 X less buggy than open source. This begs the question: why? This is what people should be discussing. Not saying he works for Microsoft and all that childish bullshit...
The *real* question is: what are those methods people developing mission-critical software use that open source hackers do not? My hunch is: formal methods, safe languages.
For instance, Ocaml http://www.astree.ens.fr/ was used in a sofware verification system for the Airbus A340 fly-by-wire system. Haskell is used by Galois Connection http://www.galois.com/ to develop secure protocols for the DoD. And there are many other examples, just look at the clients of vendors of Erlang (well known), Common Lisp, and Eiffel.
As long as the open source community sticks to C (and C++), we're all going to remain in this ridiculous situation that we are in today. In this day and age you can use a fast compiler for safer languages like ML, Lisp or Eiffel, but people insist programming like we're in the 70s.
Somebody please explain to me exactly what kind of software bug can be found by automatic scanning that isn't found by standard debugging and compile-time checks?
How about run-time errors?
I was looking at creating a server just for my electronic documents (which, due to professional reasons, are growing to a much to large ammount). But I don't have time nor skills nor wish to administer a full-blown professional server; I thought of creating a safe server on a BSD, in some off-the-beaten-track programming language (like Oz, or Erlang), or just use Common Lisp (Araneida web server). Put the thing in my home network for my use. Now I read about FreeNAS.
If I understand this correctly, this would save me a lot of work (writing the little server software notwithstanding). Right?
So, does this thing have a firewall? Is it safe?
Can I install other softwares on it (suppose I want to write software for indexing my documents)? Can I install a FreeBSD port (like if I need a lisp port)?
And the F# license is one of those sick jokes by Microsoft:
SCOPE OF RIGHTS:
You may use, copy, reproduce, and distribute this Software for any non-commercial
purpose, subject to the restrictions in this MSR-SSLA. Some purposes which can be
non-commercial are teaching, academic research, public demonstrations and personal
experimentation. You may also distribute this Software with books or other teaching
materials, or publish the Software on websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non-commercial purposes.
This isn't software for the Real World. So I guess that leaves us with Iron Python, if you fancy that experiment in language design by Guido.
Yeah.
Two. Proves my point. (F# is not Ocaml, it's not SML.) And I couldn't even figure out the license. Probably not open source, since its from Microsoft Research.
And Iron Python had its development stalled. Are they back on track?
My point was that CLI integration isn't easy, apparently, or we'd have seen more.
Thank you for the suggestions. I was already aware of them (I said SML, remember?).
How can you say this? I don't agree with all of RMS's statements, but he is perfectly free to hold them.
Of course! Why don't we do like in Monty Python's Life of Brian and agree that he has a right to have the right to agree (or disagree) with Sun's views on licenses?
The fact the Java shouldn't be forked only makes sense because Sun oversees its development. People therefore learn what to expect from the JVMs, and Sun offers some "garantee" in what regards that behavior.
Because people expect consistent behavior of Java code in various platforms, it's something that pleases everyone and all agree it is to each one's best interest.
If Sun were to release Java as FOSS, there would be forks, and competition for the niche space, because Java has shortcomings, like everything else does. However, not one would really know what "NewJava", "ExpJava" or whatever means. I don't think the corporate market likes that idea. In the end, you would have a language war.
Think about the languages that have survived all these years: C, C++, Smalltalk, Fortran, Lisp, etc. You will see a pattern: they have a kind of standard, a kind of agreement. Now, this new languages ("scripting" languages) are surging. They are moving targets. They are language experiments, written by people learning how to write programming languages. By comparison, they are just hacks. They keep web programmers employed, but some stuff needs software for decades: medical, telecomm, military, financial. Etc. Java caters much more to the same market that C/C++/Smalltalk/Fortran/Cobol/Lisp caters to than to the market served by the likes of Ruby on Rails or PHP.
Wow. You really took some time off to write that list, huh? Apparently, however, everybody uses Sun JDK, don't they? What significant projects use other JVMs?
Inferno is derived from Plan9, right? What can you do with it? What kind of applications are used on it?
You can use MANY other languages.
.NET and we still don't see that promise being fulfilled. Can I use SML with Mono? Do we have a Scheme? Python, even? ("Note that this package does not implement Python as a first-class CLR language - it does not produce managed code (IL) from Python code." from: URL:http://www.zope.org/Members/Brian/PythonNet/)
That in a theoretical, rhetorical sense, right? Some time ago, developers from Allegro Common Lisp (www.franz.com) said they were looking at CLI, and they said it was hard to accomplish that. And I'm talking people with expertise and commercial interest in achieving said goal. Dynamic languages (typing decided at run-time) apparently don't fit so well with C# as the hype would have you believe. So, it doesn't seem as marvelous as it first sounded. We are - what 4 or 5 years? - down the road with
My question is where are the C# equivalents for Java 3D, Java for embedded systems, Java for distributed computation, etc, all those offshoots of Java, in the .NET world ? GDI+; and what else? Honest question...
o ftware form kinda license, like Trolltech's Qt has. That would garantee that if Sun goes out of business, code Java lives on (I'm thinking here of a 20-years horizon). Because there are long-lived applications out there in C, Fortran, Common Lisp (one conspicuous open source case in point: Maxima CAS), etc., but I'm not sure there can be long-lived Java applications.
I, for one, think it would be great if Sun came up with a If-I-cease-to-exist-I-shall-be-released-as-Free-S
Yeah, they do. If they have it in their repository for download, they do. Let's drop this Debian sainthood bullshit.
Want an uncompromising OS? Look elsewhere.
I think you've figured it out. Jboss was the missing link. I mean, RedHat has per-seat licenses, has released code without makefiles, they even threatened CentOS. So, for them to pose as paladins of free software...you'd be a fool to take that PR spin for real concern about children in the 3rd world.
It's even fucking grotesque. I believe they should even fire the PR people who put that crap on the media. For having the sickest bad taste of them all.
It always was about RedHat vs. Sun. Sun just won this round.
Might interest you: http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/#scimark2
When Brad Cox brought OOP to C via Object C was right about the time AT & T was pushing C++ for its applications.
Guess what? AT & T flexed its powerfull muscles and now C++ is everywhere.
Why is it that people from NetBSD and OpenBSD are able to download the source code and compile it, and people from Linux distros aren't?