The point is, why don't they use those editors as their basis for their integrated editor? Why re-invent the wheel so many times?
Excellent question. The answer is: the GPL.
Emacs is released under the GPL. VIM is released under a license that is, for all intents and purposes, just like the GPL. (They call it "GPL-compatible.") The restrictions placed on developers by the GPL make it impossible for a commercial concern to use either of these programs, or components of them, as part of an IDE.
If FooCorp, or whomever, wanted to develop an IDE using the VIM editor as the embedded source code editor and glomming on IDE features, they would be required, under the VIM license, to release the source code for their IDE. Nobody in his right mind would want to do that, so as a result every IDE has to have its own editor.
If they released the VIM editor under the BSD license, this problem would not exist.
Pull out your bible. Read the book of Ezekiel, chapter 25. There's one reference to vengeance, but that's it. There's nothing remotely like what was quoted in Pulp Fiction.
See,/dev/trash, sometimes people in movies say things that aren't true. It's scandalous, I know.
The problem is that it is proprietary software and there are arguments against that in general.
Yes... but those arguments are universally laughed at by those of us who understand that computers are tools to be used to accomplish productive work, and who believe that people who deliberately choose an inferior tool because it comes with source code deserve what they get.
The general arguments against proprietary software, most of which were advanced by Stallman, are all really unconvincing.
Everyone in high energy physics uses unix basically.
Everyone in medicine and biology uses Windows or Mac, in about a 50/50 (at most 60/40) fraction. If you try and break out Gnuplot and LaTeX in a medical or biological research facility and you'll probably be politely told to use tools that are compatible with what everybody else uses. If you then start talking about politics... well, see the above poster who talked about research assistants being fired for making a nuisance of themselves.
It might not at all be desirable to have co-authors modify the digital text of a manuscript.
Which is not a problem. Distribute copies of the document for peer review, but keep the original in a private directory. If it's necessary, throw a password on it. You can either require a password to open the document, or you can require a password to permanently modify the document. That feature, called "Protect Document," lets reviewers add comments or even make changes to the text, but prevents unauthorized users from making permanent changes. Once the author gets the document back, he can review the comments and proposed changes. He gets to see who made each change and when. If he likes it, he can merge it into the document with one click.
Can you do that with a DVI file, or a PDF file? Not really. Word is a great tool for collaborative writing, despite what the knee-jerk anti-Microsoft zealots-- of which there are many, although you don't seem to be one yourself-- would rather think.
Isn't it true, though? OS X is as different from OS 9 as Windows NT was from Windows 3.whateveritwas. Windows 2000 and XP, however, have really only been incremental improvements on the original NT release. In fact, weren't Windows 2000 and XP referred to internally as NT 5.0 and NT 5.1, respectively? (I don't know that to be true, but I've heard it repeated often enough I'm starting to think it might be.)
NT/OS X had little to no support for apps running on previous versions
I can't speak for NT-- I never used a PC before Windows 2000-- but OS X has almost complete support for running legacy applications. Applications that comply with the Carbon API spec-- a subset of the original Macintosh Toolbox APIs-- run natively in OS X. Applications that don't, run in the Classic virtual machine. While compatibility with Classic is not total, the number of programs that won't run is very, very small. In fact, I have a couple of small programs on my Mac that date back to the System 7 days; they're not even PowerPC binaries; they were compiled on a Motorola 68030 back in 1991 or so. They run very well under the Classic VM on my 2002-model Power Mac G4. Pretty fast, too.;-)
Huh? GSM service is widely available in the US. When I first got it, it was through Voicestream, but I believe they're doing business as T-Mobile now. It's priced pretty reasonably, too. Tri-band phones have come way down in price, from over $1000 a year ago to a couple hundred bucks now.
You know, after I posted I realized that I should have mentioned the book I'm actually reading right now. Delany's Dhalgren is damn near incomprehensible. It both begins and ends in mid-sentence. Makes Faulkner look like a McGuffey Reader, although Joyce still takes first prize in the gibberish-look-alike contest.
It boggles the mind. I think it's a great book... although it's possible that it might be crap and I'm not smart enough to realize it.
I mean, who cares if it has 44 gigs of photos? None of us are going to download that many. Who cares if it runs on solar power? We're not paying for it. And who cares if it's MS free? We wouldn't know the difference if they were using MS for anything.
Are you new to Slashdot? The submitted used mystical incantations to make sure his story got accepted. "Solar power," "44 gigs of photos," and "Microsoft Free" (note the miscapitalization) do the trick every time.
Granted. When I said that the Empire never left Australia, I wasn't be sufficiently precise. What I meant was that Australia has always given at least titular sovereignty to the Queen, so the idea that Australia is no longer entangled in any way with Britain isn't completely true.
IANAA, but keep in mind that Australia still recognizes the Queen of England as the sovereign today. There's a federal parliamentary government and all, but the Queen is the head of state for all official purposes.
So the British Empire never completely left Australia. Technically, that is.
You appear to have trouble with the concept of constant development and improvement.
I have trouble with the concept of spending time on features when there are basic usability issues and bugs that remain unresolved.
You know what makes Apache great? They fix bugs before implementing new features. The result is a rock-solid web server. Look at projects like Gnome or KDE or, yeah, Mozilla. Do they fix bugs or fundamental flaws before implementing new features? No. The result? Really, REALLY shitty software.
And don't even talk to me about Linux. I stopped using that piece of shit when some genius-- I neither know nor care who; it could have been the Pope for all the difference it would make to me-- decided to make critical changes to the virtual memory system in a point-release on what is officially designated the "stable" branch. That's a load of amateur-hour crap. No more Linux for me, thanks.
Don't make the false assumption of associated open source software with good software. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the opposite is true. The fact that there are a few notable exceptions-- like Apache-- doesn't change the basic fact.
Christ. Just because there's so much misinformation out there, and just in case some ignorant and innocent soul takes you seriously, let me clear this up.
Title 17 of the United States code defines fair use rights in chapter 1, section 107. It says, in part and in summary, that you can make fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and comment as long as you use only a small fraction of the work. Infornogr's quoting of 1984 was not a violation of copyright under United States law, or the law of any other country signatory to the Berne Convention.
I respect this opinion, but I find it atypical. I know a reasonable cross-section of computer users-- business types, creative types, programmer types, non-computer-user types who just need to surf and do email-- and none of them would find any of the currently available Linux or BSD flavors acceptable desktop operating systems. They each have their own reasons, of course, but the conclusion is the same.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that scalability and initial performance have nothing to do with each other.
Hmm. Evidently you don't understand that "scalability" means "the ability to maintain acceptable performance under varying degrees of load." These things should be clear from context. I'm not quite sure where the breakdown in communication is coming from. In any case, it's obvious that scalability and performance are, in fact, tightly coupled characteristics, because scalability is essentially defined by performance under varying conditions.
P.S. If you want somebody to refrain from referring to you as a fucking retard, try to engage in a debate, instead of just flinging shit around like a retarded monkey.
Doesn't really bother me if you want to be profane and personally offensive. I was merely pointing out that it's childish. It is getting tiresome, though, so I think it's safe to say that we're getting very close to the end of this exchange.
I don't think-- and I've said this elsewhere-- that it's as simple as you make it out to be. The most rock-solid web application in the world is useless if it fails under load. Given two equally suitable enterprise application frameworks, the only reasonable choice is to go with the more efficient one. ("More efficient" can mean different things in different contexts; faster, less memory-hungry, more secure, whatever you need.)
Performance absolutely matters, because without it, you have no application.
Also, for the record, the Vatican Secret Archives are completely misnamed. You have to get permission to enter the Secret Archives, and there are rules you have to follow-- including, believe it or not, a dress code-- but they're not really secret in any meaningful sense of the term.
It's going to be pretty difficult for you to prove that the TMC report was intentionally misleading. For that matter, it seems that the report itself isn't misleading at all. Some of the overly simplified conclusions that others have drawn from the report have been misleading, but I doubt that those were intentional either.
In the absence of any evidence of intent, I remain unconvinced.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, why don't they use those editors as their basis for their integrated editor? Why re-invent the wheel so many times?
Excellent question. The answer is: the GPL.
Emacs is released under the GPL. VIM is released under a license that is, for all intents and purposes, just like the GPL. (They call it "GPL-compatible.") The restrictions placed on developers by the GPL make it impossible for a commercial concern to use either of these programs, or components of them, as part of an IDE.
If FooCorp, or whomever, wanted to develop an IDE using the VIM editor as the embedded source code editor and glomming on IDE features, they would be required, under the VIM license, to release the source code for their IDE. Nobody in his right mind would want to do that, so as a result every IDE has to have its own editor.
If they released the VIM editor under the BSD license, this problem would not exist.
well what was that bit about Ekeziel then?
/dev/trash, sometimes people in movies say things that aren't true. It's scandalous, I know.
A giant lie made up by a writer of fiction.
Pull out your bible. Read the book of Ezekiel, chapter 25. There's one reference to vengeance, but that's it. There's nothing remotely like what was quoted in Pulp Fiction.
See,
The problem is that it is proprietary software and there are arguments against that in general.
Yes... but those arguments are universally laughed at by those of us who understand that computers are tools to be used to accomplish productive work, and who believe that people who deliberately choose an inferior tool because it comes with source code deserve what they get.
The general arguments against proprietary software, most of which were advanced by Stallman, are all really unconvincing.
Everyone in high energy physics uses unix basically.
Everyone in medicine and biology uses Windows or Mac, in about a 50/50 (at most 60/40) fraction. If you try and break out Gnuplot and LaTeX in a medical or biological research facility and you'll probably be politely told to use tools that are compatible with what everybody else uses. If you then start talking about politics... well, see the above poster who talked about research assistants being fired for making a nuisance of themselves.
It might not at all be desirable to have co-authors modify the digital text of a manuscript.
Which is not a problem. Distribute copies of the document for peer review, but keep the original in a private directory. If it's necessary, throw a password on it. You can either require a password to open the document, or you can require a password to permanently modify the document. That feature, called "Protect Document," lets reviewers add comments or even make changes to the text, but prevents unauthorized users from making permanent changes. Once the author gets the document back, he can review the comments and proposed changes. He gets to see who made each change and when. If he likes it, he can merge it into the document with one click.
Can you do that with a DVI file, or a PDF file? Not really. Word is a great tool for collaborative writing, despite what the knee-jerk anti-Microsoft zealots-- of which there are many, although you don't seem to be one yourself-- would rather think.
It wasn't a yes-or-no question.
;-)
Isn't it true, though? OS X is as different from OS 9 as Windows NT was from Windows 3.whateveritwas. Windows 2000 and XP, however, have really only been incremental improvements on the original NT release. In fact, weren't Windows 2000 and XP referred to internally as NT 5.0 and NT 5.1, respectively? (I don't know that to be true, but I've heard it repeated often enough I'm starting to think it might be.)
NT/OS X had little to no support for apps running on previous versions
;-)
I can't speak for NT-- I never used a PC before Windows 2000-- but OS X has almost complete support for running legacy applications. Applications that comply with the Carbon API spec-- a subset of the original Macintosh Toolbox APIs-- run natively in OS X. Applications that don't, run in the Classic virtual machine. While compatibility with Classic is not total, the number of programs that won't run is very, very small. In fact, I have a couple of small programs on my Mac that date back to the System 7 days; they're not even PowerPC binaries; they were compiled on a Motorola 68030 back in 1991 or so. They run very well under the Classic VM on my 2002-model Power Mac G4. Pretty fast, too.
There's nothing even remotely like the aforementioned quote anywhere in the Bible. That's kind of the whole point of this thread.
Huh? GSM service is widely available in the US. When I first got it, it was through Voicestream, but I believe they're doing business as T-Mobile now. It's priced pretty reasonably, too. Tri-band phones have come way down in price, from over $1000 a year ago to a couple hundred bucks now.
You know, after I posted I realized that I should have mentioned the book I'm actually reading right now. Delany's Dhalgren is damn near incomprehensible. It both begins and ends in mid-sentence. Makes Faulkner look like a McGuffey Reader, although Joyce still takes first prize in the gibberish-look-alike contest.
It boggles the mind. I think it's a great book... although it's possible that it might be crap and I'm not smart enough to realize it.
Actually, mine was a Troll. But I also got a Funny, so it all cancels out in the end.
I mean, who cares if it has 44 gigs of photos? None of us are going to download that many. Who cares if it runs on solar power? We're not paying for it. And who cares if it's MS free? We wouldn't know the difference if they were using MS for anything.
Are you new to Slashdot? The submitted used mystical incantations to make sure his story got accepted. "Solar power," "44 gigs of photos," and "Microsoft Free" (note the miscapitalization) do the trick every time.
Granted. When I said that the Empire never left Australia, I wasn't be sufficiently precise. What I meant was that Australia has always given at least titular sovereignty to the Queen, so the idea that Australia is no longer entangled in any way with Britain isn't completely true.
The hairs split, we part as friends.
What part of "Reply, don't moderate" don't you understand?
Who's this "Reply" person?
IANAA, but keep in mind that Australia still recognizes the Queen of England as the sovereign today. There's a federal parliamentary government and all, but the Queen is the head of state for all official purposes.
So the British Empire never completely left Australia. Technically, that is.
Guys, come on. Please don't feed the trolls, especially the physics trolls.
You appear to have trouble with the concept of constant development and improvement.
I have trouble with the concept of spending time on features when there are basic usability issues and bugs that remain unresolved.
You know what makes Apache great? They fix bugs before implementing new features. The result is a rock-solid web server. Look at projects like Gnome or KDE or, yeah, Mozilla. Do they fix bugs or fundamental flaws before implementing new features? No. The result? Really, REALLY shitty software.
And don't even talk to me about Linux. I stopped using that piece of shit when some genius-- I neither know nor care who; it could have been the Pope for all the difference it would make to me-- decided to make critical changes to the virtual memory system in a point-release on what is officially designated the "stable" branch. That's a load of amateur-hour crap. No more Linux for me, thanks.
Don't make the false assumption of associated open source software with good software. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the opposite is true. The fact that there are a few notable exceptions-- like Apache-- doesn't change the basic fact.
Again, I say, "Mod away."
Dude, you just violated copyright!
Christ. Just because there's so much misinformation out there, and just in case some ignorant and innocent soul takes you seriously, let me clear this up.
Title 17 of the United States code defines fair use rights in chapter 1, section 107. It says, in part and in summary, that you can make fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and comment as long as you use only a small fraction of the work. Infornogr's quoting of 1984 was not a violation of copyright under United States law, or the law of any other country signatory to the Berne Convention.
And clonebarkins, you're not funny.
I respect this opinion, but I find it atypical. I know a reasonable cross-section of computer users-- business types, creative types, programmer types, non-computer-user types who just need to surf and do email-- and none of them would find any of the currently available Linux or BSD flavors acceptable desktop operating systems. They each have their own reasons, of course, but the conclusion is the same.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that scalability and initial performance have nothing to do with each other.
Hmm. Evidently you don't understand that "scalability" means "the ability to maintain acceptable performance under varying degrees of load." These things should be clear from context. I'm not quite sure where the breakdown in communication is coming from. In any case, it's obvious that scalability and performance are, in fact, tightly coupled characteristics, because scalability is essentially defined by performance under varying conditions.
P.S. If you want somebody to refrain from referring to you as a fucking retard, try to engage in a debate, instead of just flinging shit around like a retarded monkey.
Doesn't really bother me if you want to be profane and personally offensive. I was merely pointing out that it's childish. It is getting tiresome, though, so I think it's safe to say that we're getting very close to the end of this exchange.
I don't think-- and I've said this elsewhere-- that it's as simple as you make it out to be. The most rock-solid web application in the world is useless if it fails under load. Given two equally suitable enterprise application frameworks, the only reasonable choice is to go with the more efficient one. ("More efficient" can mean different things in different contexts; faster, less memory-hungry, more secure, whatever you need.)
Performance absolutely matters, because without it, you have no application.
Also, for the record, the Vatican Secret Archives are completely misnamed. You have to get permission to enter the Secret Archives, and there are rules you have to follow-- including, believe it or not, a dress code-- but they're not really secret in any meaningful sense of the term.
The Bible is the most interpreted/misinterpred book ever written.
Oh, I don't know. Nobody seems to understand The Sound and the Fury either...
I think you're jumping to conclusions when you assume that the citation wasn't ironic.
It's going to be pretty difficult for you to prove that the TMC report was intentionally misleading. For that matter, it seems that the report itself isn't misleading at all. Some of the overly simplified conclusions that others have drawn from the report have been misleading, but I doubt that those were intentional either.
In the absence of any evidence of intent, I remain unconvinced.