There's a difference between arithmetic and mathematics. I may not do numerical integration, but I understand why one algorithm is O(log n) and another is O(n^2).
When I tried Opera (some time ago I admit) it
couldn't render pages on sites that I commonly
visit. I didn't care how fast it was if I couldn't use it. I'm sure it has improved and it sounds like a lot of people like it.
I've been very happy with Mozilla. It doesn't seem slow to me like it did early on.
It sounds like Opera still has problems with JavaScript. Well, again it doesn't matter to me how fast it is if it doesn't work right. (Yes I'm aware of W3C standards issues). I guess I just don't get all the "but Opera is fast!" people. Well I suppose lynx is fast, but it's hard to use with many sites. wget to a file, then catting it is fast too:).
Let me guess - you were the head of Debate Club in highschool?
I don't hate proprietary software at all. I just prefer free software, especially at home since I'm a hobbyist. I want a certain amount of core software to be freely available so software can keep advancing, especially developer tools, operating systems, and basic utilities. I don't think that's a weird position at all.
Somebody has a really thin skin. Do you behave like that toward everyone?
When someone's treating me poorly damned right I'm going to say something and not just take it. Childish behavior keeps a lot of people away from Slashdot. I think we can keep the discussions civil.
I'm personally more interested in being able to do what I want with software. Proprietary software can smother an OS. On Windows everyone wants $25 for their silly little shareware program, and the most basic tools aren't freely and easily available to the extent they are on Linux. The problem with that mentality is that it creates a barrier to improving productivity for everyone. By making software technology more widespread and free you are essentially moving software to the next higher level. That is what I want.
Additionally, I don't think that rejecting the BK license will somehow destroy the commercial software industry. I don't think it will even blink. Companies can make money in a myriad of ways. It is simply not necessary for the success of capitalism (as some people in this thread seem to believe) that we allow companies to create onerous EULAs.
Linux already succeeded. Why do people keep threatening failure just because I and others don't like the BitKeeper license? BitKeeper is not funding the entire Linux development! How dare I suggest that freedom is more important than profit and that we shouldn't allow companies to get away with ridiculous licensing like this at our expense.
I'm sure the ICFP Functional Programming Contest attracts a large number of functional language enthusiasts, and far above average programmers. I don't think you can draw any reasonable conclusions about languages from this contest.
In a conversation about languages, someone could say "English has hundreds of words for canine" and someone could reply "So what, we have Big Canines, Little Canines, Feirce Canines, Yapping Canines, Wild Canines, etc."
Exactly my point. How much do you want to bet some of the alleged 20 rain words in Japanese are not distinct words? Obviously I can think in terms of dozens of kinds of rain in English. The Japanese are not better rain philosophers due to their language.
Don't insult my reading comprehension. That's rude and unnecessary. I read and quoted your entire post and asked you to clarify. However, you did clarify your point.
The real problem is that RMS may or may not be a prophet but he insists on acting like god and pissing off people just by his tone. The real message gets lost in the ensuing flamewar. Overall he has become counter-productive to his own aims
The GPL and LGPL are extremely widely used. The FSF is successful and maintains a large amount of software. How has RMS's message been counterproductive?
why would i want to have something freed at some unknown time AFTER it falls out of scope?
Performance, timing constraints, general efficiency... When you write data to disk it is not immediately physically written out (unless you are using unbuffered I/O on a direct I/O filesystem without hardware caching). In both cases the action is performed logically but not physically in order to increase performance.
What I was hinting at is that using other languages does not magically make your programs reliable or secure, though obviously it helps. There's more to it than removing pointers. No language is intelligent enough to realize what a programmer's intentions are and then carry them out with optimal efficiency. Even specification languages like NASA uses have many limitations. For starters, they run on hardware that is not 100% perfect, the bane of proving software correctness.
What operating system and languages do you use? I bet they are implemented in C. If C isn't secure and reliable how can applications programmed in higher level languages built on them be secure and reliable?
Slashdot Mirror
The time of an expert is more valuable than the time of a novice.
-Kevin
Back in my day, trolls came up with their own stuff. Now they're all clones, probably due to excessive inbreeding.
-Kevin
-Kevin
evidence?
-Kevin
I've been very happy with Mozilla. It doesn't seem slow to me like it did early on.
It sounds like Opera still has problems with JavaScript. Well, again it doesn't matter to me how fast it is if it doesn't work right. (Yes I'm aware of W3C standards issues). I guess I just don't get all the "but Opera is fast!" people. Well I suppose lynx is fast, but it's hard to use with many sites. wget to a file, then catting it is fast too :).
-Kevin
I don't hate proprietary software at all. I just prefer free software, especially at home since I'm a hobbyist. I want a certain amount of core software to be freely available so software can keep advancing, especially developer tools, operating systems, and basic utilities. I don't think that's a weird position at all.
-Kevin
When someone's treating me poorly damned right I'm going to say something and not just take it. Childish behavior keeps a lot of people away from Slashdot. I think we can keep the discussions civil.
-Kevin
-Kevin
-Kevin
Additionally, I don't think that rejecting the BK license will somehow destroy the commercial software industry. I don't think it will even blink. Companies can make money in a myriad of ways. It is simply not necessary for the success of capitalism (as some people in this thread seem to believe) that we allow companies to create onerous EULAs.
-Kevin
-Kevin
Regardless, attacking me was juvenile.
-Kevin
-Kevin
Exactly my point. How much do you want to bet some of the alleged 20 rain words in Japanese are not distinct words? Obviously I can think in terms of dozens of kinds of rain in English. The Japanese are not better rain philosophers due to their language.
-Kevin
We feel this is necessary to ensure the viability of our business.
Unfortunately your hammer was a free sample you obtained from the International Hammer Show 2001, and not the full commercial version.
We do sell a commercial hammer with no restrictions for $99.95.
Sincerely,
Ron O'Nail, U.S. Hammer Corp.
Don't insult my reading comprehension. That's rude and unnecessary. I read and quoted your entire post and asked you to clarify. However, you did clarify your point.
-Kevin
-Kevin
That's your opinion.
-Kevin
The GPL and LGPL are extremely widely used. The FSF is successful and maintains a large amount of software. How has RMS's message been counterproductive?
-Kevin
No. There IS something morally wrong about restricting the use of your software. Ridiculous.
-Kevin
That's just a few minutes of brainstorming, I'm sure there are more.
-Kevin
Performance, timing constraints, general efficiency... When you write data to disk it is not immediately physically written out (unless you are using unbuffered I/O on a direct I/O filesystem without hardware caching). In both cases the action is performed logically but not physically in order to increase performance.
What I was hinting at is that using other languages does not magically make your programs reliable or secure, though obviously it helps. There's more to it than removing pointers. No language is intelligent enough to realize what a programmer's intentions are and then carry them out with optimal efficiency. Even specification languages like NASA uses have many limitations. For starters, they run on hardware that is not 100% perfect, the bane of proving software correctness.
-Kevin