And how exactly is that different from the GPL? Everything I place under the GPL is work done for free for corporations like Redhat, SuSE, IBM, SCO, etc.
Good point...
Beyond that I think a BSD license has an easier time getting into a company than the GPL (which may not make some happy I guess). Getting in the door is important though.
After open source gets in the door. A lot of companies will understand the business savings of contributing modifications back. No programmer likes to deal with custom versions of libraries when the "public" library is improving and probably going a different, better direction. Better to get your code integrated into the mainline distribution so the cost of maintenance is spread over a larger group than your corporation. This is a business case that can be understood by management teams.
The benefits of contributing the code back also go to PR and finding new I.T. staff (since the business will now be "cool":} ).
I guess I'm just one of those people that wants the code everywhere and figures education and logic will get the people / companies I want to deal with contributing. The rest (who will never give back), well, I guess I made their programmers lives a little easier - not a bad thing these days and I probably really didn't want to deal with those companies anyway.
I am pretty sure that people camping out in front of a Gateway Store for its grand opening is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.
Of course if a Linux Store (aren't penguins cute), BSD Store (get that by a zoning committee), or an Apple Store opened up in a new place, then campers are to be expected.
just out of curiosity, does anyone own the trademark on Tux? If someone does, I sense an opportunity for some money for actions of a company's employees on company time.
Might want to be your own label then, sell your own stuff, build an audience, and sign a deal more favorable to you (Motley Crue and MC Hammer went this route). Or hope you never have to sign at all.
This is one of the best commentaries on this subject I have read in a long time (although I am sure some American trusts the government, there is always one).
Lately, I believe high school shapes the attitude somewhat. I can't help but remember the story posted on slashdot about the kids who had bar codes of their SSN on their ID badges and learned to read the bar code.
We keep hearing about all those people hosed by identity theft and the people who could do something about it are mad because someone did something to them that could have been prevented if they passed the damn law. Once again I am amazed and appalled.
Apple has some very good reasons and research for the differences. Tog's book on interfaces gives some excellent insights into the process and reasons for the way things are on a mac. A lot of money was spent on the interface and the research did go to improve the user experience.
In a lot of ways, I wonder why frameworks don't deal with a meta-structure and then arrange menus to fit the platform. Admitially, a lot of resources are unique to a platform (icons of different sizes), but everyone has "preferences", customize the toolbar, copy / paste, find, program specific, application level (quit), and file level (open, close, etc.). Assign location at a "higher level" and let the framework do it jobs for the machine.
Better than that... in some cases, the decrease in context switching (among other things) can give a greater than 100% increase. I've seen such a thing happen before.
When Inmos was selling transputers, they published some results (in Byte Magazine I think) that had one of their programs running on 4 processors at 4.4x the speed of it running on 1 processor. This trend continued up till 7 processors (where it dropped below an extra 1x per processor added). It does really depend on the type of calculation you are doing.
Also, letting the OS have time on a different processor than my app is running is a good thing.
Given the signal IBM is sending out about the future G3 (750??), I would expect the iBook line to stay with the G3. It will probably always have a lower power consumption then the G4 and will probably have a vector unit in the future.
By the same token, using strange magic to photograph the inside of the home is probably a violation of privacy too
On the subject, I seem to remember some lawsuits about the cops using infrared images of homes to bust pot growers (high heat - must be growing pot). I don't remember the outcome.
AOL could always tell Apple that they need to supply people to make KHTML / Webcore work with the Mac version of AOL. Apple would do it (couldn't afford not to really) and AOL doesn't have to keep the engineers. Not a great thing for us, but a possible given the circumstances.
I wonder if MSN will come with an updated version of IE.
Great summary, but this line is kinda troublesome:
This is not because Java is slow, but because it is drawing the primitives itself via Java2D (as you say) instead of taking advantage of hardware acceleration in the OS.
From an end-user perspective, Java is slow in this instance. I love JEdit, but it crawls at times because of the UI. I can see why the Eclipse project went its own way on this one.
Is his major problem still the fact that NeXTStep/Cocoa uses +alloc/-init instead of +new?
Last time I checked that was a major. The Object vs NSObject is a still an issue. The side comments on using assembler in your runtime (he is not happy about that) was a sticking point. Oh, but the debates about "standard" Objective-C were truly an example of trolling at its best. The replies to Brad Cox's post were also pretty funny.
I do believe he hates everyone who reminds him what company own the Objective-C trademark.
Many years ago, I paid Microsoft for my copy of NeXTSTEP. When trying to buy Intel hardware, I was told that I would get no discount for not having Windows and would have to pay anyway. It was in their contracts after all. Ask any Linux / BSD / BeOS person about the Microsoft Tax.
This bull that they are successful because of the quality of their product or providing what the consumer wants is just that. IBM stupidly gave them the market and they used illegal means to keep and expand it.
If you don't play with OS X, you have probably had limited exposure (e.g. NeXT, GNUStep, Swarm). Heck, the gnu compiler once lectured people about the evils of #import, which wasn't too encouraging.
If you like C and thought C++ was overkill, Objective-C would probably appeal to you. The simplicity and power of the object model is very cool (ask any Smalltalk or Ruby programmer).
PS
For the love of [insert your favorite Deity here], do not go to comp.lang.objective-c without flame protection. The maintainer of the FAQ has some serious issues and an irrational hate for NeXT, Apple, and anyone who programs on those platforms. I don't think that most slashdotters could work up the same viciousness towards Microsoft. It is truly a sight to behold. Keep a logic book handy to see how many fallacies of thought are unleashed.
The closest I've seen to this is AppleScript. It is pretty English-like. I like it, but a lot of people hate it for its Englisk-like structure.
Didn't one of the Dr. Dobbs columnists (Swaine?) review a book about Herbal Latin that talked about the specialization of Latin to express exact meanings in a subject area (plants)? You might find the book interesting (sorry, don't have a current reference).
Also, wasn't this the original intention behind Cobol, too.
I suppose if we get handwriting recognition to the point where it is everywhere and can pick up symbols pretty well, then APL could make one heck of a comeback.
When Be was still the next great thing, one of their developer conferences had its transcription done by computer. One of the lectures had several Big Endian / Little Endian comparisons. The software that was doing the translation kept putting Big Indian / Little Indian.
I saw this and sent in an e-mail telling them of their problems. At the time I worked for a Native American community college and signed my e-mails as such. I got a response back real fast (actually a couple, they were great people, I still wish Be has made it). I thought it was pretty funny, but years later (sometimes I am not too swift), I realized that they might have thought I was offended or something.
well, I gues the real world metaphor using your brick example would be:
Either before or after you change the color to red, some dude is gonna want to do something because that dude is watching the brick for color changes and needs to do some other work based on that.
I do agree, it isn't the logical, next progression when I am trying to explain object oriented programming.
I guess I would be more inclined to believe this argument if people used:
int a,b,c;
float d,e,f;
c = add_int(a,b);
f = add_float(d,e);
instead of
int a,b,c;
float d,e,f;
c = a + b;
f = d + e;
I am not a fan of strong typing because it keeps me from writing to the interface an object understands. I can have two objects in two hierachies that understand a common set of messages. I should be able to use those objects in the same code without worring about type. Type is a poor substitute for the actual interface and object understands.
On the second point, strict typing generally adds code to a project that need not be there. As an example, adding lines of code causes errors. Having one generic collection as opposed to the endless type specific collections adds code.
more code, less understanding, more errors
You could use templates (C++), but then you really got to ask why I am trying to get out of my strong typing.
But it's suprisingly how many zealouts assume that the hi-tech solution "must" be better, just because.
I remeber a professor in college telling us how he got hired to computerize a truck cargo carrier. The company schedule pick-up, routes, and had people who figured out the most cargo carried over a route (dense packing, order of stops, etc). He ended up telling the owner that the system they had (orders tacked to rotating pillars (kinda like the rotating box-style holders for CDs)) with the trained people was more efficient then any computer program.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point...
Beyond that I think a BSD license has an easier time getting into a company than the GPL (which may not make some happy I guess). Getting in the door is important though.
After open source gets in the door. A lot of companies will understand the business savings of contributing modifications back. No programmer likes to deal with custom versions of libraries when the "public" library is improving and probably going a different, better direction. Better to get your code integrated into the mainline distribution so the cost of maintenance is spread over a larger group than your corporation. This is a business case that can be understood by management teams.
The benefits of contributing the code back also go to PR and finding new I.T. staff (since the business will now be "cool" :} ).
I guess I'm just one of those people that wants the code everywhere and figures education and logic will get the people / companies I want to deal with contributing. The rest (who will never give back), well, I guess I made their programmers lives a little easier - not a bad thing these days and I probably really didn't want to deal with those companies anyway.
Of course if a Linux Store (aren't penguins cute), BSD Store (get that by a zoning committee), or an Apple Store opened up in a new place, then campers are to be expected.
just out of curiosity, does anyone own the trademark on Tux? If someone does, I sense an opportunity for some money for actions of a company's employees on company time.
Might want to be your own label then, sell your own stuff, build an audience, and sign a deal more favorable to you (Motley Crue and MC Hammer went this route). Or hope you never have to sign at all.
Lately, I believe high school shapes the attitude somewhat. I can't help but remember the story posted on slashdot about the kids who had bar codes of their SSN on their ID badges and learned to read the bar code.
We keep hearing about all those people hosed by identity theft and the people who could do something about it are mad because someone did something to them that could have been prevented if they passed the damn law. Once again I am amazed and appalled.
In a lot of ways, I wonder why frameworks don't deal with a meta-structure and then arrange menus to fit the platform. Admitially, a lot of resources are unique to a platform (icons of different sizes), but everyone has "preferences", customize the toolbar, copy / paste, find, program specific, application level (quit), and file level (open, close, etc.). Assign location at a "higher level" and let the framework do it jobs for the machine.
When Inmos was selling transputers, they published some results (in Byte Magazine I think) that had one of their programs running on 4 processors at 4.4x the speed of it running on 1 processor. This trend continued up till 7 processors (where it dropped below an extra 1x per processor added). It does really depend on the type of calculation you are doing.
Also, letting the OS have time on a different processor than my app is running is a good thing.
Given the signal IBM is sending out about the future G3 (750??), I would expect the iBook line to stay with the G3. It will probably always have a lower power consumption then the G4 and will probably have a vector unit in the future.
On the subject, I seem to remember some lawsuits about the cops using infrared images of homes to bust pot growers (high heat - must be growing pot). I don't remember the outcome.
AOL could always tell Apple that they need to supply people to make KHTML / Webcore work with the Mac version of AOL. Apple would do it (couldn't afford not to really) and AOL doesn't have to keep the engineers. Not a great thing for us, but a possible given the circumstances.
I wonder if MSN will come with an updated version of IE.
This is not because Java is slow, but because it is drawing the primitives itself via Java2D (as you say) instead of taking advantage of hardware acceleration in the OS.
From an end-user perspective, Java is slow in this instance. I love JEdit, but it crawls at times because of the UI. I can see why the Eclipse project went its own way on this one.
Last time I checked that was a major. The Object vs NSObject is a still an issue. The side comments on using assembler in your runtime (he is not happy about that) was a sticking point. Oh, but the debates about "standard" Objective-C were truly an example of trolling at its best. The replies to Brad Cox's post were also pretty funny.
I do believe he hates everyone who reminds him what company own the Objective-C trademark.
This bull that they are successful because of the quality of their product or providing what the consumer wants is just that. IBM stupidly gave them the market and they used illegal means to keep and expand it.
If you like C and thought C++ was overkill, Objective-C would probably appeal to you. The simplicity and power of the object model is very cool (ask any Smalltalk or Ruby programmer).
PS
For the love of [insert your favorite Deity here], do not go to comp.lang.objective-c without flame protection. The maintainer of the FAQ has some serious issues and an irrational hate for NeXT, Apple, and anyone who programs on those platforms. I don't think that most slashdotters could work up the same viciousness towards Microsoft. It is truly a sight to behold. Keep a logic book handy to see how many fallacies of thought are unleashed.
Didn't one of the Dr. Dobbs columnists (Swaine?) review a book about Herbal Latin that talked about the specialization of Latin to express exact meanings in a subject area (plants)? You might find the book interesting (sorry, don't have a current reference).
Also, wasn't this the original intention behind Cobol, too.
Watch out, you might be seen as supporting Visual Basic (although the partly might give you some cover).
An OO teaching language called Blue actually did require comments. It did have an interesting version of enumerators.
I suppose if we get handwriting recognition to the point where it is everywhere and can pick up symbols pretty well, then APL could make one heck of a comeback.
When Be was still the next great thing, one of their developer conferences had its transcription done by computer. One of the lectures had several Big Endian / Little Endian comparisons. The software that was doing the translation kept putting Big Indian / Little Indian.
I saw this and sent in an e-mail telling them of their problems. At the time I worked for a Native American community college and signed my e-mails as such. I got a response back real fast (actually a couple, they were great people, I still wish Be has made it). I thought it was pretty funny, but years later (sometimes I am not too swift), I realized that they might have thought I was offended or something.
yeah, I like your example. I agree about the need for some better stepping stones. Objects, functional, etc. I got, aspects I am still fuzzy on.
well, I gues the real world metaphor using your brick example would be:
Either before or after you change the color to red, some dude is gonna want to do something because that dude is watching the brick for color changes and needs to do some other work based on that.
I do agree, it isn't the logical, next progression when I am trying to explain object oriented programming.
int a,b,c;
float d,e,f;
c = add_int(a,b);
f = add_float(d,e);
instead of
int a,b,c;
float d,e,f;
c = a + b;
f = d + e;
I am not a fan of strong typing because it keeps me from writing to the interface an object understands. I can have two objects in two hierachies that understand a common set of messages. I should be able to use those objects in the same code without worring about type. Type is a poor substitute for the actual interface and object understands.
On the second point, strict typing generally adds code to a project that need not be there. As an example, adding lines of code causes errors. Having one generic collection as opposed to the endless type specific collections adds code.
more code, less understanding, more errors
You could use templates (C++), but then you really got to ask why I am trying to get out of my strong typing.
I remeber a professor in college telling us how he got hired to computerize a truck cargo carrier. The company schedule pick-up, routes, and had people who figured out the most cargo carried over a route (dense packing, order of stops, etc). He ended up telling the owner that the system they had (orders tacked to rotating pillars (kinda like the rotating box-style holders for CDs)) with the trained people was more efficient then any computer program.
Tech is sometimes not the answer.