"But note that "generics" or "parametric types" have been present in languages such as Eiffel or Sather for well over a decade, and for much longer in ML."
Also note that generics have been present in
Ada for 2 decades!
--TRR
sorry about that (shoulda been "beautiful young woman" anyhow).
although in a way, it was on topic, if barely, because her picture appeared without explanation in the article which had been linked to/.. however, it was certainly inappropriate. my apologies.
in the picture she reminds me of young adele goldberg. you can practically see the bright, light of serious feminine intellect shining in her eyes as she demos cool new techstuff. beautiful.
oh yeah - i suppose you suppose things would be more
"integrated" if we all everyone used different toolchains (or should that be trollchains, moooron).
--TRR
i wonder what effects this will have on the much vaunted horizontal integration buisness model of the pc oems.
will each major oem will develop its own proprietary pc bus technology in cooperation with microsoft? will there still be open hw standards for connecting peripherals?
it rather sounds like ms and hp are trying to reinvent something akin to ibm's
microchannel architecture for the ps/2. i hope they are every bit as successful as ibm was in this endeavor.
GNU/Linux is the fork of the GNU OS which uses Linux as the OS kernel.
A GNU application might or might not require a GUI. Thus Xfree does not belong in the name of the system.
However, a particular GNU distribution, one targeting desktop users for instance, might depend on a particular GUI through its core user apps.
So "Debian/Xfree GNU/Linux" is correct while not "GNU/Xfree" is not.
(Just writing "Linux" ignores the possbility that there could be an embedded or propietary operating system, with its own toolchain and API's, which ran on a ported version of the Linux kernel).
Technically, precise system names should only be important if you are doing something like writing a research paper and want to make sure that your audience knows exactly what you are talking about (so they can duplicate your experimental setup and confirm your published results).
People who insist on using this kind of terminology in ordinary conversation most likely have sticks up their butts, as you suggest.
And, as product names go, "Linux" is a lot catchier than "GNU", imho.
"Arguing merely that is good for them isn't of
any interest to me."
Oh come one on. You began your post with the assertion that the economic value of a song is decreased by unauthorized sharing.
If you're unwilling to argue the point, then perhaps it was not your place/right/whatever to have brought it up in the first place.
I'm not about to get drawn into a straw-man argument over the legal status of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Of course it's illegal. (duhhh!).
--
Artists and song services could assume the role of (a distributed) Microsoft.
Ad agencies, pr/marketing departments, and such would play the roles of the OEM's.
Buisnesses, especially those aiming to sell youth/lifestyle-oriented products to adults - using music they enjoyed listening to during their teen years, for instance - would be the consumers.
--
Your notion of equating economic value with "enjoyment" is half-baked, imho. Care to show how "joy" can be measured (or even defined)?
The original GNU-system kernel was
Alix (eponymous of one of RMS's past girlfriends).
Alix was chased away by the HURD (CM Mach) which was in turn vanquished our charming hero Linux . . . (meanwhile, Alix lies asleep, imprisoned in the dark tower as the HURD patiently plots its revenge).
"Our business model works even if all Internet software is free . . . We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscape's business model look like? Not very good."
Our buisness model works even if all Internet music is free . . . We are still selling advertising services. What does the RIAA's buisness model look like? Not very good.
You are neglecting the infamous Network Effect (ie why Microsoft more or less allowed everyone pirate DOS and Windows throughout the 80's and 90's - Steven Ballmer even bragged about it once in some print magazine like Fortune, quipping that it was "part of their buisness model").
The Network Effect increases the song's potential number of listeners (ie its global popularity) - for *free* in this case (ie no payola scams)
Popularity in turn increases the potential value of the song as a commodity which can be LEASED TO THE ADVERTISERS (as michael jackson, for instance, well knows) to sell cars, beer, clothing, and other lifestyle products. This is the *real money jackpot* for musicians and artists.
Therefore, the RIAA's economic reasoning is entirely misleading and completely bogus.
i'd guess the router people developed their own networking and security libraries for their embedded platforms (modified BSD code, for instance).
if they just use an existing port of the linux kernel (or publish their changes) and make their propietary api's loadable kernel modules (with the rest of their software in user space) i don't see where the gpl issues are.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I hope that the judge rules that from now on, nobody is allowed to have sex (.com, that is)!
--TRRsorry about that (shoulda been "beautiful young woman" anyhow).
/.. however, it was certainly inappropriate. my apologies.
although in a way, it was on topic, if barely, because her picture appeared without explanation in the article which had been linked to
in the picture she reminds me of young adele goldberg. you can practically see the bright, light of serious feminine intellect shining in her eyes as she demos cool new techstuff. beautiful.
& again, sorry!
--l'homme sur la lune ~ TRR
oh yeah - i suppose you suppose things would be more "integrated" if we all everyone used different toolchains (or should that be trollchains, moooron). --TRR
C# is like a hybrid of C++ and VB
--TRR
you're analogy doesn't feel correct; how about:
.
the manufacturer of the lock on your front door accidentally produced a bunch of locks with identical keys . .
--TRR
i wonder what effects this will have on the much vaunted horizontal integration buisness model of the pc oems.
will each major oem will develop its own proprietary pc bus technology in cooperation with microsoft? will there still be open hw standards for connecting peripherals?
it rather sounds like ms and hp are trying to reinvent something akin to ibm's microchannel architecture for the ps/2. i hope they are every bit as successful as ibm was in this endeavor.
--TRR
i thought we were moving *away* (if very slowly) from 8086 technology!
.
i mean, 386 was a big step, 586 a bigger step, itanium an even bigger step... x86-64 - a smaller step, but still away. .
(unless time has reversed itself)
--TRR
probably not Roy Want or the Baard brothers... --TRR
Well, that's what Microsoft calls it.
The name of the system is GNU.
GNU/Linux is the fork of the GNU OS which uses Linux as the OS kernel.
A GNU application might or might not require a GUI. Thus Xfree does not belong in the name of the system.
However, a particular GNU distribution, one targeting desktop users for instance, might depend on a particular GUI through its core user apps.
So "Debian/Xfree GNU/Linux" is correct while not "GNU/Xfree" is not.
(Just writing "Linux" ignores the possbility that there could be an embedded or propietary operating system, with its own toolchain and API's, which ran on a ported version of the Linux kernel).
Technically, precise system names should only be important if you are doing something like writing a research paper and want to make sure that your audience knows exactly what you are talking about (so they can duplicate your experimental setup and confirm your published results).
People who insist on using this kind of terminology in ordinary conversation most likely have sticks up their butts, as you suggest.
And, as product names go, "Linux" is a lot catchier than "GNU", imho.
--TRR
"Arguing merely that is good for them isn't of
any interest to me."
Oh come one on. You began your post with the assertion that the economic value of a song is decreased by unauthorized sharing.
If you're unwilling to argue the point, then perhaps it was not your place/right/whatever to have brought it up in the first place.
I'm not about to get drawn into a straw-man argument over the legal status of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Of course it's illegal. (duhhh!).
--
Artists and song services could assume the role of (a distributed) Microsoft.
Ad agencies, pr/marketing departments, and such would play the roles of the OEM's.
Buisnesses, especially those aiming to sell youth/lifestyle-oriented products to adults - using music they enjoyed listening to during their teen years, for instance - would be the consumers.
--
Your notion of equating economic value with "enjoyment" is half-baked, imho. Care to show how "joy" can be measured (or even defined)?
--TRR
The original GNU-system kernel was Alix (eponymous of one of RMS's past girlfriends).
Alix was chased away by the HURD (CM Mach) which was in turn vanquished our charming hero Linux . . . (meanwhile, Alix lies asleep, imprisoned in the dark tower as the HURD patiently plots its revenge).
--TRR
And i'm happy to see so in this case. mirror anyone? --TRR
Our buisness model works even if all Internet music is free . . . We are still selling advertising services. What does the RIAA's buisness model look like? Not very good.--TRR
You are neglecting the infamous Network Effect (ie why Microsoft more or less allowed everyone pirate DOS and Windows throughout the 80's and 90's - Steven Ballmer even bragged about it once in some print magazine like Fortune, quipping that it was "part of their buisness model").
The Network Effect increases the song's potential number of listeners (ie its global popularity) - for *free* in this case (ie no payola scams)
Popularity in turn increases the potential value of the song as a commodity which can be LEASED TO THE ADVERTISERS (as michael jackson, for instance, well knows) to sell cars, beer, clothing, and other lifestyle products. This is the *real money jackpot* for musicians and artists.
Therefore, the RIAA's economic reasoning is entirely misleading and completely bogus.
--TRR
or linking against gpl licensed libraries?
i'd guess the router people developed their own networking and security libraries for their embedded platforms (modified BSD code, for instance).
if they just use an existing port of the linux kernel (or publish their changes) and make their propietary api's loadable kernel modules (with the rest of their software in user space) i don't see where the
gpl issues are.
--TRR
gillbates: "Linux is available on a 64 bit architecture before Windows?!"
Mr. Innovation: "Uhh... They must have stolen the code from SCO..." {talking to wristphone:} "Call Utah!"
Now I can control my giant robot! --TRR
Je from little vrock!--TRR
Step 6: Collect and destroy/replace every Linux distro sources CD in existence.
hmmm. 'i-loo' sounds suspiciously similar to 'i-tunes'. do i detect some corporate marketing jealousy/sh*t-flinging going on?
I sure hope it's not a touch-screen!
--TRRWasn't there an x86-64 emulator?
(checks search engine...)Why hmm yes indeed there is.
Ouilah!--TRR