Interested rewrite of history. But it's not true. GNOME didn't drive Trolltech to open source Qt, KDE did. GNOME wasn't (and still is not) using Qt, so why should have Trolltech cared about their whines? It was KDE developers advocating for real open source that did it.
Almost, but not quite. STL containers tend to be optimized for speed, while Qt containers are optimized for size. There is an old Qt Quarterly that discussed the implementation of Qt's containers what was quite interesting. Go online and search for it.
Qt is Object Oriented through and through, with only a hint of GP. There's no need to use functors. Threads are defined by subclassing QThread, not passing in a functor. Signal/slots are implemented as GoF Publish/Subscribe, not functors wrapping a member function pointer.
The fact of the matter is that most C++ developers just don't know function objects. I've been doing an informal survey for the past two years, asking clients about functors. My informal results seem to be that only one in twenty know what a functor is. They just aren't used much out in the non-academic world. I'm not saying this to belittle Boost, I think it's a great tool set. But one must recognize reality for what it is.
But don't worry about it! Nothing in Qt denies you the ability to use the STL or boost::signals or boost::threads. There are a few caveats of you try to mix thread types, but nothing fundamentally stops you from using them.
If you're selling commercial software, the buyer has a reasonable expectation of commercial quality. Regardless of its license! It's called "merchantibility". When you sell a fork the user expects a working fork. When you sell a toaster the user expects a working toaster. There are some things you simply cannot disclaim away with a mere license notice.
If you don't like that state of affairs, get out of the business!
If you're a purely non-commercial developer, then don't worry about it. But if you're selling the software, you need to realize that you're not protected by a warranty disclaimer. THAT'S WHY YOU TAKE BUGS SERIOUSLY! It's also why you need to stop making snake-oil claims about the quality of your software. When you make a claim you need to be able to back it up.
Of course, warranty and liability are two vastly different things. But in both cases they come down to implicit claims of software quality. I fully sympathize that the tort system has gotten out of control. Liability insurance has become a necessity for businesses that shouldn't ever need it. But the reality that we live in means that slapping a disclaimer clause on a license just isn't good enough for a software business.
Doesn't count, because nethack was designed to be winnable. Rogue was designed to be random. There are many tactics one can use in rogue to up the odds of making it through alive, but in the long run you're at the mercy of the random number generator. I've seen high-monster/low-treasure dungeons, no-food dungeons, etc.
Anyone here win rogue *without* cheating? By cheating, I mean doing funky stuff to restore save files. The best I have ever done strictly by the rules, is to get the Amulet of Yendor, but die of starvation on level 5 on the way back up.
Don't blame the coder. The mortgage meltdown was a "perfect storm" with lots of causes all coming due at the same time. It was a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our "solutions" aren't getting at the root causes, just covering them up with lots of cash. The next crash will be worse because of it.
Talking with some game developers, there's another factor involved: game development is an expensive crapshoot. Your spend a huge amount of money on a game that even if it succeeds will only have one year life span. And most games are commercial failures. It's a strange market.
Partisans suggest 10%? WTF? That sounds like someone needs to get out of their parent's basement and start living in reality. Perhaps they know nine other people in the world, and so assume that 10% of everyone uses Linux. But it' simply not true. 10% of the people my company use Linux. But we're a Unix development shop! In my circle of friends, 2% use Linux, and we're all geeks and nerds.
You simply cannot extrapolate your narrow slice of the world onto the whole.
But on to the good news: It doesn't matter what the market share for Linux is. All that matters is that you choose to use it. I don't use Linux, I use FreeBSD. It doesn't matter to me that fewer people use it than use Windows, or Mac, or Linux. It's my choice and that's all that matters. I don't have a need to use the same software everyone else is. I don't need to drive a car the same color as my neighbor. I am free to be an individual. So choose your own operating system, your own distro, your own pick of packages. Build it all from source if you want. Use something polished like Ubuntu, or hardcore like Slackware, bleeding edge like Arch. Or think outside the box ad try FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
The key is to put yourself in charge, not the market share.
It's sort of like where Linux was five years ago. If you didn't buy your hardware with reference to the OS that was going to be running on it, you had problems. I've got a brand new state of the art system, which I built for FreeBSD. It's awesome. KDE runs snappier and smoother than it does under KDE on my work system. NVidia sucks, yes, but that is why you avoid NVidia hardware. Don't blame FreeBSD for NVidia's suckiness. Don't blame FreeBSD for hardware with closed specs and proprietary drivers.
Military contractors are not natural entities. They have evolved over the decades since WWI to be specialized in getting government military contracts, and away from actually producing at the lowest cost for the highest profit.
There's a joke about $700 hammers. But I've worked for some military contractors, and it's no joke. They're not so much overcharging the Pentagon, as they're probably just trying to recoup their costs. It might actually cost them $650 to produce that hammer. Seriously. And it's not just US military contractors. I've also worked for a couple non-US firms that were just as bad.
It's the nature of large organizations. Brandybuck's law states that the collective intelligence of an organization is inversely proportional to its size. That applies to chess clubs, corporations, and governments. The larger the company, the dumber they are.
It's even been shown to be true via economic analysis. The top down control of a firm hinders the natural distribution of localized information. This affects all firms, but with small organizations it's just background noise. But above a certain size firms will become so bogged down in process that they cease to operate. Which is why large companies artificially divide themselves up into smaller semi-autonomous divisions. And why huge multinationals only exist only in an environment where government hands out special privileges and subsidies like candy. Leftists like to bitch about businesses running government, and the right about governments running businesses. But they're both the same thing, shielding businesses from the natural market mechanisms that would otherwise limit their size.
Yeah, it's sad that Sun is squashing openness, and sad that they can't see it's ultimately bad for them. But you can't expect much else from a corporation of their size.
Funny how Slashdot marks down any politically incorrect post as flamebait. Don't rock the boat! Obey the groupthink! I wonder why I still bother posting here.
What Intel is being charged for is illegal in the US as well
What law has Intel objectively broken before the fact? None! Antitrust law is all subjective rulings after the fact. By its nature it is bad law, and does far far more to limit competition from new upstart companies than it does to beat down old established monopolies.
Read this, you fucking ignorant moron.
Nice tale, except that it has NEVER HAPPENED in real life. Never. Oh sure, lots of companies have tried it, but all have failed. The most entertaining example was the bromine market. Look up Herbert Dow.
That's not real hungarian notation then. However, you should always be writing your code so that it's easy to know the types of variables without resorting to funky naming schemes. English is a wonderfully expressive language. Variables such as "szEmployeeName" are silly and redundant. Just call it "employeeName".
The people who bitch about having to learn the old fart skills don't really want to be programmers. They want to be operators. Hence the huge gulf between software engineering and IT. If you're the type that says "I don't have to know how to balance a btree because the language provides it", then you'll gravitate towards IT and spend your days operating computers.
There is nothing wrong with IT, so stop flaming. But it is a very different field from engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Interested rewrite of history. But it's not true. GNOME didn't drive Trolltech to open source Qt, KDE did. GNOME wasn't (and still is not) using Qt, so why should have Trolltech cared about their whines? It was KDE developers advocating for real open source that did it.
Almost, but not quite. STL containers tend to be optimized for speed, while Qt containers are optimized for size. There is an old Qt Quarterly that discussed the implementation of Qt's containers what was quite interesting. Go online and search for it.
Qt is Object Oriented through and through, with only a hint of GP. There's no need to use functors. Threads are defined by subclassing QThread, not passing in a functor. Signal/slots are implemented as GoF Publish/Subscribe, not functors wrapping a member function pointer.
The fact of the matter is that most C++ developers just don't know function objects. I've been doing an informal survey for the past two years, asking clients about functors. My informal results seem to be that only one in twenty know what a functor is. They just aren't used much out in the non-academic world. I'm not saying this to belittle Boost, I think it's a great tool set. But one must recognize reality for what it is.
But don't worry about it! Nothing in Qt denies you the ability to use the STL or boost::signals or boost::threads. There are a few caveats of you try to mix thread types, but nothing fundamentally stops you from using them.
Answer: If you want to remain in control, don't sell.
If you're selling commercial software, the buyer has a reasonable expectation of commercial quality. Regardless of its license! It's called "merchantibility". When you sell a fork the user expects a working fork. When you sell a toaster the user expects a working toaster. There are some things you simply cannot disclaim away with a mere license notice.
If you don't like that state of affairs, get out of the business!
If you're a purely non-commercial developer, then don't worry about it. But if you're selling the software, you need to realize that you're not protected by a warranty disclaimer. THAT'S WHY YOU TAKE BUGS SERIOUSLY! It's also why you need to stop making snake-oil claims about the quality of your software. When you make a claim you need to be able to back it up.
Of course, warranty and liability are two vastly different things. But in both cases they come down to implicit claims of software quality. I fully sympathize that the tort system has gotten out of control. Liability insurance has become a necessity for businesses that shouldn't ever need it. But the reality that we live in means that slapping a disclaimer clause on a license just isn't good enough for a software business.
Doesn't count, because nethack was designed to be winnable. Rogue was designed to be random. There are many tactics one can use in rogue to up the odds of making it through alive, but in the long run you're at the mercy of the random number generator. I've seen high-monster/low-treasure dungeons, no-food dungeons, etc.
Anyone here win rogue *without* cheating? By cheating, I mean doing funky stuff to restore save files. The best I have ever done strictly by the rules, is to get the Amulet of Yendor, but die of starvation on level 5 on the way back up.
Some of the earlier [net]hacks were okay, but it quickly became silly. Still prefer the generic rogue.
Don't blame the coder. The mortgage meltdown was a "perfect storm" with lots of causes all coming due at the same time. It was a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our "solutions" aren't getting at the root causes, just covering them up with lots of cash. The next crash will be worse because of it.
Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them.
Think about it.
Talking with some game developers, there's another factor involved: game development is an expensive crapshoot. Your spend a huge amount of money on a game that even if it succeeds will only have one year life span. And most games are commercial failures. It's a strange market.
Partisans suggest 10%? WTF? That sounds like someone needs to get out of their parent's basement and start living in reality. Perhaps they know nine other people in the world, and so assume that 10% of everyone uses Linux. But it' simply not true. 10% of the people my company use Linux. But we're a Unix development shop! In my circle of friends, 2% use Linux, and we're all geeks and nerds.
You simply cannot extrapolate your narrow slice of the world onto the whole.
But on to the good news: It doesn't matter what the market share for Linux is. All that matters is that you choose to use it. I don't use Linux, I use FreeBSD. It doesn't matter to me that fewer people use it than use Windows, or Mac, or Linux. It's my choice and that's all that matters. I don't have a need to use the same software everyone else is. I don't need to drive a car the same color as my neighbor. I am free to be an individual. So choose your own operating system, your own distro, your own pick of packages. Build it all from source if you want. Use something polished like Ubuntu, or hardcore like Slackware, bleeding edge like Arch. Or think outside the box ad try FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
The key is to put yourself in charge, not the market share.
Yes you can blame NVidia. They're the ones who wrote the driver.
It's sort of like where Linux was five years ago. If you didn't buy your hardware with reference to the OS that was going to be running on it, you had problems. I've got a brand new state of the art system, which I built for FreeBSD. It's awesome. KDE runs snappier and smoother than it does under KDE on my work system. NVidia sucks, yes, but that is why you avoid NVidia hardware. Don't blame FreeBSD for NVidia's suckiness. Don't blame FreeBSD for hardware with closed specs and proprietary drivers.
PC-BSD has a live CD? Where?
I love the way they always say "Fubuntu Linux is sooooo popular! You should use what everyone else is using!"
Funny, Windows has more users than Linux, so why aren't they following their own advice and use Windows?
Military contractors are not natural entities. They have evolved over the decades since WWI to be specialized in getting government military contracts, and away from actually producing at the lowest cost for the highest profit.
There's a joke about $700 hammers. But I've worked for some military contractors, and it's no joke. They're not so much overcharging the Pentagon, as they're probably just trying to recoup their costs. It might actually cost them $650 to produce that hammer. Seriously. And it's not just US military contractors. I've also worked for a couple non-US firms that were just as bad.
No I haven't read it, but it should be common sense to anyone untainted by an MBA.
It's the nature of large organizations. Brandybuck's law states that the collective intelligence of an organization is inversely proportional to its size. That applies to chess clubs, corporations, and governments. The larger the company, the dumber they are.
It's even been shown to be true via economic analysis. The top down control of a firm hinders the natural distribution of localized information. This affects all firms, but with small organizations it's just background noise. But above a certain size firms will become so bogged down in process that they cease to operate. Which is why large companies artificially divide themselves up into smaller semi-autonomous divisions. And why huge multinationals only exist only in an environment where government hands out special privileges and subsidies like candy. Leftists like to bitch about businesses running government, and the right about governments running businesses. But they're both the same thing, shielding businesses from the natural market mechanisms that would otherwise limit their size.
Yeah, it's sad that Sun is squashing openness, and sad that they can't see it's ultimately bad for them. But you can't expect much else from a corporation of their size.
There was spoken Klingon in the classic series? WTF? You're right, this sounds like fanboys experiencing their first period.
Funny how Slashdot marks down any politically incorrect post as flamebait. Don't rock the boat! Obey the groupthink! I wonder why I still bother posting here.
What law has Intel objectively broken before the fact? None! Antitrust law is all subjective rulings after the fact. By its nature it is bad law, and does far far more to limit competition from new upstart companies than it does to beat down old established monopolies.
Nice tale, except that it has NEVER HAPPENED in real life. Never. Oh sure, lots of companies have tried it, but all have failed. The most entertaining example was the bromine market. Look up Herbert Dow.
Sorry, but with a name like Sancho and a low /. ID, I suspect your link is either a rickroll or a gaping horror.
That's not real hungarian notation then. However, you should always be writing your code so that it's easy to know the types of variables without resorting to funky naming schemes. English is a wonderfully expressive language. Variables such as "szEmployeeName" are silly and redundant. Just call it "employeeName".
The people who bitch about having to learn the old fart skills don't really want to be programmers. They want to be operators. Hence the huge gulf between software engineering and IT. If you're the type that says "I don't have to know how to balance a btree because the language provides it", then you'll gravitate towards IT and spend your days operating computers.
There is nothing wrong with IT, so stop flaming. But it is a very different field from engineering.