In the 1990's, soon after their great success at Hollywood blockbusters, they ventured into the videogames business with Nintendo in the form of the Nintendo64 console. Unfortunately, a more modest machine won the hearts and minds of videogames enthusiasts all over: Sony Playstation.
Then, regular PCs, with very powerful and cheap 3D video cards began eat their Workstation lunch. Linux clusters of common pc hardware substituted their costly hardware in the making of Hollywood flicks.
Now, the end is near for the once king of rendering...
Qt is not proprietary. It's an open-source library with full source-code available under the GPL. It's also available under a commercial license for those wishing to pay for support.
"Ruby is an example of what VBScript should have been but completely failed at."
Yeah right. VB is all but ruby. First because you can count on all Basic languages to have the very same lame Basic syntax as they always had all these years. And then, because Ruby's got many innovative and advanced features that the audience that consumes Basic won't ever grasp.
"PHP is, at it's heard, a procedural language but very robust and powerful applications have been built with"
harharharharhar... good one...
PHP is a shitty piece of crap that is very much the same as an open-source VBScript/ASP with Perl syntax and less flexibility. It's not as robust and flexible as Perl, nor as modern and modular as Ruby and Python, but nevertheless went more popular because it's so simple and straightforward that non-programmers can use it.
The alternative to extremely bloated and redundant java and.net web technologies is an extremely basic (old)ASP-alike with all functions and variables sharing the same namespace and global variables running wild. Granted, it's easy. Just as easy as notepad and just as featureless and error-prone...
Hey, i'm just as annoyed at java and.net as everybody else, but i'd point to Python, Ruby, Perl or Tcl technologies rather than this sub-Perl refugee...
In special, this section, already showed arount here:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
Read the b) clause above? I don't need a FAQ to understand what it means nor to "know this is required from the text of the GPL itself".
If it's hard for you to understand, let me condense it to make it clearer:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it... and copy and distribute such modifications... provided that you also must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Plainly, if you modify and publish your work based on GPLed work, you must supply the changes to the GPLed work. not that hard, huh?
"Client-server lesson 101. Code exists on your client computer."
Really?! what about RPCs? XML-RPC? webservices? it's all really just dynamic linking to libraries physically located _outside_ your computer, but that you still _need_ in order to do your computations. Publishing is making something public for people to use, not necessarily publishing it like a closed box in a store.
"I'm certain they aren't. However, I'm equally certain that they'll be tied into Apache and some database system, probably hard-coded for speed."
Apache is not GPLed work, so Google has every right to do it.
"Now they're saying 'well, your software is staying in-house, but you have limitations on what you can do with it, depending on what data you handle or that data's source'"
When the GPL say you may modify a GPLed work to suit your need without the need to publish the modifications, it's _only_ in the case YOU DON'T FRIGGIN' PUBLISH YOUR WORK BASED ON GPLed SOFTWARE. So, if you modify a GPLed program and _use_ it _inside_ you corporation only, that's ok. If you're publishing your work, you must publish the modified GPLed code too.
Is that so hard to understand?
So, your choice is either publish the modifications or simply not base your software on GPLed software.
In the example you gave, a webservice or other based upon another GPLed server is being _published_ on the web. The modified code must be there too.
BTW, "staying in-house" isn't the same as being in a local webserver, because it's content is being used outside of your corporation...
"Google for one are majorly unlikely to be releasing their search algorithms to the world"
What makes you think Google's algorithms are based on GPLed algorithms?
Nope. Both vim and emacs don't know anything about the semantics of the underlying code. If it knew, once you typed "foo." For a struct, for instance, it could prompt you for the member variables of such struct. Both editors offer syntax highlighting, which has nothing to do with semantics.
"an annoying and useless 'feature' for someone like me who's been programming enough years to know what most of the functions are by now"
Yes, i see what you're problem is: you seemingly only use standard lib functions, never used functions from another lib for the first time and most likely never ever touched object-oriented code.
Code-completion ( semantic completion ) does show you in a very handy popup all the functions a module exports or all the member variables and methods for a class, in a glance, for you to choose from.
But, yeah, vi is ok for shell scripts or low-level C plumbering...
Emacs has a number of experimental code-completion elisp code that promise a lot but still are pretty unsubstantial...
Of course, superior general-purpose text-editing and quick source navigation features are something that places emacs high above any other IDE's editors i know of...
Assembly programmers find C and C++ too bloated and slow. Film at 11:00.
seriously, low-level programmers dealing directly with memory, registers and GPUs will never get the benefits of very high programming languages... like writting far better and more flexible NPC AI behaviour in far less time.
afaik, the X Windows System is not frozen in time as you seem to think. Far from it, cool and exciting modular technologies either building up on it or adding value are coming. Check it out:
Cairo, a 2D vector-based GUI backend. GTK2.8 is already built on cairo. BTW, GTK ( along with Mozilla's XUL ) also pionneered the on-the-fly translation of an xml-based document describing a GUI into a running GUI, via libglade.
I don't think the next generation of either KDE or GNOME will be taking a beating from either M$ or Apple.
As for graphics acceleration, that's outside the reach of most open-source projects, since the main hardware manufacturers do not undisclose the specifications and only provide proprietary closed-source drivers... the usual solution is to use OpenGL.
it's even more verbose? there are many cases in which Perl can be really concise, mostly when doing IO, general file operations and, sure, the integrated regex. traditional functional constructs are not one of them.
actually, did you know even the simple lexical variable aliasing for the array parameters comes with a huge performance penalty? learned that in the language shootout benchmarks...
Slashdot Mirror
"New hardware to handle the load = $$$"
This is true for Windows Vista, not Linux.
"Big pipes to service traffic = $$$"
I don't think i understand what you mean. Supply chain? Network downloads?...
"Cost to maintain data center = $$$"
I'm sure these are lower than if Koreans go for the hardware-sucking and license-hungry Vista...
In the 1990's, soon after their great success at Hollywood blockbusters, they ventured into the videogames business with Nintendo in the form of the Nintendo64 console. Unfortunately, a more modest machine won the hearts and minds of videogames enthusiasts all over: Sony Playstation.
Then, regular PCs, with very powerful and cheap 3D video cards began eat their Workstation lunch. Linux clusters of common pc hardware substituted their costly hardware in the making of Hollywood flicks.
Now, the end is near for the once king of rendering...
"proprietary Qt library"
Qt is not proprietary. It's an open-source library with full source-code available under the GPL. It's also available under a commercial license for those wishing to pay for support.
here
http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html
lamer!
"Ruby is an example of what VBScript should have been but completely failed at."
Yeah right. VB is all but ruby. First because you can count on all Basic languages to have the very same lame Basic syntax as they always had all these years. And then, because Ruby's got many innovative and advanced features that the audience that consumes Basic won't ever grasp.
"PHP is, at it's heard, a procedural language but very robust and powerful applications have been built with"
harharharharhar... good one...
PHP is a shitty piece of crap that is very much the same as an open-source VBScript/ASP with Perl syntax and less flexibility. It's not as robust and flexible as Perl, nor as modern and modular as Ruby and Python, but nevertheless went more popular because it's so simple and straightforward that non-programmers can use it.
Same reasons for VB popularity...
because i just want to listen to the music and don't want to pay for some video i won't be watching?
music is sound, nothing more nothing less...
...is it free as in speech, like PostgreSQL and MySQL?
yep, that's the one. even if it's not included in standard emacs, nothing stops you from downloading and installing it...
Nothing beats it in handling sgml-based content, like html or xml. It's not WYSIWYG: it's powerful.
As for Flash: dump the old thing and embrace an SVG + XForms future...
The alternative to extremely bloated and redundant java and .net web technologies is an extremely basic (old)ASP-alike with all functions and variables sharing the same namespace and global variables running wild. Granted, it's easy. Just as easy as notepad and just as featureless and error-prone...
.net as everybody else, but i'd point to Python, Ruby, Perl or Tcl technologies rather than this sub-Perl refugee...
Hey, i'm just as annoyed at java and
is this supposed to be serious? and Windows "just works"?!
i'd mod you +5 funny if it was my turn...
ask a scammer to stop another scammer...
I guess they'll live up to their promise of amazing gorilla hair... one blade server for each hair rendering...
yes
"The same OOo where there was a big uproar for just having a Java-dependent component in?"
how about the Java Desktop System?
"Thank you Mr Xerox - if I'd wanted a copy of a FAQ, I would have got one."
Except i didn't even read the FAQ, i just read the plain thing, as in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
In special, this section, already showed arount here:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
Read the b) clause above? I don't need a FAQ to understand what it means nor to "know this is required from the text of the GPL itself".
If it's hard for you to understand, let me condense it to make it clearer:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it... and copy and distribute such modifications... provided
that you also must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this License."
Plainly, if you modify and publish your work based on GPLed work, you must supply the changes to the GPLed work. not that hard, huh?
"Client-server lesson 101. Code exists on your client computer."
Really?! what about RPCs? XML-RPC? webservices? it's all really just dynamic linking to libraries physically located _outside_ your computer, but that you still _need_ in order to do your computations. Publishing is making something public for people to use, not necessarily publishing it like a closed box in a store.
"I'm certain they aren't. However, I'm equally certain that they'll be tied into Apache and some database system, probably hard-coded for speed."
Apache is not GPLed work, so Google has every right to do it.
"Sheesh indeed."
yep.
"Now they're saying 'well, your software is staying in-house, but you have limitations on what you can do with it, depending on what data you handle or that data's source'"
When the GPL say you may modify a GPLed work to suit your need without the need to publish the modifications, it's _only_ in the case YOU DON'T FRIGGIN' PUBLISH YOUR WORK BASED ON GPLed SOFTWARE. So, if you modify a GPLed program and _use_ it _inside_ you corporation only, that's ok. If you're publishing your work, you must publish the modified GPLed code too.
Is that so hard to understand?
So, your choice is either publish the modifications or simply not base your software on GPLed software.
In the example you gave, a webservice or other based upon another GPLed server is being _published_ on the web. The modified code must be there too.
BTW, "staying in-house" isn't the same as being in a local webserver, because it's content is being used outside of your corporation...
"Google for one are majorly unlikely to be releasing their search algorithms to the world"
What makes you think Google's algorithms are based on GPLed algorithms?
sheesh...
"the average user has major problems with the gui being slighting different and commands being in different menus."
Like the interface changes from Office 6.0 to Office 2000 to Office 2003 to Office Vista etc?
yep, the average user has problems adapting to that. But they eventually get used to it.
"So can vim, and it does it better."
Nope. Both vim and emacs don't know anything about the semantics of the underlying code. If it knew, once you typed "foo." For a struct, for instance, it could prompt you for the member variables of such struct. Both editors offer syntax highlighting, which has nothing to do with semantics.
"an annoying and useless 'feature' for someone like me who's been programming enough years to know what most of the functions are by now"
Yes, i see what you're problem is: you seemingly only use standard lib functions, never used functions from another lib for the first time and most likely never ever touched object-oriented code.
Code-completion ( semantic completion ) does show you in a very handy popup all the functions a module exports or all the member variables and methods for a class, in a glance, for you to choose from.
But, yeah, vi is ok for shell scripts or low-level C plumbering...
Emacs has a number of experimental code-completion elisp code that promise a lot but still are pretty unsubstantial...
Of course, superior general-purpose text-editing and quick source navigation features are something that places emacs high above any other IDE's editors i know of...
"Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping"
next to the "Over Eighty Megs And Constantly Swapping" of nowadays heavy-duty IDEs, Emacs is as feather-weigth as vi.
Assembly programmers find C and C++ too bloated and slow. Film at 11:00.
seriously, low-level programmers dealing directly with memory, registers and GPUs will never get the benefits of very high programming languages... like writting far better and more flexible NPC AI behaviour in far less time.
afaik, the X Windows System is not frozen in time as you seem to think. Far from it, cool and exciting modular technologies either building up on it or adding value are coming. Check it out:
r
http://www.freedesktop.org/
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fXserve
http://cairographics.org/introduction
Cairo, a 2D vector-based GUI backend. GTK2.8 is already built on cairo. BTW, GTK ( along with Mozilla's XUL ) also pionneered the on-the-fly translation of an xml-based document describing a GUI into a running GUI, via libglade.
I don't think the next generation of either KDE or GNOME will be taking a beating from either M$ or Apple.
As for graphics acceleration, that's outside the reach of most open-source projects, since the main hardware manufacturers do not undisclose the specifications and only provide proprietary closed-source drivers... the usual solution is to use OpenGL.
when Windows Vista and DRM become common place so there's nowhere to run?
"what's wrong with the following?"
it's even more verbose? there are many cases in which Perl can be really concise, mostly when doing IO, general file operations and, sure, the integrated regex. traditional functional constructs are not one of them.
actually, did you know even the simple lexical variable aliasing for the array parameters comes with a huge performance penalty? learned that in the language shootout benchmarks...
money! complete waste, bad for your health and other's and easy to burn.
"clear syntax can be written in perl too"
yep, but let's not stretch that definition too much, ok? I'm a Perl fan myself, but i'll never claim
to be as clear and concise as
let's get real there. Of course, Perl6 will change that...