Why do children have to be "protected" from nudity, while it's perfectly appropriate for them to see someone head blown off in the latest blockbuser hollywood movie?
On the other hand, please don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question, meant to make people think.
As soon as the number of blocking web browsers increase from the current 10% (or so) to 90% the ad companies are going to put even worse ads in place, circumventing the typical popup blocking, thus ruining the nice browsing experience for us Mozilla users.
Speaking of that. Did anyone notice how their different, europeansites doesn't even mention SCOsource in their products list? Compare this to the US version.
If they intend to introduce a new license product that will save their company shouldn't they at least update their web pages to mention it?
Even in those cases, there are no liquid substances involved, but the behaviour is still liquid. Hence, the argument against the great-grandparent post still stands.
Well, I've seen actual footage of a pyroclastic flow which was the result of a landslide (i.e. no volcanoes or anything involved). It's just rock, and nothing else. It still behaves like a liquid.
If I had a link to the video I'd give it to you, but it was on Discovery channel. If you still won't believe me I could tape it for you in case it airs again.
Then you have never heard about pyroclastic flows then? They consist of solid material (rocks, mostly) and behave like a liquid. If you look at a video of a pyroclastic flow it looks just like a river flowing, but it's all solid.
Weird. The relative speed in startup between 1.1 and 1.4 on similar machines has in my experience been an enormous improvement. Well, exclusing the initial 1.2 releases which were actually slower than 1.1.
I find it surpising that the relative speed is the opposite on a slow MIPS machine. A problem with the IRIX JVM perhaps? Could you write a simple hello word program and run "time" on it on different JVM's on your machine? I'm not saying you are lying, I'm honestly interested in seeing what the relative speed differences are.
They have still done a lot of work making java starup much faster in later versions of the VM.
To be honest I haven't run Java on an old 200 MHz Pentium in a long time, but I can guarantee that it will be a lot faster than the old 1.1 version was.
OK, so what you just said means that it's not a good idea to write certain shell commands in Java and start the VM every time you want to run them. I can agree with this.
But, if you were to write a shell in Java you would most likely have the different shell commands as classes and use the Java dynamic class loading to add new shell commands. That way the whole shell session (and all the commands it uses) would be running in the same VM all the time and the startup argument no longer applies. In fact, this sounds like a fun project, and I suspect that someone has already done it.
That's obviously true. It is important to remember that back in the days when Java was slow, starting a hello world program could take several seconds. Many people still remember their poor experiences with starting their simple test programs and decided that Java is, and forever will be, very slow starting up.
I suggest these people try it again. They may be very surprised.:-)
A hello world program using JDK1.4.2 executes from start to finish in 0.08 seconds on my Athlon XP2400+ on Linux.
I tested this with the standard "time" command like this:
time java TheTestProgram
I also downloaded the JDK1.5 alpha release and it is faster. I believe the license prevents me from publishing the actual numbers for a beta version but you can download the early access release and try yourselves.
Yes, yes. I know C is much faster. But the point here is that you don't have time to react and notice wether startup takes 0.08 seconds or 0.008.
I think I missed the part of the constitution (regardless of which county you live in) that says that Adobe is required to provide you with a version of Photoshop that complies with your requirements.
I have always referred to the PlayStation as PS, and then after PS2 was released, as the PS1. I was always annoyed by people using different designations and apparently, Sony was too.
Well, on the other hand it doesn't seem that they were having any heat problems at all. It would seem that the system failed at higher clock speeds for other reasons than overheating.
Thank you for the information. It does make me feel a little bit more relieved. Not entirely though, and it still doesn't feel "right" for me to see Qt as a core library.
In the end, I predict that Qt will be LGPL or BSD licensed. Probably because tolltech goes out of business or they just get bored with it (or come up with a new product or something). At that time we can all agree with eachother.:-)
I know what the license says, and I find it limiting. Trolltech should be allowed to license their toolkit anyway they want. They are entitled to do so.
However, in a (hopefully) world-wide commonly used, standard desktop environment, I should not have to pay money to develop for it, even if my application is commercial closed source.
I think all of this biols down to what woul dhappen if someone decided to implement an LGPL-licensed version of Qt. Would trolltech attack you with patent claims, ip rights or whatever to stop you from doing so? If they did, would you still be singing their praises?
Now, if trolltech has offcially opened their API's for anyone to implement, then many of my arguments become moot. Can you point me to documentation that clarifies this?
Contrary to what you might believe, there is no license that tells me I need to buy Windows in order to develop for it. I could use something else, like Wine.
Contrieved example, I know. But it serves to point out the fact that the license cost is not tied to the development of commercial applications but rather to other components (in this case, the operating system that Microsoft sells).
And what if they increase the price of the Windows license? Well, yes. We'd be SOL. It's a good thing we aren't tied to Windows then. Believe it or not, we're not tied to any license costs at all. The people that wants to use Windows when developing are free to do so (at the cost of the OS and all supporting software he needs) other people might want ot use Linux (like myself) and we should be allowed to do so. If we had chosen Qt, we'd be stuck regardless of OS.
Open Systems are about choice. The choice of being able to choose a different OS, different hardware, etc... so that you are not in the hands of one manufacturer. Either through open standards and multiple manufacturers, or through free and open source which you can fork if you really need it. Qt does not fulfill this. It's a commercial non-free toolkit disguised as an open source solution to suck in the slashdot crowd.
There are alternative compilers for Windows. A free one is Watcom. I know, I use it myself.
MS Office? SQL Server? What are you talking about? Who needs SQL Server in order to be able to develop Windows applications?
No one needs MSDN subscriptions. At our site we have them, I never use it though. No one else in my team (we try to write platform independent code). All the reference manuals are freely available anyway.
XP Professional license? Mac OS X licenses? Well, an OS is needed, right?
I have no idea what an MS Server 2003 license is. Never needed it.
I have never said Qt is "bad". I have said it's bad when it's used as the standard or default user interface toolkit. You should be able to develop commercial applications using the standard toolkit without being controlled by a company that might change policies on a whim. What if they suddenly decide to increase the price ten-fold? And then a new developer joins the team and needs a development license. What am I to do? Start porting to GTK+?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, please don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question, meant to make people think.
As soon as the number of blocking web browsers increase from the current 10% (or so) to 90% the ad companies are going to put even worse ads in place, circumventing the typical popup blocking, thus ruining the nice browsing experience for us Mozilla users.
If they intend to introduce a new license product that will save their company shouldn't they at least update their web pages to mention it?
Even in those cases, there are no liquid substances involved, but the behaviour is still liquid. Hence, the argument against the great-grandparent post still stands.
If I had a link to the video I'd give it to you, but it was on Discovery channel. If you still won't believe me I could tape it for you in case it airs again.
This is a way to bring a useful installer Debian.
I find it surpising that the relative speed is the opposite on a slow MIPS machine. A problem with the IRIX JVM perhaps? Could you write a simple hello word program and run "time" on it on different JVM's on your machine? I'm not saying you are lying, I'm honestly interested in seeing what the relative speed differences are.
To be honest I haven't run Java on an old 200 MHz Pentium in a long time, but I can guarantee that it will be a lot faster than the old 1.1 version was.
But, if you were to write a shell in Java you would most likely have the different shell commands as classes and use the Java dynamic class loading to add new shell commands. That way the whole shell session (and all the commands it uses) would be running in the same VM all the time and the startup argument no longer applies. In fact, this sounds like a fun project, and I suspect that someone has already done it.
I suggest these people try it again. They may be very surprised. :-)
I tested this with the standard "time" command like this:
time java TheTestProgram
I also downloaded the JDK1.5 alpha release and it is faster. I believe the license prevents me from publishing the actual numbers for a beta version but you can download the early access release and try yourselves.
Yes, yes. I know C is much faster. But the point here is that you don't have time to react and notice wether startup takes 0.08 seconds or 0.008.
I think I missed the part of the constitution (regardless of which county you live in) that says that Adobe is required to provide you with a version of Photoshop that complies with your requirements.
I have always referred to the PlayStation as PS, and then after PS2 was released, as the PS1. I was always annoyed by people using different designations and apparently, Sony was too.
I don't think GIMP has this kind of limitiation.
"ogg" damnit... OGG!
OGG files are legal music files that can be used in arious ways
"mp3" is just too infected a term, an infection which odd doesn't share.
Well, on the other hand it doesn't seem that they were having any heat problems at all. It would seem that the system failed at higher clock speeds for other reasons than overheating.
Also, I don't think there is any need for it to look all polished. :-)
That's gotta be a pain: Almost beating the final boss in quake and the machine crashes because of too little nitrogen!
Enemy Territory is the 4092'nd sequel to Wolfenstein 3D.
In the end, I predict that Qt will be LGPL or BSD licensed. Probably because tolltech goes out of business or they just get bored with it (or come up with a new product or something). At that time we can all agree with eachother. :-)
However, in a (hopefully) world-wide commonly used, standard desktop environment, I should not have to pay money to develop for it, even if my application is commercial closed source.
I think all of this biols down to what woul dhappen if someone decided to implement an LGPL-licensed version of Qt. Would trolltech attack you with patent claims, ip rights or whatever to stop you from doing so? If they did, would you still be singing their praises?
Now, if trolltech has offcially opened their API's for anyone to implement, then many of my arguments become moot. Can you point me to documentation that clarifies this?
Contrieved example, I know. But it serves to point out the fact that the license cost is not tied to the development of commercial applications but rather to other components (in this case, the operating system that Microsoft sells).
And what if they increase the price of the Windows license? Well, yes. We'd be SOL. It's a good thing we aren't tied to Windows then. Believe it or not, we're not tied to any license costs at all. The people that wants to use Windows when developing are free to do so (at the cost of the OS and all supporting software he needs) other people might want ot use Linux (like myself) and we should be allowed to do so. If we had chosen Qt, we'd be stuck regardless of OS.
Open Systems are about choice. The choice of being able to choose a different OS, different hardware, etc... so that you are not in the hands of one manufacturer. Either through open standards and multiple manufacturers, or through free and open source which you can fork if you really need it. Qt does not fulfill this. It's a commercial non-free toolkit disguised as an open source solution to suck in the slashdot crowd.
MS Office? SQL Server? What are you talking about? Who needs SQL Server in order to be able to develop Windows applications?
No one needs MSDN subscriptions. At our site we have them, I never use it though. No one else in my team (we try to write platform independent code). All the reference manuals are freely available anyway.
XP Professional license? Mac OS X licenses? Well, an OS is needed, right?
I have no idea what an MS Server 2003 license is. Never needed it.
I have never said Qt is "bad". I have said it's bad when it's used as the standard or default user interface toolkit. You should be able to develop commercial applications using the standard toolkit without being controlled by a company that might change policies on a whim. What if they suddenly decide to increase the price ten-fold? And then a new developer joins the team and needs a development license. What am I to do? Start porting to GTK+?