Re:ESR is just as bad, if not worse
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Eric Raymond, on the other hand, is providing a 'rebuttal' to their case which is at LEAST as revisionist and self serving as SCO's, but he's not risking anything. Instead he's sitting back, making smarmy comments, feeling superior, and further convincing the Linux community that Open Source is a holy and sacred beast, which must take over the world.
In other words, his evangelism is just as galling as SCO's corporatism, but without the clout behind it.
Hi swordgeek,
I read the first half of the article and skimmed the second half. I saw points taken from SCO's complaint and Raymond discrediting them. He is obviously biased toward free software but that doesn't take anything away from the points he makes.
You said that Raymond is not risking anything by writing this rebuttal, and I agree with you. However, he is not the one who started this fight. He would not have written this article was it not for SCO filing the lawsuit.
Finally, if you respond to this post will you explain to me why you think that Raymond's rebuttal doesn't have clout?
Ciao.
Does not minimize transaction cost
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
By using no money you don't have to worry about the change so the transaction cost is 0.
Also, this would bring us one step closer to utopia, as defined by Star Trek.
If it uses a DOS-specific function and it doesn't run, who cares if it builds?
Programmers care (like the guys who ported it to Linux) because you have to build before you can run. If the code already built on Windows then it is likely someone could come out with and Windows build before a Linux build.
I run XP and I recently played one of my favorite DOS games on it (Life & Death). I think (I might be wrong on this) that I have also run Duke3D on my XP machine. XP didn't have a problem running the games.
I don't know that much about how XP/NT/2k are supposed to run DOS programs, so I should shut up here:).
Because you can still run DOS programs on Windows. It may not work as well but you can still do it. I played Duke3D on Windows 95 (thankfully those days are over).
If, for example, the Duke3d code includes io.h and uses a DOS specific function, it will at least build on Windows, if not run. You'd have to do some more work to make it build on Linux.
Actually, there was an expectation that the win32 version would come first, because, as you probably know, Duke 3D already runs on DOS, which means anything DOS specific won't have to be ported.
Please don't say things unless you know how to understand them.
PNGs are a better alternative to GIFs than to JPEGs. For photographic images JPEG is gernerally a better choice than PNG. Here is an excerpt from PNG's Web Site:
Note that for transmission of finished truecolor images--especially photographic ones--JPEG is almost always a better choice. Although JPEG's lossy compression can introduce visible artifacts, these can be minimized, and the savings in file size even at high quality levels is much better than is generally possible with a lossless format like PNG.
Thank you for pointing that out "Anonymous Coward". If you could not tell that what I wrote was a joke you need a lesson in humor.
A simple joke example does not imply that I have "no command nor understanding of proofs and logic". In fact, as a CS graduate I have been successful in undergraduate math classes for math majors (Sample Servey Theory and Abstract Algebra). I'm no genius but I understand.
I'm trying to figure out why you bothered to post your comment. Are you trying to defend Ellison? I doubt it (unless you are Ellison in disguise). Did my message upset you in someway that you decided to take a shot at my delicate ego:(? Perhaps. Are you a math professor or graduate student vigilant againts the posting of incorrect proofs? Who knows.
There is no difference between Apache dominating IIS and PostgreSQL dominating Oracle (in the future).
Therefore, Larry Ellison is stupid.
Larry runs Oracle like Bill run Microsoft. While Bill uses the dominance of his operating system to try to force users to by his other products, Larry uses the dominance of databases (just because it has been around forever) to trick large corporations and government agencies into adopting "Oracle Only" policies.
Larry (as seen in the article) tries to play the good guy billionaire software mogul when, as indicated in 1, he is not, and is, in fact, more like Bill Gates.
Therefore, Larry Ellison is a hypocrite.
The fact that Larry Ellison is a jerk is a mathematical axiom.
Therefore, Larry Ellison is a jerk.
Therefore, Larry Ellison is a stupid, hypocritical jerk.
Since you are being a smart ass I will to. Your reasoning doesn't work because there is no such thing as a 2D screen. All screens have a width, height, and length.
None of those reasons are significant. Why not use Pascal - it has real strings, and array bounds checking, but is still compiled and efficient? You can also write anything in it, even OS code (look at the original Macintosh).
With C++, you can use a class for real strings (std::string or your own) if you want, or you can use char*. The point is you have more flexibility. In some cases using char* is better (when you know you aren't out of bounds and speed is important). BTW, I don't consider Pascal a high level programming language.
The problem comes when you start to work on larger programs which draw your attention to higher level design. At some point, you're spending your effort on object interactions, and external interfaces, and all the fun fiddly bits aren't useful anymore, 'cause you've got better things to think about. At that point, things that seemed like minor inconvenience (just remember to check if a every time?).
You are talking about a design problem, not a language one. In all large projects you spend your time on object interactions (if nothing is interacting what is your program doing?). All the fun fiddly bits aren't useful? If some part of C++ isn't useful, then don't use it (you have the choice). The example of a minor inconvenience (always check if a) you mentioned is probably a design flaw, not an inherent problem with the language.
Everyone starts with small programs or tasks, and C and C++ are nice for those, you get lots of experience. Most programmers just forget to give them up when they're no longer the right solution, because they're so used to them, and they work so well, and maybe they don't have time to learn another language. But the more mental effort you need to spend on higher level design, the more the low level stuff language should take care of. Maybe that only means graduating to C# or Java, maybe Python or Lisp - each one abstracts different amounts of the low level details.
Again, I disagree. I work at a company that successfully developed two very large client/server applications, one written in Java and one written in C++. C/C++ is appropriate for large applications. Just look to open source for large applications written in C.
After programmers take responsibility, perhaps they can consider using the right tool for the job, rather than the right tool for the job of their dreams.
There are many reasons that developers choose to use C/C++ over other higher level languages. Here are a few of them.
There are many more libraries that have C/C++ interfaces than any other language (although Perl and VB have a hellavalot too)
C/C++ can be compiled into machine code that not only improves speed performance but also greatly reduces the memory required to run, since no interpreter or virtual machine is required. It also allows users who do not have interpreters/virtual machines to run your code. The drawback here, of course, is that you must compile on every platform you wish to run on.
Versatility. You can write anything in C. Operating systems, compilers, web browsers, e-mail clients, games... bring it on.
The alternative. Can you imagine if Samba, vi, Emacs, GNOME, and Mozilla were written in something like Java? Processing power may be cheap but I still want to run all these programs on my old K6-2 400 with 256M of RAM. Think of vi written in Java... you could forget vi starting up in 0.00003 nanoseconds.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi swordgeek,
I read the first half of the article and skimmed the second half. I saw points taken from SCO's complaint and Raymond discrediting them. He is obviously biased toward free software but that doesn't take anything away from the points he makes.
You said that Raymond is not risking anything by writing this rebuttal, and I agree with you. However, he is not the one who started this fight. He would not have written this article was it not for SCO filing the lawsuit.
Finally, if you respond to this post will you explain to me why you think that Raymond's rebuttal doesn't have clout?
Ciao.
Also, this would bring us one step closer to utopia, as defined by Star Trek.
I only have one thing to say to this: PREVIEW!
Programmers care (like the guys who ported it to Linux) because you have to build before you can run. If the code already built on Windows then it is likely someone could come out with and Windows build before a Linux build.
I run XP and I recently played one of my favorite DOS games on it (Life & Death). I think (I might be wrong on this) that I have also run Duke3D on my XP machine. XP didn't have a problem running the games.
I don't know that much about how XP/NT/2k are supposed to run DOS programs, so I should shut up here :).
If, for example, the Duke3d code includes io.h and uses a DOS specific function, it will at least build on Windows, if not run. You'd have to do some more work to make it build on Linux.
Please don't say things unless you know how to understand them.
Wrong. It runs natively on Linux. You only need the emulator to generate the configuration files.
What a novel idea! Obviously a new idea well deserving of a patent (please do not reply if you missed the sarcasm).
WTF? Iraq claims to own a JPEG patent. That is why we are going after them.
Note that for transmission of finished truecolor images--especially photographic ones--JPEG is almost always a better choice. Although JPEG's lossy compression can introduce visible artifacts, these can be minimized, and the savings in file size even at high quality levels is much better than is generally possible with a lossless format like PNG.
YOU SHUT UP! j/k :)
A simple joke example does not imply that I have "no command nor understanding of proofs and logic". In fact, as a CS graduate I have been successful in undergraduate math classes for math majors (Sample Servey Theory and Abstract Algebra). I'm no genius but I understand.
I'm trying to figure out why you bothered to post your comment. Are you trying to defend Ellison? I doubt it (unless you are Ellison in disguise). Did my message upset you in someway that you decided to take a shot at my delicate ego :(? Perhaps. Are you a math professor or graduate student vigilant againts the posting of incorrect proofs? Who knows.
In closing: YOU SHUT UP! :) Later.
Proof:
- There is no difference between Apache dominating IIS and PostgreSQL dominating Oracle (in the future).
Therefore, Larry Ellison is stupid.- Larry runs Oracle like Bill run Microsoft. While Bill uses the dominance of his operating system to try to force users to by his other products, Larry uses the dominance of databases (just because it has been around forever) to trick large corporations and government agencies into adopting "Oracle Only" policies.
- Larry (as seen in the article) tries to play the good guy billionaire software mogul when, as indicated in 1, he is not, and is, in fact, more like Bill Gates.
Therefore, Larry Ellison is a hypocrite.- The fact that Larry Ellison is a jerk is a mathematical axiom.
Therefore, Larry Ellison is a jerk.Therefore, Larry Ellison is a stupid, hypocritical jerk.
Q.E.D
Since you are being a smart ass I will to. Your reasoning doesn't work because there is no such thing as a 2D screen. All screens have a width, height, and length.
The problem comes when you start to work on larger programs which draw your attention to higher level design. At some point, you're spending your effort on object interactions, and external interfaces, and all the fun fiddly bits aren't useful anymore, 'cause you've got better things to think about. At that point, things that seemed like minor inconvenience (just remember to check if a every time?). You are talking about a design problem, not a language one. In all large projects you spend your time on object interactions (if nothing is interacting what is your program doing?). All the fun fiddly bits aren't useful? If some part of C++ isn't useful, then don't use it (you have the choice). The example of a minor inconvenience (always check if a) you mentioned is probably a design flaw, not an inherent problem with the language.
Everyone starts with small programs or tasks, and C and C++ are nice for those, you get lots of experience. Most programmers just forget to give them up when they're no longer the right solution, because they're so used to them, and they work so well, and maybe they don't have time to learn another language. But the more mental effort you need to spend on higher level design, the more the low level stuff language should take care of. Maybe that only means graduating to C# or Java, maybe Python or Lisp - each one abstracts different amounts of the low level details. Again, I disagree. I work at a company that successfully developed two very large client/server applications, one written in Java and one written in C++. C/C++ is appropriate for large applications. Just look to open source for large applications written in C.
I don't think he looks like a hobbit. I think he looks like John Walker Lindh.
There are many reasons that developers choose to use C/C++ over other higher level languages. Here are a few of them.