I don't understand why the prize isn't a NIN concert instead of coldplay. I mean, the latest video is practically an ad for Apple (I don't mind, I liked the video a lot)
The fact that it comes in 4 CD's and doesn't need to connect to the net during install is one of the reasons why I install it a lot - I'm working on a project that required me to install Linux on several sites where there is no access to the internet, so this is a good choice (I was going to go with Ubuntu at first but I needed a lot of packages that are downloaded during install and that's the reason why I changed distros).
don't be so pessimistic. I think many people got it. It's just that some of us don't miss pointers and templates, either because we like Java better than C++ or because we simply don't like C++.
take a guess... shared source of course. Look for a post above this one in this same thread, that I wrote explaining the consequences of the Rotor release by MS. It's just so that they can have a valid argument about code theft when Mono gets really popular...
Re:from the oxymoron dept...
on
Effective C#
·
· Score: 1
You could use Monodevelop, it's free (speech and beer wise). It's still very rough as far as aspx and winforms are concerned, but for a programming class where you're going to write a hello world or other basic CLI stuff, it's more than enough.
Re:from the oxymoron dept...
on
Effective C#
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually the Mono team encourages you to stay away from Rotor as if it was the plague, because it's the infamous shared source license. It's all MS code, not open source at all. So if you have looked at the source for Rotor, you shouldn't (or can't? I don't really know) contribute to the Mono framework (or Portable.NET or any other one if there are more implementations) because in the future it might bring patent or copyright issues from MS against those projects.
It also supposedly runs on Mac OS X. But you need 1GB free disk space to build the thing. Why? I don't know. Mono doesn't use as much space, and it includes the CLR and the class libraries.
But there are no shortage of orcs, trolls, balrogs, and other nasty creatures that bare certain similarities... to create said creatures, who do you think Tolkien got the inspiration from?
You are describing the way patents work (or are supposed to work). The idea is to be able to protect the little guy when he has a great idea like the one you describe. In this case maybe the guy will have the idea and the way to build a prototype, but not the means to build it in massive quantities. So another company comes in, one of the big guys, who can build it in massive quantities. If patents didn't exist, they would just copy the design and build the device and sell it and the little guy would get nothing. With patents, the big company has to license the patent from the little guy, so for every device the big company sells, the little guy gets some money. The problem that patents are causing lately hasn't been because of the idea of patents itself, but rather the enforcement of patents: you shouldn't be able to patent something if you don't even show a prototype or try to build one or prove that it works or can works, should you? because then a lot of people can just patent ideas and wait for someone to try and come up with something similar. Another problem is that the PTO is granting patents left and right without checking them. The guy who patented the wheel is a clear example. And lots of bullshit patents are granted that way. The PTO is just granting any patents that anyone requests and they're letting the people fight it out in court, if you have prior art, or a previous patent or can prove that the idea is too simple or obvious to patent or whatever. Software patents, however, are a different matter altogether. I DO think those are bad from the get go. But for tangible stuff, like the product that is the subject of this slashdot story, or any inventions like the one you suggest, I think patents are a good way to protect the inventor (when they really invent the thing they're patenting, obviously).
I agree. The PodBuddy manufacturers should just license the patent from these guys. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a product similar to something that's already been patented?
Software patents are bad for a lot of reasons, especially because it hinders open source software development because if the author of a program is giving it away with source code and is using something patented, there's no way he can give the patent holder any money. But in this case, the podbuddy won't be free in any way, so the manufacturers can pay the license to the patent holders and add that to the price of their product.
I know the patent holders are suing (or threatening to sue) the podbuddy manufacturers, but isn't that the usual way of saying "we want something" in the US lately? An actor wants a raise on a series, he sues. The series producers want someone out, they sue. The patent holders want the manufacturer of a similar product to pay for the license, they sue... it's kind of stupid IMHO but it seems to me that this guys took it too seriously. I don't see anywhere in the text a mention of trying to license the patent (and I was kind of expecting to read about that but the patent holder putting a price too high or something).
oh yeah? and who's going to debugging that app? who? someone's going to have to write an app that checks the tester app to make sure it is testing correctly and the results of the tests are correct... and who's going to debug that? who's going to check it?
If the child tries to stab you to death for disciplining it, you put the child in a mental ward for safe observation and help. If when the child (or in this case patent industry) is mature and tries it again, society prescribes the death penalty (in the US).
yeah but then you throw the baby in a well and put a big stone on top of it hoping she just dies and we all know how that turns out.
I received a mail from him once, too - and I read it only because I know a guy named Javier Luna, I used to work with him some time ago, in Mexico City. But as it turns out, it wasn't the same guy, so I just told him to fuck off (the spammer, not my ex-coworker). I just checked that blog and the spammer is peruvian.
Yeah well I can't remember the last time I went to a movie theater to watch a movie without people's cellphones ringing several times. I can hardly concentrate on a movie theater. People talking, cellphones ringing... the inevitable guy who comes in late and is looking for a seat, etc.
And I have also felt disappointed lately when I go watch a movie that sounds like crap. A couple of times just out of curiosity I rented the movie when it came out on DVD to watch it at home with my surround setup and it was much better. I think sometimes theaters just turn on the center speaker to cut costs or something, I don't know.
I dumped WebObjects when I left a company I was working at, which used WO but was switching to.NET because MS somehow convinced all the PHB's that it was better than java, etc etc.
Now I use a combination of frameworks that I have found to be similar or even superior to WebObjects: Tapestry for the web (instead of struts, jsp or any other crap) works in an almost identical way to WebObjects (I think the author used to work with WO but I'm not sure); Hibernate (instead of EOF; I know it has its shortcomings but it does the job); and Spring. This last one doesn't even have an equivalent on WebObjects, but it's really powerful and nice to work with.
If you don't like Hibernate you can try Cayenne, it's inspired by EOF and it even comes with an application that resembles EOModeler.
If you want to try J2EE web development, you definitely have to check out Tapestry and Hibernate or Cayenne, and Spring. Then later if Apple decides to open source WebObjects, we'll see if we keep using it, right?
Oh and I almost forget wotonomy (shame on me, I even contributed a lot of code into that project - lots of web and EOAdaptor stuff that still doesn't work).
well, "no fanfare" has been part of WebObjects for the last 5 years, right?
I never deployed WO apps on J2EE containers, but I remember reading on the dev lists that it was kind of troublesome because then you had to take care of all the threading stuff (something you don't have to do if you use WOMonitor an a bunch of instances). All that manual locking and unlocking of the editing contexts... does it even scale well with such bottlenecks? besides, I think a WO app on a J2EE container can't even take advantage of container-managed datasources, can it? I stopped using it on 2002/2003 so maybe the newer versions have it now...
Anyway, I hope they open source WebObjects. wotonomy is just not advancing, we don't have the time for it.
believe it or not there are several J2EE developers who don't use hibernate, spring, etc. Sometimes it's because their employers won't allow them. I've been to some places (banks and the like) where it's company policy to not use open source, or somtimes to not use anything besides their corporate tool (i.e. weblogic, websphere, etc) and certain frameworks approved by management (like struts, which somehow has managed to gain acceptance from PHB's all around).
i'm sorry it's friday and my brain is already on vacation... the price still goes down but it's certainly not free, now it's like $400 and if you deploy on anything but Tiger Server it's probably going to be unsupported.
because the only free license is the developer license. The deployment license is now only bundled with Tiger Server. So if you want to legally deploy a WO app on, say, Linux or Solaris, you have to buy a Tiger Server license, get the license code for WO, and deploy on whatever you want. and now you have a Tiger Server license you're not even gonna use.
So the price actually went up... before, you could buy a WO deployment license for $700 nos it's goine to be $130 or more (I don't really know the price for Tiger Server but it surely is at least the same as the regular OSX).
not only that... I heard amazing stories (from people at NeXT who worked with WO at that time) about how Sharper Image and Reebok were done in 3 days by 3 developers... the development cost I think 30K.
At that time I was working here in Mexico with seccion amarilla, Sanborns, Cablevision and a couple other sites that I was writing with WO. Great tool, like you say, ahead of its time.
my thoughts exactly. They should have just opensourced it instead. The WO deployments I did on 2000-2003 were on Solaris, Linux and Windows, none of them on OSX.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why the prize isn't a NIN concert instead of coldplay. I mean, the latest video is practically an ad for Apple (I don't mind, I liked the video a lot)
His novels are good but he tends to ramble a lot when writing non-fiction like this article.
Plus, the next generation of people won't become HR drones, or if they do, they will look for people using open office and other OSS.
The fact that it comes in 4 CD's and doesn't need to connect to the net during install is one of the reasons why I install it a lot - I'm working on a project that required me to install Linux on several sites where there is no access to the internet, so this is a good choice (I was going to go with Ubuntu at first but I needed a lot of packages that are downloaded during install and that's the reason why I changed distros).
don't be so pessimistic. I think many people got it. It's just that some of us don't miss pointers and templates, either because we like Java better than C++ or because we simply don't like C++.
But it was funny anyway.
take a guess... shared source of course. Look for a post above this one in this same thread, that I wrote explaining the consequences of the Rotor release by MS. It's just so that they can have a valid argument about code theft when Mono gets really popular...
You could use Monodevelop, it's free (speech and beer wise). It's still very rough as far as aspx and winforms are concerned, but for a programming class where you're going to write a hello world or other basic CLI stuff, it's more than enough.
Actually the Mono team encourages you to stay away from Rotor as if it was the plague, because it's the infamous shared source license. It's all MS code, not open source at all. So if you have looked at the source for Rotor, you shouldn't (or can't? I don't really know) contribute to the Mono framework (or Portable.NET or any other one if there are more implementations) because in the future it might bring patent or copyright issues from MS against those projects. It also supposedly runs on Mac OS X. But you need 1GB free disk space to build the thing. Why? I don't know. Mono doesn't use as much space, and it includes the CLR and the class libraries.
nice try, but still no match for the Chewbacca defense.
You are describing the way patents work (or are supposed to work). The idea is to be able to protect the little guy when he has a great idea like the one you describe. In this case maybe the guy will have the idea and the way to build a prototype, but not the means to build it in massive quantities. So another company comes in, one of the big guys, who can build it in massive quantities. If patents didn't exist, they would just copy the design and build the device and sell it and the little guy would get nothing. With patents, the big company has to license the patent from the little guy, so for every device the big company sells, the little guy gets some money.
The problem that patents are causing lately hasn't been because of the idea of patents itself, but rather the enforcement of patents: you shouldn't be able to patent something if you don't even show a prototype or try to build one or prove that it works or can works, should you? because then a lot of people can just patent ideas and wait for someone to try and come up with something similar.
Another problem is that the PTO is granting patents left and right without checking them. The guy who patented the wheel is a clear example. And lots of bullshit patents are granted that way. The PTO is just granting any patents that anyone requests and they're letting the people fight it out in court, if you have prior art, or a previous patent or can prove that the idea is too simple or obvious to patent or whatever.
Software patents, however, are a different matter altogether. I DO think those are bad from the get go. But for tangible stuff, like the product that is the subject of this slashdot story, or any inventions like the one you suggest, I think patents are a good way to protect the inventor (when they really invent the thing they're patenting, obviously).
I agree. The PodBuddy manufacturers should just license the patent from these guys. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a product similar to something that's already been patented? Software patents are bad for a lot of reasons, especially because it hinders open source software development because if the author of a program is giving it away with source code and is using something patented, there's no way he can give the patent holder any money. But in this case, the podbuddy won't be free in any way, so the manufacturers can pay the license to the patent holders and add that to the price of their product. I know the patent holders are suing (or threatening to sue) the podbuddy manufacturers, but isn't that the usual way of saying "we want something" in the US lately? An actor wants a raise on a series, he sues. The series producers want someone out, they sue. The patent holders want the manufacturer of a similar product to pay for the license, they sue... it's kind of stupid IMHO but it seems to me that this guys took it too seriously. I don't see anywhere in the text a mention of trying to license the patent (and I was kind of expecting to read about that but the patent holder putting a price too high or something).
oh yeah? and who's going to debugging that app? who? someone's going to have to write an app that checks the tester app to make sure it is testing correctly and the results of the tests are correct... and who's going to debug that? who's going to check it?
yeah but then you throw the baby in a well and put a big stone on top of it hoping she just dies and we all know how that turns out.
I received a mail from him once, too - and I read it only because I know a guy named Javier Luna, I used to work with him some time ago, in Mexico City. But as it turns out, it wasn't the same guy, so I just told him to fuck off (the spammer, not my ex-coworker). I just checked that blog and the spammer is peruvian.
I thought that part was called the "aint", as in "it aint asshole but it aint genitals either" (or something like that).
Yeah well I can't remember the last time I went to a movie theater to watch a movie without people's cellphones ringing several times. I can hardly concentrate on a movie theater. People talking, cellphones ringing... the inevitable guy who comes in late and is looking for a seat, etc.
And I have also felt disappointed lately when I go watch a movie that sounds like crap. A couple of times just out of curiosity I rented the movie when it came out on DVD to watch it at home with my surround setup and it was much better. I think sometimes theaters just turn on the center speaker to cut costs or something, I don't know.
I dumped WebObjects when I left a company I was working at, which used WO but was switching to .NET because MS somehow convinced all the PHB's that it was better than java, etc etc.
Now I use a combination of frameworks that I have found to be similar or even superior to WebObjects: Tapestry for the web (instead of struts, jsp or any other crap) works in an almost identical way to WebObjects (I think the author used to work with WO but I'm not sure); Hibernate (instead of EOF; I know it has its shortcomings but it does the job); and Spring. This last one doesn't even have an equivalent on WebObjects, but it's really powerful and nice to work with.
If you don't like Hibernate you can try Cayenne, it's inspired by EOF and it even comes with an application that resembles EOModeler.
If you want to try J2EE web development, you definitely have to check out Tapestry and Hibernate or Cayenne, and Spring. Then later if Apple decides to open source WebObjects, we'll see if we keep using it, right?
Oh and I almost forget wotonomy (shame on me, I even contributed a lot of code into that project - lots of web and EOAdaptor stuff that still doesn't work).
well, "no fanfare" has been part of WebObjects for the last 5 years, right?
I never deployed WO apps on J2EE containers, but I remember reading on the dev lists that it was kind of troublesome because then you had to take care of all the threading stuff (something you don't have to do if you use WOMonitor an a bunch of instances). All that manual locking and unlocking of the editing contexts... does it even scale well with such bottlenecks? besides, I think a WO app on a J2EE container can't even take advantage of container-managed datasources, can it? I stopped using it on 2002/2003 so maybe the newer versions have it now...
Anyway, I hope they open source WebObjects. wotonomy is just not advancing, we don't have the time for it.
believe it or not there are several J2EE developers who don't use hibernate, spring, etc. Sometimes it's because their employers won't allow them. I've been to some places (banks and the like) where it's company policy to not use open source, or somtimes to not use anything besides their corporate tool (i.e. weblogic, websphere, etc) and certain frameworks approved by management (like struts, which somehow has managed to gain acceptance from PHB's all around).
i'm sorry it's friday and my brain is already on vacation... the price still goes down but it's certainly not free, now it's like $400 and if you deploy on anything but Tiger Server it's probably going to be unsupported.
because the only free license is the developer license. The deployment license is now only bundled with Tiger Server. So if you want to legally deploy a WO app on, say, Linux or Solaris, you have to buy a Tiger Server license, get the license code for WO, and deploy on whatever you want. and now you have a Tiger Server license you're not even gonna use.
So the price actually went up... before, you could buy a WO deployment license for $700 nos it's goine to be $130 or more (I don't really know the price for Tiger Server but it surely is at least the same as the regular OSX).
not only that... I heard amazing stories (from people at NeXT who worked with WO at that time) about how Sharper Image and Reebok were done in 3 days by 3 developers... the development cost I think 30K. At that time I was working here in Mexico with seccion amarilla, Sanborns, Cablevision and a couple other sites that I was writing with WO. Great tool, like you say, ahead of its time.
my thoughts exactly. They should have just opensourced it instead. The WO deployments I did on 2000-2003 were on Solaris, Linux and Windows, none of them on OSX.