He should be a hero of computers, not of gays. What did he do to champion gay rights? Merely being gay? He wasn't even killed for being gay, he committed suicide.
But hey, just wait for all the high tech brain drain when gay couples start deciding to relocate to Massachusetts so they can finally marry
What does an official "marriage" give you? A few tax benefits. That's it. No other benefits require government involvement. Perhaps the solution to this "problem" is to create a separate of marriage and state!
Until relatively recently, government was not involved in marriage. If you were a serf you might have needed your lord's permission, but only because the serf was considered property. Except for that exception, historically you only needed her/his parent's permission. And if you didn't get it you could still elope.
As someone who doesn't do much client-server programming, I still fail to understand why moving to the C.H.E.X. client-server architecture adds anything.
Like I said before, a Mozilla "application" would work much the same way only prettier!
Is it any "prettier" than a native win32, Aqua, GTK+, or Qt application?
While I can certainly understand moving a "green screen" Cobol application to a web interface, it still boggles my mind why people think C.H.E.X. is better than Qt (not knowing GTK+ programming, I can't comment on how easy it is).
That's so much bullshit it boggles the mind. What do you do with CSS, HTML, ECMAscript and XML? Write web pages! Duh! It's no coincidence that a web browser was the first major application to come out of Mozilla.
The only advantage the C.H.E.X. architecture has is that it enables PHBs to terminate the employment of genuine software developers and replace them with web "developers".
I'm currently having to work on a C.H.E.X. application and it is truly painful. Every software rule has been broken. Every usability rule has been broken. Every design rule has been broken. All because it was written by some web developers.
"Here's the front end, dude. All you need to do is the easy part and write the business logic, heh!"
Yes, shareholders won't to make a profit off of their investment. But that allows a lot of leeway. Most investors don't want their investment returns to be via illegal corporate acts. They also seem to prefer, for some odd reason, long term stable growth versus flash-in-the-pan stock price inflation.
Expect that it had too much patent/royalty baggage tacked onto it. I don't care how wonderful that bird is, you tie a bowling ball to its feet, it ain't going to fly.
The performance of the program is not the only thing that matters. The performance of the development team (of 1, in this case) matters too.
Let's say I need two people on the development team. What are my odds of finding another C++ developer versus finding another Erlang developer? And what about the poor schmuck that has to maintain the program next year after I move on to better things. Is he going to know C++ or Erlang?
From the forty developers at my work, all know C. All but one knows C++. About a dozen know Perl. Two know Python. One knows Ruby. NONE know Erlang. What language should we choose for our new project?
The biggest disappointment for me with the article was that it's a C/C++ bashing in disguise. The article's conclusion? "If we did [believe clarity and correctness matter], then 99% of all programs would be written in something like Python. Or Erlang."
After plowing through some interesting bits on optimization, suddenly he comes out with the thesis that optimization doesn't matter and that we should use high level languages. I speak English. No matter how clear and concise the Greek is spoken, I won't understand it. Likewise, as a C++ programmer, no matter how clear and concise the Erlang is written, I won't understand it.
If the author wasn't so insistant on setting the stage for an attack on C/C++, he might have gotten around to seeing how fast the same program would have been in C or C++.
The goal is not self-replicating machines. That's just stupid. Why build a screwdriver that builds other screwdrivers, when all you want is a damned screwdriver.
On the other hand, the REAL goal is to create general purpose assemblers. Programmable factories, in other words.
Finally! Yes, this is going to separate a trekkie from his hard earned money. But the good thing is that it's not going to separate him form as much of it as would be otherwise.
Right now if I want to replace my complete classic collection on VHS with DVD, I have to buy a couple dozen individual DVDs. With boxed sets it's going to be much cheaper.
One season of B5 costs $60. One season of classic trek costs $120. The choice of format is clear...
Now matter how awesome that Java/C# optimizer is, it still won't fix a bad algorithm. Bubble sorts won't magically transform into quicksorts, for example. Of course, the new trend is to include all possible algorithms in the framework. Pretty soon Windows developers will be doing nothing more than drag-n-dropping controls onto a form and connecting them to a backend database. Oh wait...
Then you get the opposite: people choosing to write Qt software simply because of the amazing documentation. I know Windows developers who use Qt over the "native" toolkits for this reason.
"The GNU System" is still not an operating system, even though a few pieces of it may be useful in helping to create an operating system.
The problem with GNU (and Microsoft, btw) is that they want to call everything the operating system. Thus the FSF calls Gnome a part of The GNU System, even though it's now the default desktop for Solaris and runs perfectly fine under all POSIX/X11 systems. In that same article you mentioned he talks about games. Are games part of operating systems, or merely applications that run on top of operating systems? Is Windows without sol.exe now a different operating system? Of course not!
Part of RMS's confusion comes about because he was trying to clone UNIX. However UNIX consists of more than just the operating system. If you read books on UNIX design, such as "Design and Implementation of 44BSD", you'll find that 90% or more of the discussion is about the kernel.
Take a system and start removing components one by one. When you finally get to the point where you cannot remove any more and still have a working system, THAT is the operating system. You can remove Gnome and have a working system. You can remove GNU Chess and have a working system. You can remove tar, sed, grep and bzip2 and have a working system. You can remove gcc and the complete build chain and have a working system. Dump bash as well because you can always use tcsh, ash, sash, etc. You can even remove glibc if you statically link your executables! You can easily get to the point where the OS consists of little or no GNU software.
They think that if they use GPL software and make some changes to the program that cause it to work a certain way in their own particular situation, that they will have to publish that
If they distribute the software they do. And according to the FSF, if they merely distribute stuff that links to the software they do as well. And if RMS gets his way, GPL v 3 will also require publishing their source code if they merely use it in a server that clients can publicly access.
That leaves only using the software purely internally. That's not what companies are worried about, I don't think.
More FSF propaganda. The Open Source movement did exist. That it did not have a name at the time is irrelevent. "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" refer to exactly the same concept from only a very slight difference in perspective. That concept was not invented by RMS. He does not hold a patent on the idea that software should be unencumbered. He was merely the first person to try to formalize a definition of that concept.
Some software licenses are agreements, but not all of them. A simple license on the order of "do whatever you want with this code" does nto require any assent whatsoever. It is not a contract. It is a blanket permission.
The GPL is not a contract. It does not require the licensee to give up any rights or properties in order to gain the permissions and privileges the GPL grants.
What about teaching people the merits of various toolkits?
When I see a university course entitled "GTK+ versus Qt", I'll quit programming entirely and move to some remote South Pacific island.
In other words, keep your fscking holy wars to yourself. Students take classes in order to learn valuable knowledge and skill. NOT to be indoctrinated that the Qt license is going to kill commercial development or that the OO of GTK+ is an ugly hack or whatever else the current FUD from either side is.
If only my company thought that. Instead we got the following [paraphrased and sarcasticized]:
Corporate Master: "Your division has been using SunOS/Solaris for your servers and workstations for almost ten years. You will now use Windows 2000. Since this OS is so intuitive and easy to use, there will be no retraining needed. Your new Dell systems, which we'll have to lay ten of you off to afford, will arrive tomorrow.
"p.s. Since your five current SCSA admins have presented us with evidence that retraining will indeed be an issue, they have all been terminated and replaced with twenty five junior college dropouts with MCSEs."
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Softupdates isn't a journaling filesystem. Linux users have been brainwashed into believing that they need journaling.
For more info on softupdates versus journalling, see Soft Updates and Journaling versus Soft Updates.
When I create a non-transparent PNG, and IE refuses to display it (see webpage), then "IE don't support PNG" sounds quite accurate to me.
He should be a hero of computers, not of gays. What did he do to champion gay rights? Merely being gay? He wasn't even killed for being gay, he committed suicide.
Being gay and famous isn't heroic.
But hey, just wait for all the high tech brain drain when gay couples start deciding to relocate to Massachusetts so they can finally marry
What does an official "marriage" give you? A few tax benefits. That's it. No other benefits require government involvement. Perhaps the solution to this "problem" is to create a separate of marriage and state!
Until relatively recently, government was not involved in marriage. If you were a serf you might have needed your lord's permission, but only because the serf was considered property. Except for that exception, historically you only needed her/his parent's permission. And if you didn't get it you could still elope.
Basically traditional client-server is dead!
As someone who doesn't do much client-server programming, I still fail to understand why moving to the C.H.E.X. client-server architecture adds anything.
Like I said before, a Mozilla "application" would work much the same way only prettier!
Is it any "prettier" than a native win32, Aqua, GTK+, or Qt application?
While I can certainly understand moving a "green screen" Cobol application to a web interface, it still boggles my mind why people think C.H.E.X. is better than Qt (not knowing GTK+ programming, I can't comment on how easy it is).
That's so much bullshit it boggles the mind. What do you do with CSS, HTML, ECMAscript and XML? Write web pages! Duh! It's no coincidence that a web browser was the first major application to come out of Mozilla.
The only advantage the C.H.E.X. architecture has is that it enables PHBs to terminate the employment of genuine software developers and replace them with web "developers".
I'm currently having to work on a C.H.E.X. application and it is truly painful. Every software rule has been broken. Every usability rule has been broken. Every design rule has been broken. All because it was written by some web developers.
"Here's the front end, dude. All you need to do is the easy part and write the business logic, heh!"
Yes, shareholders won't to make a profit off of their investment. But that allows a lot of leeway. Most investors don't want their investment returns to be via illegal corporate acts. They also seem to prefer, for some odd reason, long term stable growth versus flash-in-the-pan stock price inflation.
Amen!
1998 == fat 3 hour battery
2001 == medium 3 hour battery
2004 == thin 3 hour battery
Have we become so sedentary that the weight of last year's laptop is going to cause heart attacks and strokes?
Why? Because it's an unpleasant truth?
No, because it's a lie! They have a responsibility to the shareholders to properly manage the company. That is a significantly different goal.
The catch is that RDRAM really was much better
Expect that it had too much patent/royalty baggage tacked onto it. I don't care how wonderful that bird is, you tie a bowling ball to its feet, it ain't going to fly.
Is doing market research and coming to the same conclusion as everyone else a conspiracy?
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by rational self-interest.
Unfortunately, all too many people will hear your story and think that Delphi was the solution.
PHB: "You got it down to one HOUR using Delphi? Go fire all those C and assembly developers because they aren't needed any more!"
If you've got 64 colors, you're going to agonize over blue-green, green-blue, lime green, yellow-green, pine green and GREEN.
Somehow I think if the new crop of language police were in charge of art, they would be telling artists to use only eight Crayons.
"I've never had the need to use 'lime green', so there's no reason you should use a palette that contains it."
The performance of the program is not the only thing that matters. The performance of the development team (of 1, in this case) matters too.
Let's say I need two people on the development team. What are my odds of finding another C++ developer versus finding another Erlang developer? And what about the poor schmuck that has to maintain the program next year after I move on to better things. Is he going to know C++ or Erlang?
From the forty developers at my work, all know C. All but one knows C++. About a dozen know Perl. Two know Python. One knows Ruby. NONE know Erlang. What language should we choose for our new project?
The biggest disappointment for me with the article was that it's a C/C++ bashing in disguise. The article's conclusion? "If we did [believe clarity and correctness matter], then 99% of all programs would be written in something like Python. Or Erlang."
After plowing through some interesting bits on optimization, suddenly he comes out with the thesis that optimization doesn't matter and that we should use high level languages. I speak English. No matter how clear and concise the Greek is spoken, I won't understand it. Likewise, as a C++ programmer, no matter how clear and concise the Erlang is written, I won't understand it.
If the author wasn't so insistant on setting the stage for an attack on C/C++, he might have gotten around to seeing how fast the same program would have been in C or C++.
The goal is not self-replicating machines. That's just stupid. Why build a screwdriver that builds other screwdrivers, when all you want is a damned screwdriver.
On the other hand, the REAL goal is to create general purpose assemblers. Programmable factories, in other words.
Finally! Yes, this is going to separate a trekkie from his hard earned money. But the good thing is that it's not going to separate him form as much of it as would be otherwise.
Right now if I want to replace my complete classic collection on VHS with DVD, I have to buy a couple dozen individual DVDs. With boxed sets it's going to be much cheaper.
One season of B5 costs $60. One season of classic trek costs $120. The choice of format is clear...
Now matter how awesome that Java/C# optimizer is, it still won't fix a bad algorithm. Bubble sorts won't magically transform into quicksorts, for example. Of course, the new trend is to include all possible algorithms in the framework. Pretty soon Windows developers will be doing nothing more than drag-n-dropping controls onto a form and connecting them to a backend database. Oh wait...
Then you get the opposite: people choosing to write Qt software simply because of the amazing documentation. I know Windows developers who use Qt over the "native" toolkits for this reason.
"The GNU System" is still not an operating system, even though a few pieces of it may be useful in helping to create an operating system.
The problem with GNU (and Microsoft, btw) is that they want to call everything the operating system. Thus the FSF calls Gnome a part of The GNU System, even though it's now the default desktop for Solaris and runs perfectly fine under all POSIX/X11 systems. In that same article you mentioned he talks about games. Are games part of operating systems, or merely applications that run on top of operating systems? Is Windows without sol.exe now a different operating system? Of course not!
Part of RMS's confusion comes about because he was trying to clone UNIX. However UNIX consists of more than just the operating system. If you read books on UNIX design, such as "Design and Implementation of 44BSD", you'll find that 90% or more of the discussion is about the kernel.
Take a system and start removing components one by one. When you finally get to the point where you cannot remove any more and still have a working system, THAT is the operating system. You can remove Gnome and have a working system. You can remove GNU Chess and have a working system. You can remove tar, sed, grep and bzip2 and have a working system. You can remove gcc and the complete build chain and have a working system. Dump bash as well because you can always use tcsh, ash, sash, etc. You can even remove glibc if you statically link your executables! You can easily get to the point where the OS consists of little or no GNU software.
They think that if they use GPL software and make some changes to the program that cause it to work a certain way in their own particular situation, that they will have to publish that
If they distribute the software they do. And according to the FSF, if they merely distribute stuff that links to the software they do as well. And if RMS gets his way, GPL v 3 will also require publishing their source code if they merely use it in a server that clients can publicly access.
That leaves only using the software purely internally. That's not what companies are worried about, I don't think.
More FSF propaganda. The Open Source movement did exist. That it did not have a name at the time is irrelevent. "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" refer to exactly the same concept from only a very slight difference in perspective. That concept was not invented by RMS. He does not hold a patent on the idea that software should be unencumbered. He was merely the first person to try to formalize a definition of that concept.
Some software licenses are agreements, but not all of them. A simple license on the order of "do whatever you want with this code" does nto require any assent whatsoever. It is not a contract. It is a blanket permission.
The GPL is not a contract. It does not require the licensee to give up any rights or properties in order to gain the permissions and privileges the GPL grants.
What about teaching people the merits of various toolkits?
When I see a university course entitled "GTK+ versus Qt", I'll quit programming entirely and move to some remote South Pacific island.
In other words, keep your fscking holy wars to yourself. Students take classes in order to learn valuable knowledge and skill. NOT to be indoctrinated that the Qt license is going to kill commercial development or that the OO of GTK+ is an ugly hack or whatever else the current FUD from either side is.
If only my company thought that. Instead we got the following [paraphrased and sarcasticized]:
Corporate Master: "Your division has been using SunOS/Solaris for your servers and workstations for almost ten years. You will now use Windows 2000. Since this OS is so intuitive and easy to use, there will be no retraining needed. Your new Dell systems, which we'll have to lay ten of you off to afford, will arrive tomorrow.
"p.s. Since your five current SCSA admins have presented us with evidence that retraining will indeed be an issue, they have all been terminated and replaced with twenty five junior college dropouts with MCSEs."