After RTFA'ing... (or is it R'ingTFA?)
The author of this piece seems to be trying to make a case that time spent on dotGNU and Mono is time wasted.
I beg to differ, in that we can ALWAYS use another compiler (and/or IDE) for any language. Some compilers optimize for this or that, but if the binary resulting is capable of running, more power to it. I know a few programmers who will use different compilers based on what code they are attempting to compile. Mostly because X compiler does X code better than Y compiler would, and so on.
It is always good to have a choice in the marketplace, *even for free software*.
That being said, I am fully in favor of using the.NET framework and C#. Why? Because we can recompile it for Windows, for Linux, etc. It makes more sense to write once, compile anywhere. And the flexibility allowed by C# is a lot better than that afforded by C/C++. The time to market is quicker, to boot.
Lower time developing = Lower cost of making a program = Cheaper programs, more quickly updated.
I am not one that expects software to be free as in beer. But to be free as in speech is a good thing. Microsoft will probably never release a self-bootstrapping compiler, so the efforts of dotGNU and Mono go towards this. This is a niche they can fill quite well.
I, for one, welcome our new.NET overlords.
Actually a friend of mine used to work at a photo lab, and he had a "greatest hits" album.
Yes, it is illegal to do this.
Yes, it is immoral to do this.
Does he care? Nope, not really. I stopped dropping rolls of film at the developers the moment I saw his album.
"You mean *amateur* photo lab."
I mean a photo lab good enough for the (non-professional) pictures I take.
I agree that professional photography has special needs (such as the aforementioned $5,000 laser printer and good Kodak paper) but for your average home user, heck...your average geek, a inkjet will do just fine if you use photo paper.
Unlike most people, I don't require "hard copy" of my photos. In fact, I prefer to keep it digital. I can store it, perfectly, for longer than 30 years in a binary form. And the pictures I take have such generous pixel counts that they would look perfectly undistorted printing on any size up to 8.5x11. So if I ever require, say, a photo from 30 years ago, I can print it myself or (if I need something larger) e-mail it to the all-digital photo processing place (which is what we will be left with in 30 years) and pick up my print the next day or something.
Again, for my needs, digital is the choice for me. Your mileage may vary, and I am NOT a pro photographer.
Personally, I prefer digital film than the good ole 35mm stuff. Reason? I buy digital film (sD card) and that is the only cost I incur. No processing fees, no worry about someone else seeing my pictures and keeping them for their private photo album, and the best part is I get to immediately have results. Combine that with a good color printer, and you've got your own photo lab right there.
Call me crazy, but isn't that basically what the legal defense fund is? Vendor-based indemnification usually == the vendor will pay legal fees etc. if you wind up in court for using product X. Considering OSDL is technically a linux "vendor" (i.e. they "manufacture" portions of the "product" and distribute it....) and since the OSDL is basically a community figurehead type operation and Linux is a community project.... you can tell where I am going with this right?;)
I wonder if it is affected by the RPC holes? Can you imagine the havoc one could wreak if they slammed a Carnivore and bent it to their will?
*shudder*
Well, the level of sophistication to me is a good argument.
Sort of like determining a level of skill in killers, where a first-time killer can get a lighter sentence, where a trained professional hitman would get a harsher sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
After RTFA'ing... (or is it R'ingTFA?) The author of this piece seems to be trying to make a case that time spent on dotGNU and Mono is time wasted. I beg to differ, in that we can ALWAYS use another compiler (and/or IDE) for any language. Some compilers optimize for this or that, but if the binary resulting is capable of running, more power to it. I know a few programmers who will use different compilers based on what code they are attempting to compile. Mostly because X compiler does X code better than Y compiler would, and so on. It is always good to have a choice in the marketplace, *even for free software*. That being said, I am fully in favor of using the .NET framework and C#. Why? Because we can recompile it for Windows, for Linux, etc. It makes more sense to write once, compile anywhere. And the flexibility allowed by C# is a lot better than that afforded by C/C++. The time to market is quicker, to boot.
Lower time developing = Lower cost of making a program = Cheaper programs, more quickly updated.
I am not one that expects software to be free as in beer. But to be free as in speech is a good thing. Microsoft will probably never release a self-bootstrapping compiler, so the efforts of dotGNU and Mono go towards this. This is a niche they can fill quite well.
I, for one, welcome our new .NET overlords.
Actually a friend of mine used to work at a photo lab, and he had a "greatest hits" album.
Yes, it is illegal to do this.
Yes, it is immoral to do this.
Does he care? Nope, not really. I stopped dropping rolls of film at the developers the moment I saw his album.
"You mean *amateur* photo lab." I mean a photo lab good enough for the (non-professional) pictures I take. I agree that professional photography has special needs (such as the aforementioned $5,000 laser printer and good Kodak paper) but for your average home user, heck...your average geek, a inkjet will do just fine if you use photo paper. Unlike most people, I don't require "hard copy" of my photos. In fact, I prefer to keep it digital. I can store it, perfectly, for longer than 30 years in a binary form. And the pictures I take have such generous pixel counts that they would look perfectly undistorted printing on any size up to 8.5x11. So if I ever require, say, a photo from 30 years ago, I can print it myself or (if I need something larger) e-mail it to the all-digital photo processing place (which is what we will be left with in 30 years) and pick up my print the next day or something. Again, for my needs, digital is the choice for me. Your mileage may vary, and I am NOT a pro photographer.
Personally, I prefer digital film than the good ole 35mm stuff. Reason? I buy digital film (sD card) and that is the only cost I incur. No processing fees, no worry about someone else seeing my pictures and keeping them for their private photo album, and the best part is I get to immediately have results. Combine that with a good color printer, and you've got your own photo lab right there.
Call me crazy, but isn't that basically what the legal defense fund is? Vendor-based indemnification usually == the vendor will pay legal fees etc. if you wind up in court for using product X. Considering OSDL is technically a linux "vendor" (i.e. they "manufacture" portions of the "product" and distribute it....) and since the OSDL is basically a community figurehead type operation and Linux is a community project.... you can tell where I am going with this right? ;)
I wonder if it is affected by the RPC holes? Can you imagine the havoc one could wreak if they slammed a Carnivore and bent it to their will? *shudder*
I agree. ipav just doesn't have the same ring to it... ipav -t 127.0.0.1
Well, the level of sophistication to me is a good argument.
Sort of like determining a level of skill in killers, where a first-time killer can get a lighter sentence, where a trained professional hitman would get a harsher sentence.
Makes sense to me...