That permissive license is very interesting. It basically states that anyone is free to do what they want with the software as long as Microsoft retains ownership of it.
There is nothing in the license to prevent Microsoft from taking your code, modifying it, and distributing only the binaries. In essence, they can take your project and close it up.
When most people say computer literacy, they often aren't talking about what you're describing; most will not approach programming because they may either think that it is too difficult, or they lack the motivation to do it because they don't understand or want the benefits. In most scenarios, literacy is taken to mean "make it work," or, more importantly, "don't come to us for help."
Understanding computers, however, goes a bit far beyond just that. Learning a programming language is an endeavor that gives people a much more realistic perspective on what computers are and how they work. It may help them to appreciate software, and offer insight into exactly why it works the way it works.
I think that without sufficient programming experience, no person can ever claim to have more than a basic understanding of computers.
Thinking about this logically, admin rights should only be given when necessary. If they aren't needed, there is no problem with taking them away, and if they have set up their system environment properly, the employees won't miss it at all. Employees that do need some special priveledge can be given limited access (kind of like sudo, etc).
GNU/Linux is a mix of old concepts and new, a quest for purism in an environment hobbled by legacy technologies and ideas. That, in many ways, the clash of the old, impure, and the new pure and perfect, is what Songs is about, and it's a real mind opener.
And might I also suggest the works of Marx and Hegel.
This may seem an odd choice, but the fact is that Free Software, and GNU in particular, constitution new territory that requires revolutionary ideas to push forward, and resistance from the usual conformist powers that impose the old status quo on the new.
Also try the works of Lenin, Mao, and Trotsky.
Before interpreting this as a joke, it is useful to note that these items are relevant and have historical significance. Most of us are aware of both the positive and negative impacts of communist theory, and understanding these ideas in a real world context is no less useful than having them presented through fiction. They might even help you to be a better programmer.:)
They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.
It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.
When Microsoft says commercial software is dependable, what they are implying is that you can depend on the software vendors. While this can be the case, it is unfortantely a poorly recognized issue that, not only can you depend on them, but you can't not depend on them. In other words, you are forced into a dependant relationship with the vendor.
When vendors are good to their customers, it's a kind of dependant relationship that we can get into willingly. It's akin to when one chooses to depend on a good friend or spouse--you decide to make yourself vulnerable to the person because there is a level of trust. Usually, this sort of relationship is mutual.
Ideally, software vendors and their clients should have a similar mutual relationship. Companies like Microsoft, however, are clearly in a dominant position, the type that damages said relationships. There's a reason why we call the applicable laws "anti-trust."
With Free software, one does not need to make oneself vulnerable when choosing to use a certain piece of software. Less dependable? Less secure? Repeat after me: FUD.
Free software and proprietary software have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Systems like linux are important because sometimes essential system software and development tools are so necessary that a greedy vendor can easily pull your strings when there aren't viable alternatives to their solution. Free software ensures that you don't accidentally get forced into an oppressive relationship. Free as in freedom, folks. =)
Now that there's a working system that can stand on its own, all of a sudden the free software advocates (obviously, not ALL of us) are screaming about how bundling is bad.
You're right that it doesn't seem consistent when something that was tolerated then then isn't now, but if you take a look at what Richard Stallman had to say about Free vs. proprietary software, he clearly states that one should avoid using proprietary software at all if possible. He described using GNU software on top of proprietary systems as a nasty compromise that had to be made temporarily for the sake of creating a Free system. Now that one exists, one doesn't have to do that anymore.
You could argue that right now we have the same situation with things like our video drivers and certain applications, but for some people that's not good enough.
All they required was that changes to *their* code be returned to the public. Anything that the licensee creates separately is his own.
Even though the licenses of the software you mentioned permit this, bear in mind that this is not characteristic of Free software, something that GNU and the FSF are very dedicated to. Since GNU/linux is the most popular implementation of their system, naturally you're going to have a large user base that prescribes to the philosphy behind Free software. Even if you don't like hearing complaints from them, it's bound to happen.:)
I'm actually quite pleased to hear about Dragon Quest for the Wii. I'm a huge console RPG fan, and many years ago I lost complete faith in Nintendo to deliver the kind of gaming experience I wanted. DQ is a hallmark series on par with Final Fantasy, and since I am planning to purchase a Wii, I hope that more RPGs call that console home.
I wouldn't call myself a "purist", but I gave up a long time ago trying to decide how to refer to that game. The only obvious choice was to call it VI. Why? Because there is only one game called Final Fantasy VI. If you say III, your audience has to decide whether you are talking about VI or III. You either have to shoulder the risk of them not knowing what the hell you are talking about or waste the time to explain to them which game you're actually talking about.
I suppose you could specify III(US) or something fancy like that, but VI is so much easier to type, and easier still to say.:)
Re:For those that like the best of both worlds
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Also, emacs has viper-mode. This is ideal for people like me who have vi keystrokes so deeply ingrained that they can't stop using them ever but would like to have access to some of emacs' functions.
Enjoy!
Don't take me for a troll, but I'd like to politely say that this seems like a rather inane question to make the front page of Slashdot. After all, anyone who has taken a programming class has been made to write software like this as a gentle, easy introduction to programming. Naturally, this is a real-world problem that is a bit larger and more complex than simple practice problems (ie larger data set, possible need for network code), but the fundamental idea is very similar.
The fact that the original system was written in COBOL and ran on DOS is a little telling. Back when my father used to work for Radioshack, he coded an inventory transaction system in BASIC in his spare time, and it was used by quite a few of their shops. His programming experience is quite modest, and he's always been more of a user than a coder.
My point being this: You can produce this software in-house a lot more effectively than by seeking an outside solution. Other people may have written programs (or systems of programs) that do what you want, but they aren't tailored specifically for your company. Also, I imagine that it would be a lot cheaper (sure, there is freeware, but somebody still has to work on it to make it fit).
We all know the name sucks. Some of us are making jokes about it, some of us are kind of just looking at it and trying to figure out whether or not we can persuade ourselves to like it, and others are talking about how great and clever it is because they are in denial.
Some rationalists argue that Nintendo is a successful, multi-billion dollar company that is quite old. They can't do wrong, right? There is no way that they couldn't have put forth a great amount of effort in choosing a name. They have clever explanations about its significance, and peple claim it's aprt of some grand marketing scheme.
Nintendo vanguards can say what they will, but it's just an awkward name that rubs people in the United States the wrong way (I can't speak for other countries).
Personally, I am very excited about the console itself, and I plan to buy one when it is released. I expect it to be the best console on the market holistically.
I've read a lot of Stallman's writing, and I've listened to him speaking on several occasions. Say what you will about his appearance and persona, but when it comes down to what he's saying, he is actually one of the most articule speakers I've ever witnessed. The man is always clear and consistent in what he says, is proper in his speech, and always operates based on logic--I've never known him to appeal to emotions.
Games are essentially programs (they are also more than just programs), and as a programmer I find artistic value in programming--I always have since I amused myself by writing clever, creative code. Game programmers can often be unimaginative, but games are also one programming application in which creativity plays a stronger role.
Having played many games with artistic value through my life time, arguing that games are not art seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I know I'm prejudiced, but I can't take anyone who holds the opposite opinion seriously.
I've owned one since they were first released, and it's a wonderful little handheld. It works well, is very programmable, and has an active development community.
It's not without its issues; you can learn more by checking out the wiki and also visiting #gp2xdev and #gp2x on EFNet.
Perhaps I misunderstand virtualization, but this is what came to my mind after reading about it:
Imagine that in the future nearly every application will be run inside its own private virtual systems. This will be done to improve security, scalability, etc etc. For very complex applications, this will improve the stability of the system as a whole!
I recently switched from Ubuntu to Fedora Core 5. I loved Ubuntu; I left merely because I like to try new things, and I ran Fedora for a while before Ubuntu became a household name (of course, I'd known of its existence for quite a long time, but I tended to view it as immature, whether or not that view was justified (don't blame a user of stable systems to shy away from new things)).
Ubuntu was great: stable, fast, polished. No hassle whatsoever--and don't confuse ease with limitation; power and flexibility also abound, and nothing is held back from power users and administrators.
Moving to Fedora was a little awkward at first because it did certainly seem slower--the install process and updates took longer, and the system seemed to need a little bit of time to settle into its groove. After that, no appreciable speed difference. Linux is linux, I decided.
As for FC vs. Ubuntu. Well, they're just different. Debian vs. Red Hat? We're talking two fundamental pillars of the linux world--the vast majority of distros alive are based off of one or the other. Naysayers aside, both have withstood the test of time, let alone all the other tests.
I think package systems contribute to the perceived speed of distros. Honestly, I think dpkg is just plain faster in every way. RPM seems just as much stable and robust, but slightly more painful to work with and much more taxing on the system. Oh yeah, and I like yum. A lot. Sure, it's not aptitude, but it does more than you think.
I've used Ubuntu 5.04, liked it, but now I'm thinking about trying out Fedora Core 5. However, if the review is right and Ubuntu "smokes" FC5, it sounds like I should just wait until Dapper comes out.
I found myself in your shoes. I'm quite glad I gave Fedora a shot, and there's nothing to hold you back from switching. If I'm not totally comfy with Fedora, I'll just switch to Dapper when it's released! Have your cake and eat it too.
I discussed that on a user forum, but really didn't have the time to file a bug-report.
Not to be nit-picky, but doesn't that statement seem a little contradicting? Or maybe you spent so much time on the forums that there was none left over for bug reports.:)
Slashdot Mirror
What is magic?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. :)
That permissive license is very interesting. It basically states that anyone is free to do what they want with the software as long as Microsoft retains ownership of it.
There is nothing in the license to prevent Microsoft from taking your code, modifying it, and distributing only the binaries. In essence, they can take your project and close it up.
Sure, I agree with you.
When most people say computer literacy, they often aren't talking about what you're describing; most will not approach programming because they may either think that it is too difficult, or they lack the motivation to do it because they don't understand or want the benefits. In most scenarios, literacy is taken to mean "make it work," or, more importantly, "don't come to us for help."
Understanding computers, however, goes a bit far beyond just that. Learning a programming language is an endeavor that gives people a much more realistic perspective on what computers are and how they work. It may help them to appreciate software, and offer insight into exactly why it works the way it works.
I think that without sufficient programming experience, no person can ever claim to have more than a basic understanding of computers.
Thinking about this logically, admin rights should only be given when necessary. If they aren't needed, there is no problem with taking them away, and if they have set up their system environment properly, the employees won't miss it at all. Employees that do need some special priveledge can be given limited access (kind of like sudo, etc).
Most of the interview is not about the price point. When he does talk about it, he only says that he can't talk about it.
GNU/Linux is a mix of old concepts and new, a quest for purism in an environment hobbled by legacy technologies and ideas. That, in many ways, the clash of the old, impure, and the new pure and perfect, is what Songs is about, and it's a real mind opener.
And might I also suggest the works of Marx and Hegel.
This may seem an odd choice, but the fact is that Free Software, and GNU in particular, constitution new territory that requires revolutionary ideas to push forward, and resistance from the usual conformist powers that impose the old status quo on the new.
Also try the works of Lenin, Mao, and Trotsky.
Before interpreting this as a joke, it is useful to note that these items are relevant and have historical significance. Most of us are aware of both the positive and negative impacts of communist theory, and understanding these ideas in a real world context is no less useful than having them presented through fiction. They might even help you to be a better programmer. :)
vi is over doing it. No modern programmer would use such an antiquated editor.
This story is only 12 days old. Also, it's easy to prove absolute statements like yours false--be careful where you point that thing.
They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.
It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.
When Microsoft says commercial software is dependable, what they are implying is that you can depend on the software vendors. While this can be the case, it is unfortantely a poorly recognized issue that, not only can you depend on them, but you can't not depend on them. In other words, you are forced into a dependant relationship with the vendor.
When vendors are good to their customers, it's a kind of dependant relationship that we can get into willingly. It's akin to when one chooses to depend on a good friend or spouse--you decide to make yourself vulnerable to the person because there is a level of trust. Usually, this sort of relationship is mutual.
Ideally, software vendors and their clients should have a similar mutual relationship. Companies like Microsoft, however, are clearly in a dominant position, the type that damages said relationships. There's a reason why we call the applicable laws "anti-trust."
With Free software, one does not need to make oneself vulnerable when choosing to use a certain piece of software. Less dependable? Less secure? Repeat after me: FUD.
Free software and proprietary software have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Systems like linux are important because sometimes essential system software and development tools are so necessary that a greedy vendor can easily pull your strings when there aren't viable alternatives to their solution. Free software ensures that you don't accidentally get forced into an oppressive relationship. Free as in freedom, folks. =)
This is sad but true. I have learned from personal experience about the "1 question rule." In fact, some people can't even manage 1.
Now that there's a working system that can stand on its own, all of a sudden the free software advocates (obviously, not ALL of us) are screaming about how bundling is bad.
You're right that it doesn't seem consistent when something that was tolerated then then isn't now, but if you take a look at what Richard Stallman had to say about Free vs. proprietary software, he clearly states that one should avoid using proprietary software at all if possible. He described using GNU software on top of proprietary systems as a nasty compromise that had to be made temporarily for the sake of creating a Free system. Now that one exists, one doesn't have to do that anymore.
You could argue that right now we have the same situation with things like our video drivers and certain applications, but for some people that's not good enough.
All they required was that changes to *their* code be returned to the public. Anything that the licensee creates separately is his own.
Even though the licenses of the software you mentioned permit this, bear in mind that this is not characteristic of Free software, something that GNU and the FSF are very dedicated to. Since GNU/linux is the most popular implementation of their system, naturally you're going to have a large user base that prescribes to the philosphy behind Free software. Even if you don't like hearing complaints from them, it's bound to happen. :)
I'm actually quite pleased to hear about Dragon Quest for the Wii. I'm a huge console RPG fan, and many years ago I lost complete faith in Nintendo to deliver the kind of gaming experience I wanted. DQ is a hallmark series on par with Final Fantasy, and since I am planning to purchase a Wii, I hope that more RPGs call that console home.
Final Fantasy III (or VI for you purists)
I wouldn't call myself a "purist", but I gave up a long time ago trying to decide how to refer to that game. The only obvious choice was to call it VI. Why? Because there is only one game called Final Fantasy VI. If you say III, your audience has to decide whether you are talking about VI or III. You either have to shoulder the risk of them not knowing what the hell you are talking about or waste the time to explain to them which game you're actually talking about.
I suppose you could specify III(US) or something fancy like that, but VI is so much easier to type, and easier still to say. :)
Also, emacs has viper-mode. This is ideal for people like me who have vi keystrokes so deeply ingrained that they can't stop using them ever but would like to have access to some of emacs' functions. Enjoy!
Aye aye! Here's mine.
Don't take me for a troll, but I'd like to politely say that this seems like a rather inane question to make the front page of Slashdot. After all, anyone who has taken a programming class has been made to write software like this as a gentle, easy introduction to programming. Naturally, this is a real-world problem that is a bit larger and more complex than simple practice problems (ie larger data set, possible need for network code), but the fundamental idea is very similar.
The fact that the original system was written in COBOL and ran on DOS is a little telling. Back when my father used to work for Radioshack, he coded an inventory transaction system in BASIC in his spare time, and it was used by quite a few of their shops. His programming experience is quite modest, and he's always been more of a user than a coder.
My point being this: You can produce this software in-house a lot more effectively than by seeking an outside solution. Other people may have written programs (or systems of programs) that do what you want, but they aren't tailored specifically for your company. Also, I imagine that it would be a lot cheaper (sure, there is freeware, but somebody still has to work on it to make it fit).
We all know the name sucks. Some of us are making jokes about it, some of us are kind of just looking at it and trying to figure out whether or not we can persuade ourselves to like it, and others are talking about how great and clever it is because they are in denial.
Some rationalists argue that Nintendo is a successful, multi-billion dollar company that is quite old. They can't do wrong, right? There is no way that they couldn't have put forth a great amount of effort in choosing a name. They have clever explanations about its significance, and peple claim it's aprt of some grand marketing scheme.
I blame this on groupthink.
Nintendo vanguards can say what they will, but it's just an awkward name that rubs people in the United States the wrong way (I can't speak for other countries).
Personally, I am very excited about the console itself, and I plan to buy one when it is released. I expect it to be the best console on the market holistically.
I've read a lot of Stallman's writing, and I've listened to him speaking on several occasions. Say what you will about his appearance and persona, but when it comes down to what he's saying, he is actually one of the most articule speakers I've ever witnessed. The man is always clear and consistent in what he says, is proper in his speech, and always operates based on logic--I've never known him to appeal to emotions.
Having played many games with artistic value through my life time, arguing that games are not art seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I know I'm prejudiced, but I can't take anyone who holds the opposite opinion seriously.
I think you can find artistic value in anything.
It's not without its issues; you can learn more by checking out the wiki and also visiting #gp2xdev and #gp2x on EFNet.
Imagine that in the future nearly every application will be run inside its own private virtual systems. This will be done to improve security, scalability, etc etc. For very complex applications, this will improve the stability of the system as a whole!
Ubuntu was great: stable, fast, polished. No hassle whatsoever--and don't confuse ease with limitation; power and flexibility also abound, and nothing is held back from power users and administrators.
Moving to Fedora was a little awkward at first because it did certainly seem slower--the install process and updates took longer, and the system seemed to need a little bit of time to settle into its groove. After that, no appreciable speed difference. Linux is linux, I decided.
As for FC vs. Ubuntu. Well, they're just different. Debian vs. Red Hat? We're talking two fundamental pillars of the linux world--the vast majority of distros alive are based off of one or the other. Naysayers aside, both have withstood the test of time, let alone all the other tests.
I think package systems contribute to the perceived speed of distros. Honestly, I think dpkg is just plain faster in every way. RPM seems just as much stable and robust, but slightly more painful to work with and much more taxing on the system. Oh yeah, and I like yum. A lot. Sure, it's not aptitude, but it does more than you think.
I've used Ubuntu 5.04, liked it, but now I'm thinking about trying out Fedora Core 5. However, if the review is right and Ubuntu "smokes" FC5, it sounds like I should just wait until Dapper comes out.
I found myself in your shoes. I'm quite glad I gave Fedora a shot, and there's nothing to hold you back from switching. If I'm not totally comfy with Fedora, I'll just switch to Dapper when it's released! Have your cake and eat it too.
Not to be nit-picky, but doesn't that statement seem a little contradicting? Or maybe you spent so much time on the forums that there was none left over for bug reports. :)
AOL's "email tax" is the first step down a slippery slope that will harm the Internet itself.
The "slippery slope" is a well known logical fallacy; why did they include it?
After all, I support their cause, but I can't put my name on a letter written like that!