I believe the appropriate response to a vitriolic diatribe such as yours is "Bite me." Doesn't make much sense or add anything to the discussion, but neither did your personal attacks. I see by a quick review of your posting history here that you tend to be a bit testy to everyone, not just me, so I guess I needn't take it personally.
It may have existed "for a couple of years", but the original port of Perl 5 to Win32 was still funded by Microsoft. They hired, who was it, hip.com I believe. The port sucked for many years, but it was there. I believe the port of Perl 4 was done independently, but I don't remember.
I'm afraid that I must agree with some of the others here--Perl is a cornerstone of free software, and this is a direct attempt by Microsoft to "take it over". We should all be prepared to execute a code fork. I'll bet Larry Wall will lead the charge, if it comes to that--no fool nor Microsoft lover he.
From your response, it's hard to tell whether you had trouble with the math, the reading, or the writing. Doug's message looked fine to me, and argues the same point you yourself argue later as "Try again". Alongside it, your post seems a bit of a non sequitur. So, what's up?
Let me see if I have this straight--Amiga have decided that, since they can't make their new box truly different, they will settle for making it look different? O-o-o-o-o-okay. Well then there now. It's... an approach, I suppose.
Gee, I've always found a little weed gets my mind clicking over in new and unusual ways. Very beneficial when designing, not so much when coding from a design. Debugging, it's a wash--depends on whether the original coder was stoned, I think. But, to each his or her own--your mileage may vary. I wouldn't advocate drugs for someone who didn't like or want them. I guess some of us just have brain cells to spare.
That does remind me, however, about an experience I had in 1981 or so. I was tripping, rainbow blotter, and took a notion to spend some time with the original IBM PC BIOS code, a printed copy of which was to be found in the Tech Manual. When I got to the beating heart of the serial handler and discovered that there was no way it could be fooled into being re-entrant, I could actually hear my mind ripping apart, like tearing a head of lettuce in half. I decided that there were more interesting things to do while tripping than look at IBM code, and have since limited the amount of coding I do when on acid. But weed and speed, now--watch out!
It may be my faulty memory betraying me, but isn't "roger" commonwealth (or at least U.K.) slang for, um, sexual intercourse? If so, can't think of a more fitting name--"Microsoft Rogers" as a verb phrase.
Okay, but were it so cheap and good for PR, why did they not install it on the very first shuttle to fly?
I had heard (more unsubstantiated rumors again, danger Will Robinson!) that it was because the thinking pre-Challenger was that if anything went wrong, there would be no crew left to escape. The Challenger incident demonstrated conclusively that such an assumption was incorrect.
At that altitude they probably were so oxygen deprived that if they indeed *had* survived the blast and all, their brains had all but shutdown.
If the flight deck were ruptured, yes. I believe NASA has publicly admitted that some attempts were made to activate the crew emergency oxygen system.
I thought the crew escape system was designed BECAUSE of the Challenger.
That's exactly my point. But why have a crew escape system (by all accounts, and by the look of it, a hastily designed and not terribly refined system) unless there were some indication that the crew might have the desire and ability to escape? What I heard was that, since other astronauts operate the groud-to-shuttle communication systems, word quickly spread through the astronaut corps that the Challenger crew, um, would have benefitted from some sort of high-altitude escape system. Faced with the prospect of a massive walkout of all their experienced astronauts, NASA patched up the current system. No proof on my part, either, only rumor.
Did Apollo craft have any sort of escape system?
Yes, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo all had "escape towers"--a rocket pack atop the crew capsule designed to fly them clear of the millions of gallons of flammable liquid upon which they always sat. It was never tested in an actual emergency, as far as I know.
I've heard a totally unsubtantiated assertion that it took Challenger's flight deck upwards of nine minutes to reach the surface after the breakup of the orbiter.
As to whether the crew were alive, or conscious, or whether NASA knows either fact--consider this and draw your own conclusions: The crew escape system, which is specifically designed to allow the crew to exit the orbiter without hitting any flight-control surfaces and parachute to safety, was first installed on the flight after Challenger.
Translation for the biz-speak-impaired: QNX wanted too much money.
Don't get me wrong--Q is a great OS. I ran a BBS on it, and used it as my daily development environment, for years. But I paid pretty pence for my original copy of QNX 2, and that was second-hand. When 4 came out, and they wanted over a thousand US for a usable system, I started casting about for a replacement. I guess Dan and the boys imagine themselves retiring rich and young, because their stuff has always seemed a shade on the too-dear side to me.
And neither will the MP3 format. However, those of you who were around back then, cast your minds back to when SEA was pushing the ARC compression format, and PK was pushing ZIP. Lots of folks on the ARC side thought that ARC would never be supplanted--it was too firmly entrenched. Everybody was using it, like everywhere. All the BBS'es all over the world were crammed with ARC files. Then almost overnight, ZIP was what you had to have. ARC isn't exactly dead, but when you go to compress a file these days, is it your first choice? And what would have happened back then if someone had said the word "bz2"?
So MP3 will last just as long as it's the best choice. As soon as something demonstrably better comes along, it will be pushed aside like a used plate at dinner. But be aware, "better" doesn't just mean clearer sound, or better compression, or freer code--it's a set of factors that must all come together at once. Can I predict them? Worse luck--I was one of those convinced that ZIP would never fly. So don't listen to me--use your own lessons from history.
... the Bell Labs-Michigan State University proposal uses electrons floating on a liquid-helium surface inside a vacuum chamber.
Hey, you could put an eye out that way!
So, when does Sun put Java on this thing? When does Microsoft announce "Visual Q"? And, of course, you'll need a larger quantum computer to run that one, and it won't be compatible with other quantum programming languages. But an animated quark will pop up from time to time and advise you on your programming style.
I read an article in Sci-Am about this quantum superposition stuff. And I still don't understand how I would go about using it for computation. I feel like such a caveman.
He's right, in part. Ever been to a user-group meeting? I don't mean a LUG. Big companies with big programs, like Microsoft, have user groups formed more in self-defense than from the mutual enthusiasm that supports a LUG. And those groups have annual meetings, in convention gardens like Chicago and Atlanta. There, the programmers and marketers from the company see maybe one percent of their user base, if they're lucky. But it's the noisiest one percent, and they're the one percent who can afford to come to user-group conventions. And, no surprise, they're the ones who can afford the "wickedly fast machines" and "mongolarge hard drives" that are needed to accomodate the new bloatware. So of course they're going to clamor for fins and fold-outs and other Swiss-Army features.
The fundamental error Mr. Shuman makes is when he equates features with bloat. As many of us know, the two are not synonymous. In fact, true bloat usually works against extra features, by making them run inefficiently. Another error he verges on making, but backs away at the very brink, is that of thinking that more features means better. He does in fact note that many new features aren't actually used, it's just important that they be there. But that assumption--that bigger software means more features means better--lies like a distant cloud over his whole article, cutting off its light and air. Common press mistake. Ever read a software review in a major trade magazine? Did it have a feature-comparison table? And did it have a "these features are useless" table? For me, the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively.
Simply having too many features can be a bad thing. About eight years ago, my company went looking for a successor to "roff" for the developers to use to create documentation. The commitee settled on Interleaf, a full-blown document preparation system. The developers hated it, and used it only when forced. Why? Their most common complaint was that it was "too complicated". Interleaf isn't a bad program, and these aren't stupid people, just people who don't want to spend months learning how to do something that isn't central to their lives. I can't blame them.
Please do be aware that Mr. Metcalfe is not an idiot, uninformed, or a senile old fool. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote both articles. On that hand, he knew what he was doing when he predicted the collapse of the Internet. He's a wise old cat, and we would do well to look past his words into the meat of his message.
He has long battled entrenched monopolies--telcos of all stripes, and Microsoft, of most note. This latest "flame against Linux" was an attempt to challenge the Linux community to correct what Mr. Metcalfe sees as its worst shortcomings. It's similar to, but less clumsy than, when your father said "Bet you can't clean up your room in ten minutes flat." Except Mr. Metcalfe has your number pretty well, and judging by the vehemence of responses he reported, the Linux community never saw him coming. Stop and re-interpret his comments as if Mr. Torvalds or Mr. Stallman had made them instead. What could possibly cause them to say such a thing? Ah, now you are getting into the proper mindset!
What, you're still here browsing the web, instead of chasing bugs, cutting code, or writing docs? Why, exactly?
Okay, boys, coffee break's over--back on your heads!
I say, Victor old chap, could you possibly close the "EM" in your signature? The second one lacks a slash, I believe. Drives my rum old browser to distraction. I'd be ever so grateful if you would consider it--thanks a mil.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the appropriate response to a vitriolic diatribe such as yours is "Bite me." Doesn't make much sense or add anything to the discussion, but neither did your personal attacks. I see by a quick review of your posting history here that you tend to be a bit testy to everyone, not just me, so I guess I needn't take it personally.
I'm afraid that I must agree with some of the others here--Perl is a cornerstone of free software, and this is a direct attempt by Microsoft to "take it over". We should all be prepared to execute a code fork. I'll bet Larry Wall will lead the charge, if it comes to that--no fool nor Microsoft lover he.
From your response, it's hard to tell whether you had trouble with the math, the reading, or the writing. Doug's message looked fine to me, and argues the same point you yourself argue later as "Try again". Alongside it, your post seems a bit of a non sequitur. So, what's up?
Let me see if I have this straight--Amiga have decided that, since they can't make their new box truly different, they will settle for making it look different? O-o-o-o-o-okay. Well then there now. It's ... an approach, I suppose.
That does remind me, however, about an experience I had in 1981 or so. I was tripping, rainbow blotter, and took a notion to spend some time with the original IBM PC BIOS code, a printed copy of which was to be found in the Tech Manual. When I got to the beating heart of the serial handler and discovered that there was no way it could be fooled into being re-entrant, I could actually hear my mind ripping apart, like tearing a head of lettuce in half. I decided that there were more interesting things to do while tripping than look at IBM code, and have since limited the amount of coding I do when on acid. But weed and speed, now--watch out!
It may be my faulty memory betraying me, but isn't "roger" commonwealth (or at least U.K.) slang for, um, sexual intercourse? If so, can't think of a more fitting name--"Microsoft Rogers" as a verb phrase.
I had heard (more unsubstantiated rumors again, danger Will Robinson!) that it was because the thinking pre-Challenger was that if anything went wrong, there would be no crew left to escape. The Challenger incident demonstrated conclusively that such an assumption was incorrect.
- I've heard a totally unsubtantiated assertion that it took Challenger's flight deck upwards of nine minutes to reach the surface after the breakup of the orbiter.
- As to whether the crew were alive, or conscious, or whether NASA knows either fact--consider this and draw your own conclusions: The crew escape system, which is specifically designed to allow the crew to exit the orbiter without hitting any flight-control surfaces and parachute to safety, was first installed on the flight after Challenger.
A-coding we will go, hi ho the derry-o.Don't get me wrong--Q is a great OS. I ran a BBS on it, and used it as my daily development environment, for years. But I paid pretty pence for my original copy of QNX 2, and that was second-hand. When 4 came out, and they wanted over a thousand US for a usable system, I started casting about for a replacement. I guess Dan and the boys imagine themselves retiring rich and young, because their stuff has always seemed a shade on the too-dear side to me.
More bugs to crush, until later then.
So MP3 will last just as long as it's the best choice. As soon as something demonstrably better comes along, it will be pushed aside like a used plate at dinner. But be aware, "better" doesn't just mean clearer sound, or better compression, or freer code--it's a set of factors that must all come together at once. Can I predict them? Worse luck--I was one of those convinced that ZIP would never fly. So don't listen to me--use your own lessons from history.
More code to write, see you fine folks later.
So, when does Sun put Java on this thing? When does Microsoft announce "Visual Q"? And, of course, you'll need a larger quantum computer to run that one, and it won't be compatible with other quantum programming languages. But an animated quark will pop up from time to time and advise you on your programming style.
I read an article in Sci-Am about this quantum superposition stuff. And I still don't understand how I would go about using it for computation. I feel like such a caveman.
The Knave raises his glass to all those who must still earn a living outside the Linux world. May your dream job come to you soon!
The fundamental error Mr. Shuman makes is when he equates features with bloat. As many of us know, the two are not synonymous. In fact, true bloat usually works against extra features, by making them run inefficiently. Another error he verges on making, but backs away at the very brink, is that of thinking that more features means better. He does in fact note that many new features aren't actually used, it's just important that they be there. But that assumption--that bigger software means more features means better--lies like a distant cloud over his whole article, cutting off its light and air. Common press mistake. Ever read a software review in a major trade magazine? Did it have a feature-comparison table? And did it have a "these features are useless" table? For me, the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively.
Simply having too many features can be a bad thing. About eight years ago, my company went looking for a successor to "roff" for the developers to use to create documentation. The commitee settled on Interleaf, a full-blown document preparation system. The developers hated it, and used it only when forced. Why? Their most common complaint was that it was "too complicated". Interleaf isn't a bad program, and these aren't stupid people, just people who don't want to spend months learning how to do something that isn't central to their lives. I can't blame them.
Ding! Compile is done--must run.
He has long battled entrenched monopolies--telcos of all stripes, and Microsoft, of most note. This latest "flame against Linux" was an attempt to challenge the Linux community to correct what Mr. Metcalfe sees as its worst shortcomings. It's similar to, but less clumsy than, when your father said "Bet you can't clean up your room in ten minutes flat." Except Mr. Metcalfe has your number pretty well, and judging by the vehemence of responses he reported, the Linux community never saw him coming. Stop and re-interpret his comments as if Mr. Torvalds or Mr. Stallman had made them instead. What could possibly cause them to say such a thing? Ah, now you are getting into the proper mindset!
What, you're still here browsing the web, instead of chasing bugs, cutting code, or writing docs? Why, exactly?
Okay, boys, coffee break's over--back on your heads!
I say, Victor old chap, could you possibly close the "EM" in your signature? The second one lacks a slash, I believe. Drives my rum old browser to distraction. I'd be ever so grateful if you would consider it--thanks a mil.