For $200 dollars, you'd think Microsoft could include a bloody DVD decoder.
You think that's bad? For $59, you would think that Sony DVD drive I bought would have come with a DVD player. But no! If I had been using Windows as my primary platform I would have return the drive as defective...
There is a non-commercial 3.1.2 version, but it's only available with the new Qt book (forget the title). It's much better than the 2.3 NC version. Besides being newer, it also supports many more compilers (and even comes with an older BCC).
Unfortunately, as you can see by those verions, it limits you to certain versions. How long after 4.0 is released until a NC version is available somewhere? For some people this is an insurmountable problem. For others, like me, it's merely an annoyance because Unix/Linux is my primary target platform.
If Qt-Free was avaiable on Windows I could stick to Qt-conventions and support the application on all platforms with just a simple recompile.
A non-commercial 3.1.2 version comes with the new $39 book. It is complete and not crippled in any way. Or if you're really cheap, the old 2.x NC version is still on Trolltech's FTP site.
There's no free edition for QNX/Photon either. Heck, there's a lot of platforms that don't have native free Qt editions. What's up with that?
On to a serious note. GTK+ for Windows did not magically pop out of someone's ass. It had to be ported from X11 to Win32 by hand. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing to same with free edition Qt.
There is a non-commercial version for Windows available. It isn't free-beer-ware, but it's only $39 by buying the book. And it allows you to use the GPL. Of course you might have to use a one line exception in your license, but as a developer I think you can handle that.
Note to moderators: "flame" is not synonymous with "flamebait". Don't mod something down as flamebait merely because it is a flame. If you moderators would have RTFA you would realize that my post should actually be "informative" because it accurately answers the question.
p.s. RTFA and you'll discover that the FA actually contains the image in question. Really.
The best example of a stupid GNU man page is the GCC man page. It's downright insulting: "If we find that the things in this man page that are out of date cause significant confusion or complaints, we will stop distributing the man page." In other words, don't complain or they'll take it away!
No I haven't. But I have installed it on two Dell GX-240s with WD Caviar 20GB drives.And on an Intel ICH5 with two 40GB Seagate Barracudas, and a Compaq 1500 laptop with whatever drive it comes with. All with "auto" in the BIOS.
You're not using "dangerously dedicated" partitioning are you? There's a reason that's called "dangerous".
The last VAX I used was running 4BSD. Shouldn't be any problem porting over to FreeBSD. Oh wait! Did you say VMS? And you're running proprietary software? Written in assembler?
This makes sense. You think this is just about Janet Jackson's tit? If a station airs one more minute of pro-Bush ads than pro-Kerry ads, Democrats need the proof! Our civilization is at stake!
He may be contributing to the gas shortage and pollution, but the prime source of global warming has been traced to you flapping your yap. Do the planet a favor and stop emitting greenhouse gases, even if only for a single day.
Last time I ordered a coffee from Starbucks, actually it was the first time as well, I paid two dollars for an espresso. They give me the espresso in an 16 ounce paper cup. Huh? While I wasn't expecting a porcelain demitasse, I as expecting a much much smaller cup.
I have to disagree. I recently quit smoking and my consumption rate with one 20-count pack a day. I was not unusual. I was the average. The size of the pack is based on the average consumption, because of convenience. You grab one pack in the morning and it lasts you all day (or at least until you get home for the evening). Hmmm, do Australians might smoke more on average?
There is a big difference between what the real average is, and what the non-smoker thinks it is. When people asked how much I smoked they were usually surprised by my answer. They expected me, as an average smoker, to consume a lot more. The non-smoker wants the average to be higher. They want to make smokers more nasty, evil, addicted and out of control than they really are. This isn't hard to understand, non-marijuana users do the same to pot smokers, calling them "potheads" and imagining them continually stoned throughout the day, when in fact they smoke only a couple joints a day.
It's also easier to recognize heavier smokers as being smokers. They smoke more so you are more likely to recognize them as smokers. They are also more likely to annoy you, so they stick in your mind. So when you run across someone chain smoking five packs a day, you subconsciously bookmark that person as the average.
...a project that may one day let your work jump from computer to computer without interruption...
Before this can happen we need several prerequisites. The first is standard, open and ubiquitous file formats. If I have a document then it needs to be editable and viewable on every system I happen to use.
But that's not good enough! Let's say I have an OpenOffice sxw document. While it is an open format, it is not a ubiquitous standard. I cannot be assured that OpenOffice will be installed on any given system.
But wait, there's more! A standard format means that more than one application can use the file, but it still means the possibility of multiple applications. Those applications are going to be different from each other (duh!) just like a Ford Taurus is different from a Toyota Prius. The interfaces are going to be different, causing considerable annoyance. And there's not much you can do to change it. Even the Ford Taurus and Toyotal Prius have different interfaces. They do! Ever borrow a friends car, have it start raining, and then have to fumble around trying to find the windshield wipers? Even worse, it might be a stick shift and you're used to manual! Software is many magnitudes more complex than automobiles, so why should we expect the interfaces to be simpler?
There are solutions to these problems, of course. But those solutions will have problems of their own. My point is that this vision of the future is just that, a vision. It might never come to pass despite having the technology to bring it about. We have the technology for personal helicopters, yet where are they?
I think that this vision points to a possibility, but in reality we're going to get something different. No one knows if it's going to be slightly different or greatly different, only that it will be different.
The "greatest good for the greatest number" is ultimately a utilitarian concept. While I don't wish to disparage utilitarianism, it is hardly the dominant political philosophy in the world. Heck, it's pretty damned rare. Hence my reference to calculators.
In addition, your definition of "greatest good" is going to be different from my definition, and both of ours is going to be different than an EU minister's. Is the greatest good based on health? Wealth? Happiness? Number of children? Slashdot karma? A socialist and a capitalist can come up with opposite conclusions for the greatest good for the greatest number, and be completely sincere in their calculations!
While you and I disagree with software patents, there is a valid opinion that they create good for the people. It is generally believed that patents promote progress. In fact, that's the stated reason for allowing patents in the US Constitution. The reward for getting a patent encourages people to discover new things. Many people don't think this applies to software, but most of these people agree that non-software and non-process patents are beneficial. It is entirely possible, and very probable, that the EU ministers felt that the benefits of software patents outweighed their disadvantages.
I am not defending their vote. Far from it. But I am defending their right to cast their vote as they alone feel is right, proper and honest. Before you accuse them of voting for personal gain, you better have more evidence then merely disagreeing with their vote!
Slashdot Mirror
For $200 dollars, you'd think Microsoft could include a bloody DVD decoder.
You think that's bad? For $59, you would think that Sony DVD drive I bought would have come with a DVD player. But no! If I had been using Windows as my primary platform I would have return the drive as defective...
No, more like calling NAFTA a "free trade" agreement.
The US is a democracy, but it's a representational democracy and not a direct democracy.
Speaking of movies from writers who know science fiction, anyone have recent news about the B5 movie?
There is a non-commercial 3.1.2 version, but it's only available with the new Qt book (forget the title). It's much better than the 2.3 NC version. Besides being newer, it also supports many more compilers (and even comes with an older BCC).
Unfortunately, as you can see by those verions, it limits you to certain versions. How long after 4.0 is released until a NC version is available somewhere? For some people this is an insurmountable problem. For others, like me, it's merely an annoyance because Unix/Linux is my primary target platform.
You could do OOP in assembly as well, but I've never seen anyone do it...
Which makes it so ironic that the first thing the GPL fanboys yell about is the cost of the commercial edition of Qt...
If Qt-Free was avaiable on Windows I could stick to Qt-conventions and support the application on all platforms with just a simple recompile.
A non-commercial 3.1.2 version comes with the new $39 book. It is complete and not crippled in any way. Or if you're really cheap, the old 2.x NC version is still on Trolltech's FTP site.
There's no free edition for QNX/Photon either. Heck, there's a lot of platforms that don't have native free Qt editions. What's up with that?
On to a serious note. GTK+ for Windows did not magically pop out of someone's ass. It had to be ported from X11 to Win32 by hand. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing to same with free edition Qt.
There is a non-commercial version for Windows available. It isn't free-beer-ware, but it's only $39 by buying the book. And it allows you to use the GPL. Of course you might have to use a one line exception in your license, but as a developer I think you can handle that.
The people over there truly believe that they are somehow "saving the world" with their software, and that they are the only ones capable of doing so.
Are we talking about Microsoft... or Linux?
...you end up with a political culture that barely recognizes the average individual American's opinion.
But what's really ironic is that those barely recognizable opinions are what put those 593 people into office to begin with.
Note to moderators: "flame" is not synonymous with "flamebait". Don't mod something down as flamebait merely because it is a flame. If you moderators would have RTFA you would realize that my post should actually be "informative" because it accurately answers the question.
p.s. RTFA and you'll discover that the FA actually contains the image in question. Really.
Why don't you RTFA? Here, let me act like the BSD elitist that I am: *R*T*F*A*
Once you RTFA you will understand why I am telling to you to RTFA. Everyone else here who knows where the image is knows why you should RTFA. So RTFA!
The best example of a stupid GNU man page is the GCC man page. It's downright insulting: "If we find that the things in this man page that are out of date cause significant confusion or complaints, we will stop distributing the man page." In other words, don't complain or they'll take it away!
Which BSD are you talking about? I can install FreeBSD in my sleep. But thoughts of using raw fdisk and disklabel keep me awake at night!
No I haven't. But I have installed it on two Dell GX-240s with WD Caviar 20GB drives.And on an Intel ICH5 with two 40GB Seagate Barracudas, and a Compaq 1500 laptop with whatever drive it comes with. All with "auto" in the BIOS.
You're not using "dangerously dedicated" partitioning are you? There's a reason that's called "dangerous".
Funny, it installs for me just fine...
The last VAX I used was running 4BSD. Shouldn't be any problem porting over to FreeBSD. Oh wait! Did you say VMS? And you're running proprietary software? Written in assembler?
Sorry, can't help you...
I can handle stepping on Jabba's tail, but the worst change is the part where THX-1138 shoots first...
This makes sense. You think this is just about Janet Jackson's tit? If a station airs one more minute of pro-Bush ads than pro-Kerry ads, Democrats need the proof! Our civilization is at stake!
He may be contributing to the gas shortage and pollution, but the prime source of global warming has been traced to you flapping your yap. Do the planet a favor and stop emitting greenhouse gases, even if only for a single day.
Last time I ordered a coffee from Starbucks, actually it was the first time as well, I paid two dollars for an espresso. They give me the espresso in an 16 ounce paper cup. Huh? While I wasn't expecting a porcelain demitasse, I as expecting a much much smaller cup.
I have to disagree. I recently quit smoking and my consumption rate with one 20-count pack a day. I was not unusual. I was the average. The size of the pack is based on the average consumption, because of convenience. You grab one pack in the morning and it lasts you all day (or at least until you get home for the evening). Hmmm, do Australians might smoke more on average?
There is a big difference between what the real average is, and what the non-smoker thinks it is. When people asked how much I smoked they were usually surprised by my answer. They expected me, as an average smoker, to consume a lot more. The non-smoker wants the average to be higher. They want to make smokers more nasty, evil, addicted and out of control than they really are. This isn't hard to understand, non-marijuana users do the same to pot smokers, calling them "potheads" and imagining them continually stoned throughout the day, when in fact they smoke only a couple joints a day.
It's also easier to recognize heavier smokers as being smokers. They smoke more so you are more likely to recognize them as smokers. They are also more likely to annoy you, so they stick in your mind. So when you run across someone chain smoking five packs a day, you subconsciously bookmark that person as the average.
...a project that may one day let your work jump from computer to computer without interruption...
Before this can happen we need several prerequisites. The first is standard, open and ubiquitous file formats. If I have a document then it needs to be editable and viewable on every system I happen to use.
But that's not good enough! Let's say I have an OpenOffice sxw document. While it is an open format, it is not a ubiquitous standard. I cannot be assured that OpenOffice will be installed on any given system.
But wait, there's more! A standard format means that more than one application can use the file, but it still means the possibility of multiple applications. Those applications are going to be different from each other (duh!) just like a Ford Taurus is different from a Toyota Prius. The interfaces are going to be different, causing considerable annoyance. And there's not much you can do to change it. Even the Ford Taurus and Toyotal Prius have different interfaces. They do! Ever borrow a friends car, have it start raining, and then have to fumble around trying to find the windshield wipers? Even worse, it might be a stick shift and you're used to manual! Software is many magnitudes more complex than automobiles, so why should we expect the interfaces to be simpler?
There are solutions to these problems, of course. But those solutions will have problems of their own. My point is that this vision of the future is just that, a vision. It might never come to pass despite having the technology to bring it about. We have the technology for personal helicopters, yet where are they?
I think that this vision points to a possibility, but in reality we're going to get something different. No one knows if it's going to be slightly different or greatly different, only that it will be different.
The "greatest good for the greatest number" is ultimately a utilitarian concept. While I don't wish to disparage utilitarianism, it is hardly the dominant political philosophy in the world. Heck, it's pretty damned rare. Hence my reference to calculators.
In addition, your definition of "greatest good" is going to be different from my definition, and both of ours is going to be different than an EU minister's. Is the greatest good based on health? Wealth? Happiness? Number of children? Slashdot karma? A socialist and a capitalist can come up with opposite conclusions for the greatest good for the greatest number, and be completely sincere in their calculations!
While you and I disagree with software patents, there is a valid opinion that they create good for the people. It is generally believed that patents promote progress. In fact, that's the stated reason for allowing patents in the US Constitution. The reward for getting a patent encourages people to discover new things. Many people don't think this applies to software, but most of these people agree that non-software and non-process patents are beneficial. It is entirely possible, and very probable, that the EU ministers felt that the benefits of software patents outweighed their disadvantages.
I am not defending their vote. Far from it. But I am defending their right to cast their vote as they alone feel is right, proper and honest. Before you accuse them of voting for personal gain, you better have more evidence then merely disagreeing with their vote!