Re:Most implementations will be in written in C...
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 1
OK, I take it back. At least 50 people use Ruby. Millions use C. Which would you bet on sticking around?
Ruby and Eiffel are different languages to be sure, but they both suffer the same fate.
Re:Most implementations will be in written in C...
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well my assertions are based in fact. Do a poll of every software developer or programmer you know and ask them if they have ever written or seen a program written in Ruby. Then ask them if they have seen or written one five years (or three years) ago.
Of course. Any system can kill. Software is just a system. If a mechanical system has been used in the software's place it could kill as well. If the nurse has misread the doctors handwriting and administered an overdose it would produce the same effect.
Re:This book is under an Open Source license
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am interested in your paper on the economics of OS. I am personally convinced that the economics of Open Source are damaging to the software industry and to the software developer. Perhaps your paper will give me insight into this. I hope it will be available via your website.
Re:This is a great book for implementors
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not a troll, but curiosity: why did you buy a copy of the book when it is freely available on the net? I personally did because I prefer to read from a book rather than a computer screen.
Re:This book is under an Open Source license
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now here is a guy I can respect. One who believes in the Open Source spirit enough to actually make the content of a book available for free. Kudos to Bruce for not being a hypocrite like so many of the Open Source "community".
It would be interesting to hear about how well the books sell after being made freely available on the net. My guess is not very well, but I am a fervent anti-open source guy. Please let us know.
Personally I think the an open protocol for this needs to be developed. I am the biggest MS supporter and also believe in closed source software, but I do believe in open protocols. The fact that the most heavily used LAN protocol is proprietary and requires reverse engineering is quite silly to me.
Re:Most implementations will be in written in C...
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For what purpose? Ruby is an esoteric language that hardly anyone uses and less people will use as the years goes on. This means that the code base will be unmaintainable.
Now Java or C# is a real option. Microsofts next implementation will be written in C# as a matter of fact.
This book is simply the best reference available for CIFS. I only say that because I have spent $$$ getting everything on the subject I can. With the recent changes in Microsoft licensing every sensible IT professional should be exploring alternatives. A SAMBA server is a great alternative. This book is all you need to go from knowing next to nothing to knowing enough to impress your geeky Network Admin friends.
This book is well written, clear and expansive. I didn't read it cover to cover (not at first anyway) I found pieces I needed, applied it, digested it, reviewed it and then went on to the next morsel I needed. If I missed something it was easy to find. By the way, it works with Win2K and WinXP neither of which is well documented by anyone anywhere.
"I don't remember seeing any ads for Linux 3 superbowls ago."
No, thats because all those ads were sold to the dotcommers - which was the hyped product back then. Linux is no different. IBM and a couple of other coporations are just flogging it to see if they can make a few bucks off of it until it fades away.
Nonsense. "Free" software is fine for simple systems and copying existing systems but lack the ability to be truly innovative. As the need complexity of systems increase, the free software copies will fall further behind their counterparts. The simple reason is that the number of people with the experience to create and maintain these complex systems will decrease. Unless the economics of free software change, you will be unable to attract many experienced professionals. Many OSS systems now are created in the developers "free time" - this does not scale well.
The only thing that "free" software competes on is price. The current corporate interest in "free" software is in the ability to get software systems for free.
As these companies start running out of their VC and IPO capital, this concept will disappear.
RMS is an (admitted) Marxist. He applies these concepts to the software world, but would like to see them extended to encompass as many fields as possible.
The SCOsource revenue has been significant this quarter. This will be reflected in the next 10Q. So far over 20 licensees have signed up for the program. Many more are expected soon, wait for announcements. BTW, now is not a good time to short the stock (actually it is never a good idea to short stock unless you are an experienced investor - so beware!)
If the evidence is so obviously false, why would they bother paying MILLIONS in "protection money"? All these companies have seen the evidence and they have been ponying up the dough. I am getting worried.
No, the SCOSource license is a specific license that SCO announced when this mess started. It is meant to be used to license the SCO IP that apparently exists in Linux. You can read about this on http://www.sco.com
Yes, it is a mass conspiracy. Couldn't it possibly be the fact that these companies have seen SCO's evidence and decided that they have a valid claim? Naw, not possible here on slashdot!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I take it back. At least 50 people use Ruby. Millions use C. Which would you bet on sticking around?
Ruby and Eiffel are different languages to be sure, but they both suffer the same fate.
Well my assertions are based in fact. Do a poll of every software developer or programmer you know and ask them if they have ever written or seen a program written in Ruby. Then ask them if they have seen or written one five years (or three years) ago.
The same principles apply to Eiffel, et al.
Of course. Any system can kill. Software is just a system. If a mechanical system has been used in the software's place it could kill as well. If the nurse has misread the doctors handwriting and administered an overdose it would produce the same effect.
I am interested in your paper on the economics of OS. I am personally convinced that the economics of Open Source are damaging to the software industry and to the software developer. Perhaps your paper will give me insight into this. I hope it will be available via your website.
Not a troll, but curiosity: why did you buy a copy of the book when it is freely available on the net? I personally did because I prefer to read from a book rather than a computer screen.
Now here is a guy I can respect. One who believes in the Open Source spirit enough to actually make the content of a book available for free. Kudos to Bruce for not being a hypocrite like so many of the Open Source "community".
It would be interesting to hear about how well the books sell after being made freely available on the net. My guess is not very well, but I am a fervent anti-open source guy. Please let us know.
Thanks
Personally I think the an open protocol for this needs to be developed. I am the biggest MS supporter and also believe in closed source software, but I do believe in open protocols. The fact that the most heavily used LAN protocol is proprietary and requires reverse engineering is quite silly to me.
For what purpose? Ruby is an esoteric language that hardly anyone uses and less people will use as the years goes on. This means that the code base will be unmaintainable.
Now Java or C# is a real option. Microsofts next implementation will be written in C# as a matter of fact.
This book is simply the best reference available for CIFS. I only say that because I have spent $$$ getting everything on the subject I can. With the recent changes in Microsoft licensing every sensible IT professional should be exploring alternatives. A SAMBA server is a great alternative. This book is all you need to go from knowing next to nothing to knowing enough to impress your geeky Network Admin friends.
This book is well written, clear and expansive. I didn't read it cover to cover (not at first anyway) I found pieces I needed, applied it, digested it, reviewed it and then went on to the next morsel I needed. If I missed something it was easy to find. By the way, it works with Win2K and WinXP neither of which is well documented by anyone anywhere.
No, because 95% of the computers on the planet use CIFS.
"I don't remember seeing any ads for Linux 3 superbowls ago."
No, thats because all those ads were sold to the dotcommers - which was the hyped product back then. Linux is no different. IBM and a couple of other coporations are just flogging it to see if they can make a few bucks off of it until it fades away.
"Trying to cast it in terms of absolutes (a you and your ilk try to do) is complete waste of time."
Then stop repeating the mantra that the GPL is "more free" than BSD or any of the other licenses, because it simply is not true.
Nonsense. "Free" software is fine for simple systems and copying existing systems but lack the ability to be truly innovative. As the need complexity of systems increase, the free software copies will fall further behind their counterparts. The simple reason is that the number of people with the experience to create and maintain these complex systems will decrease. Unless the economics of free software change, you will be unable to attract many experienced professionals. Many OSS systems now are created in the developers "free time" - this does not scale well.
The only thing that "free" software competes on is price. The current corporate interest in "free" software is in the ability to get software systems for free.
As these companies start running out of their VC and IPO capital, this concept will disappear.
RMS is an (admitted) Marxist. He applies these concepts to the software world, but would like to see them extended to encompass as many fields as possible.
What company is this?
That was only last quarters figures. The next 10Q will show millions in licensing fees for the current quarter.
We will book it as SCOSource license revenue, which it is.
They will be announced publically this week, so stay tuned. They are one of the 20 licensees that have joined the program.
:-)
I am sure Slashdot will cover the announcements as they happen!
The SCOsource revenue has been significant this quarter. This will be reflected in the next 10Q. So far over 20 licensees have signed up for the program. Many more are expected soon, wait for announcements. BTW, now is not a good time to short the stock (actually it is never a good idea to short stock unless you are an experienced investor - so beware!)
If the evidence is so obviously false, why would they bother paying MILLIONS in "protection money"? All these companies have seen the evidence and they have been ponying up the dough. I am getting worried.
No, the SCOSource license is a specific license that SCO announced when this mess started. It is meant to be used to license the SCO IP that apparently exists in Linux. You can read about this on http://www.sco.com
Yeah, and he forgot the fact that they announced new licensees this week that adds over $11 million in license revenue!
:-)
Oh, wait, never mind. That is a BAD thing!
Yes, it is a mass conspiracy. Couldn't it possibly be the fact that these companies have seen SCO's evidence and decided that they have a valid claim? Naw, not possible here on slashdot!
Where did you read this??? So far, no one outside of the U.S. has been paying their license fees.
EV1 paid over a million dollars to license the IP. I call that real money.
CA paid approximately $5 million in license fees. The other licensees paid an unknown amount.
Yeah, what are we paying those readers for anyway??? Get with the program you slackers!