Emacs 10.7?
What are you running? I have a a couple of dozen file buffers open, a Magit session, and some ag buffers and Emacs is reporting 39,748k.
Meanwhile, my IntelliJ instance is reporting 1,341,992k with three files open. Each of my two Firefox instances is reporting between 450,000k and 500,000k, with less than 5 tabs each.
When every basic application assumes it can grab between a few hundred megs and a couple of gigs or RAM, Emacs claiming 40 megs is sort of nice.
If you're looking for libre notebook/organization software, I've never found anything better than Org-Mode. It runs across all major desktop operating systems (via Emacs), and is included with the default distribution of Emacs. I don't think OneNote even comes close to Org's feature set.
Is the implication that Google gave them the money and said "Make a browser just like Chrome"? That doesn't make any sense. What happened was that Chrome changed users' expectations about browser behavior and Mozilla adapted their product to the marketplace.
The differentiating feature of Firefox is its extensibility, and, AFAIK, that hasn't changed at all...it's still the most powerful browser platform for extension by a long shot.
Google created Android and Chrome to promote diversity within the mobile and browser ecosystems. Google has a vested interest in consistent, prevalent standards so they can advertise across every platform. Google wouldn't pull Mozilla's funding over Firefox OS any more than they would pull funding because Firefox became "any sort of threat" to Chrome.
Chrome changed the game in two ways: it focused on speed/security, and it brought many of the geeks back to a closed-source browser.
Sure enough, Google is slowly building in proprietary non-standards compliant tech into Chrome. It's not as overt as ActionScript with IE back in the bad ol' days, but we're getting there, IMHO. Mozilla is the last bastion of a free, standards-compliant browser.
And Mozilla has done amazing work in the last few releases to make Firefox faster. And, their R&D is impressive. While Google wants to make the web faster by pushing everyone to integrate a new language into every browser engine (Dart), Mozilla created asm.js.
http://kripken.github.io/mloc_emscripten_talk/sloop.html
I'd assert that the work Mozilla is doing is vital to the continued health of the internet. I don't agree with every decision they make, but asserting that it's somehow a better idea for them to drop most of the work they're doing and start funding themselves through PayPal or Kickstarter every year is absurd. Every other major browser (Chrome, IE, Safari) has a multi-hundred-billion dollar company backing it. Marketing and R&D are critical parts of Mozilla's survival strategy.
And, you take your chances if you're hosting it somewhere within your control. I mean, I get the whole "my data, my drives" concept, but I have seen exactly zero evidence that clouds have less downtime than internal solutions. And, if the cloud is the only place you have your data, well, that's just as bad as storing it in any other single place.
First of all, everyone is using software from the eighties, closed source AND open source.
Second, I am of the opinion we have spent the last 20 years regressing in our sophistication. We graduated from TeX (LaTeX) to word processing - great, way to replace something awesome with a steaming pile.
We graduated from Vi and Emacs to GUI-centric coding systems like Eclipse, NetBeans, IntelliJ and Visual Studio. These are good IDEs, but they basically suck at text editing.
From the SchemeWiki:
Its a shame that the students of our generation grew up with windows and
mice because that tainted our mindset not to think in terms of powerful
tools. Some of us are just so tainted that we will never recover.
-- Jeffrey Mark Siskind in comp.lang.lisp
And so it is. Many of us actually choose to use older-style software simply because
it is more powerful. As the guys over at the site for the Ion Window Manager say:
So-called "modern desktop environments" converge on total unusability, and
present-day mainstream graphical user interfaces in general are far less
usable than they are praised to be. Usability simply does not equal low
learning curve, and hiding system details from the user, as the Official
Truth seems to be these days....
Those of us who prefer to use the computer primarily with the keyboard for
reasons of efficiency or health, are forgotten when "modern" graphical
programs are designed. Mouse-based search-and-click interfaces simply are
not efficient except for some very specialised tasks and in other cases
involve lots of tedious repetitive clicking and searching.
All this is to say: just because software is old does not mean it is
somehow "bad". In some ways, the lack of resources we had then led us
to design more beautiful systems that ended up being more usable.
You can still leak resources and memory. You can still code dead locks and race conditions. You still have to profile your code & memory usage.
A great man once said: "You can always write bad code." This seems like a simple statement, and if you think you understand it, read it again. At its base, it is saying something akin to what Godel said in his incompleteness theorem.
Java never promised any of the things you said, and no decent programmer would have believed it if it had. The "speed of development" you mention is not about bugs, it is about how concisely you can capture the idea in code. Java is better than C++ in this respect (IMHO), but not much. It is a lot better than C, but not as good as Python/Ruby/Lisp.
I'm still surprised at how much developers will put up with just to avoid learning a compiled language.
Java is a compiled language. I'm kind of surprised you would write with such authority on the language and make that mistake.
Sure, you give an example under Fedora. But the reality is: 1) The software is illegal for a good portion of the people who are interested in using it, therefore: 2) The repositories are "unofficial" and subject to disappearing at any given time (even though Livna has been around for a while), and: 3) They don't work on x86_64. The new ffmpeg stuff should help with some of that, but it is too new for me to have given it a try quite yet. As of November/December, my only way to watch most of these codecs was through a 32 bit chroot on my Kubuntu Edgy box using psuedo-illegal codecs from Debian universe.
So, despite what you say, it is kind of a dark art. Finding the repos is a pain (varies by distro), and making it all work with 64 is a pain, especially plugins for browsers (you have to use 32 bit wine to run the.dlls for win32 in 32 bit mplayer, but if you want to use that in firefox, you have to get 32 bit firefox, but then you lose Java because the java you run is 64 bit, so then you install 32 bit java as well...) It goes on and on.
I've been messing with it all in kind of a techno-haze for the past 5 years wondering when someone would fix the system. I started the (now huge) thread ("32 bit mplayer without 32 bit chroot") on Gentoo's AMD64 forums about this back in late 2004/early 2005 and there is still no good solution. Personally, I'm glad the drivers are available...I might just use them.
Well, I think Jikes beats the hell out of Hotspot, but that is just my opinion. And Jikes was open source before Sun even talked about open sourcing their version. So, yeah, I think there are probably other areas that can be improved upon in Sun's code by the community.
You forgot to mention that I can buy Wii games for $10 less than PS3 games ($50 vs $60), and PS2 games for $40 less than PS3 games ($20 for most of the PS2 "greats" vs. $60 for *any* PS3 game). So, that stunning $80 margin you're going on about goes away pretty quickly after a couple of video game purchases, nevermind that the Wii comes with a game included. And that virtual console games are anywhere from $5 to $10.
$599 PS3 $60 x 5 = $300 F.E.A.R, Resistance: FOM, Sonic, CoD3, Untold Legends ================ $899 Total PS3 + 5 games
$250 Wii (includes Wii Sports) $50 Zelda: TP for Wii $129 PS2 $20 x 3 God of War + MGS3 + GTA3 $299 360 Core $60 Halo3 (or other ultra-new game) $30 Burnout Revenge (or some other older game) ========== $878 Total package of three consoles with 6 games (7 including Wii sports)
And this doesn't even include the discounts available for the 360 right now. It is MORE than $100 cheaper than the PS3 option after 360 discounts. I could probably squeeze another value-title for 360 or PS2 in there to even up the totals, but you get the point. All prices are as seen on Amazon, btw.
What's that about our schools teaching math? That's right, this was never about math, it was about knowing good value and not being a fanboy. Here's a tip: anytime you're arguing that the latest, hottest, most advanced gadget is a good value, you're probably going to be wrong.
Yes, I'm a die hard Linux user and gamer. But I am going to be as completely objective about this as I can be. The accounts are being *banned*. Which is to say: sure, if I try to run EQ2 (what I play instead of WoW) under Linux, and it works for a while and then breaks, all his points are valid. The problem then becomes that I can't go back to my Windows box and play from there. Why?
Because they banned the *account*! It's not like I tried to get F.E.A.R. working and it didn't so "waaaaah, I have to play under Windows!" Rather, I tried to play under Linux and now, even though I paid for the right to play, I cannot play under Linux or Windows at all.
Now, their nazi-EULA probably says they can terminate your *paid* account for whatever reason they want, but if you want to talk about whether there is something to "whine" about, there absolutely is. People's accounts should not be banned because they attempted to get their software working under an unsupported OS. That really is unfair.
I cannot address whether or not any of this is FUD, however, since I don't play WoW and I stopped paying for Cedega. It seems odd that only some of the Cedega users are affected, but not all.
Your interpretation of the topic was that we were talking about the number of restrictions - which license has fewer, which has more.
That was not my interpretation of the original topic. The topic started with:
"Just because the GPL isn't terribly restrictive doesn't mean there aren't alternatives that are less restrictive. The BSD license comes to mind."
So were not talking about number, but rather degree. How many restrictions something has does not necessarily correlate to how restrictive it is (at least in my mind). So, to my thinking, we must not only address how many restrictions are in place, but what those restrictions say.
I am merely raising a possible question (a thought experiment, if you will) as to how one defines how "restrictive" something is when the primary restriction being imposed is one of freedom. This is unlike other restrictions in the conventional sense, because it is restricting derived works from being closed source (i.e. planting a seed that is free, and ensuring that which grows from the seed will always be free). In this context, it is true that the developers have an additional restriction they must obey (open sourcing the product that builds upon the free software), but it is also true that the overall effect of the BSD license it to permit those freedoms to be denied (resulting in greater restriction down the line - take OS X). In the end, I think BSD is more restrictive as a societal phenomenon and the GPL is less restrictive. It is important to note that I believe that these licenses are in fact a social (societal) phenomenon, so I count that aspect of their impact quite heavily in my analysis.
Again, I do not see the issue being as black and white as others seem to. The purpose of my post was to try to convey my point of view in that respect. It seems I was not successful.
"EVERYTHING you can do with GPL'd code, you can do with BSD'd code."
It lacks the assurance that your software will remain Free and open source to anyone who uses it. This is something you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot with BSD'd code; make a legal guarantee about the freedom of the software.
Which is more free?
1) that which ensures freedom or 2) that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom
You make the argument that the answer is obvious, but if you pause to think rather than simply mashing the "reply" button, you may find that it is actually a question worthy of some consideration. I'm not saying I know the answer, but the answer has far reaching ramifications many arenas (abortion, wars, government, software, etc.)
The GPL v2 stipulates that you may not redistribute code if you cannot grant downstream users the same patent use that you have. So, if MS decided to license to Novell and ONLY Novell, Novell can no longer distribute their distro open source under the GPL. Which, of course, means they cannot redistribute at all.
Find the entry for "browser.tabs.closeButtons". It'll probably be set at "1". Setting it to "2" makes the close button only visible on the active tab. Setting it to "3" makes the close button the right appear again (1.5 behavior).
Indeed. Some interestingarticles have been written about how to fly without an ID, including the "Identity Project, asking people to try to fly with no ID and report their experiences.
I used Gentoo for a few years as well before choosing Kubuntu for all my machines these days. The Gentoo community's knowledge is outstanding, as is their documentation, but Kubuntu has served me well since the switch (about 8 months ago). Having worked extensively with FC, CentOS, Debian, openSUSE, Gentoo and (k)ubuntu, I would have to say that Kubuntu is my favorite. I'll admit I'm looking at installing PC-BSD or DesktopBSD onto my laptop though, just to learn it. =)
I just killed my Wordpress install over at Etherplex in favor of Emacs Muse. If you are an Emacs user already, Muse is a snap to use, and is a general document generator that can output to LaTeX, HTML, RDF, RSS and something called journal-html, which is designed specifically for blogs and is designed to be styled by a custom CSS. You can see the results over at my site.
If you want to see the source file in emacs that generated that, check out the muse source for my site. Keep in mind that when using it in Emacs, the markup doesn't actually appear - it is converted to the proper fonts on-the-fly in Emacs.
In this context, the use of htmlize is perfect for generating an HTML form of your code buffer from emacs. Whatever your color scheme, htmlize will pick up the colors and use them to generate the HTML. If you're not publishing an entire page, I suggest you set htmlize to use the "font" method for generating html that can be used without corresponding matching CSS. If you use Emacs color-theme package, the theme "BlippBlopp" produces good results for publishing on the web.
The only thing this system lack that I care about is comments, but since no one reads my blog, its not that big of an issue. I installed SimpleMachine's SMF for blog comments and other forum needs. Vanilla may also be a good choice.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that I can then edit my site from anywhere via Tramp mode in Emacs, which allows seamless file editting on remote servers over SSH. This way, I can edit my site from my laptop on the road, or my deskktop at home without worrying about having the code with me. Muse will then publish remotely as well (though there seems to be a bug with RSS generation and Tramp that I need to work out).
Slashdot Mirror
Emacs 10.7? What are you running? I have a a couple of dozen file buffers open, a Magit session, and some ag buffers and Emacs is reporting 39,748k. Meanwhile, my IntelliJ instance is reporting 1,341,992k with three files open. Each of my two Firefox instances is reporting between 450,000k and 500,000k, with less than 5 tabs each. When every basic application assumes it can grab between a few hundred megs and a couple of gigs or RAM, Emacs claiming 40 megs is sort of nice.
If you're looking for libre notebook/organization software, I've never found anything better than Org-Mode. It runs across all major desktop operating systems (via Emacs), and is included with the default distribution of Emacs. I don't think OneNote even comes close to Org's feature set.
Is the implication that Google gave them the money and said "Make a browser just like Chrome"? That doesn't make any sense. What happened was that Chrome changed users' expectations about browser behavior and Mozilla adapted their product to the marketplace. The differentiating feature of Firefox is its extensibility, and, AFAIK, that hasn't changed at all...it's still the most powerful browser platform for extension by a long shot.
Google created Android and Chrome to promote diversity within the mobile and browser ecosystems. Google has a vested interest in consistent, prevalent standards so they can advertise across every platform. Google wouldn't pull Mozilla's funding over Firefox OS any more than they would pull funding because Firefox became "any sort of threat" to Chrome.
Chrome changed the game in two ways: it focused on speed/security, and it brought many of the geeks back to a closed-source browser. Sure enough, Google is slowly building in proprietary non-standards compliant tech into Chrome. It's not as overt as ActionScript with IE back in the bad ol' days, but we're getting there, IMHO. Mozilla is the last bastion of a free, standards-compliant browser. And Mozilla has done amazing work in the last few releases to make Firefox faster. And, their R&D is impressive. While Google wants to make the web faster by pushing everyone to integrate a new language into every browser engine (Dart), Mozilla created asm.js. http://kripken.github.io/mloc_emscripten_talk/sloop.html I'd assert that the work Mozilla is doing is vital to the continued health of the internet. I don't agree with every decision they make, but asserting that it's somehow a better idea for them to drop most of the work they're doing and start funding themselves through PayPal or Kickstarter every year is absurd. Every other major browser (Chrome, IE, Safari) has a multi-hundred-billion dollar company backing it. Marketing and R&D are critical parts of Mozilla's survival strategy.
"Sophistry" comes to mind.
And, you take your chances if you're hosting it somewhere within your control. I mean, I get the whole "my data, my drives" concept, but I have seen exactly zero evidence that clouds have less downtime than internal solutions. And, if the cloud is the only place you have your data, well, that's just as bad as storing it in any other single place.
Second, I am of the opinion we have spent the last 20 years regressing in our sophistication. We graduated from TeX (LaTeX) to word processing - great, way to replace something awesome with a steaming pile.
We graduated from Vi and Emacs to GUI-centric coding systems like Eclipse, NetBeans, IntelliJ and Visual Studio. These are good IDEs, but they basically suck at text editing.
From the SchemeWiki:
And so it is. Many of us actually choose to use older-style software simply because it is more powerful. As the guys over at the site for the Ion Window Manager say: All this is to say: just because software is old does not mean it is somehow "bad". In some ways, the lack of resources we had then led us to design more beautiful systems that ended up being more usable.You can still leak resources and memory. You can still code dead locks and race conditions. You still have to profile your code & memory usage.
A great man once said: "You can always write bad code." This seems like a simple statement, and if you think you understand it, read it again. At its base, it is saying something akin to what Godel said in his incompleteness theorem.
Java never promised any of the things you said, and no decent programmer would have believed it if it had. The "speed of development" you mention is not about bugs, it is about how concisely you can capture the idea in code. Java is better than C++ in this respect (IMHO), but not much. It is a lot better than C, but not as good as Python/Ruby/Lisp.
I'm still surprised at how much developers will put up with just to avoid learning a compiled language.
Java is a compiled language. I'm kind of surprised you would write with such authority on the language and make that mistake.
Hrm...its a it bit bigger...but not that much.
A bit thicker than the iPhone.
A bit thinner than the Treo 700p.
Overall, a tad bigger than both, but it's not a case of the iPod vs. the Neuros or anything...
Not so much.
.dlls for win32 in 32 bit mplayer, but if you want to use that in firefox, you have to get 32 bit firefox, but then you lose Java because the java you run is 64 bit, so then you install 32 bit java as well...) It goes on and on.
Sure, you give an example under Fedora. But the reality is:
1) The software is illegal for a good portion of the people who are interested in using it, therefore:
2) The repositories are "unofficial" and subject to disappearing at any given time (even though Livna has been around for a while), and:
3) They don't work on x86_64. The new ffmpeg stuff should help with some of that, but it is too new for me to have given it a try quite yet. As of November/December, my only way to watch most of these codecs was through a 32 bit chroot on my Kubuntu Edgy box using psuedo-illegal codecs from Debian universe.
So, despite what you say, it is kind of a dark art. Finding the repos is a pain (varies by distro), and making it all work with 64 is a pain, especially plugins for browsers (you have to use 32 bit wine to run the
I've been messing with it all in kind of a techno-haze for the past 5 years wondering when someone would fix the system. I started the (now huge) thread ("32 bit mplayer without 32 bit chroot") on Gentoo's AMD64 forums about this back in late 2004/early 2005 and there is still no good solution. Personally, I'm glad the drivers are available...I might just use them.
My mistake, I was referring to javac. I always use javac with Hotspot, so they are perhaps more tightly bound in my thinking than they should be.
Well, I think Jikes beats the hell out of Hotspot, but that is just my opinion. And Jikes was open source before Sun even talked about open sourcing their version. So, yeah, I think there are probably other areas that can be improved upon in Sun's code by the community.
You forgot to mention that I can buy Wii games for $10 less than PS3 games ($50 vs $60), and PS2 games for $40 less than PS3 games ($20 for most of the PS2 "greats" vs. $60 for *any* PS3 game). So, that stunning $80 margin you're going on about goes away pretty quickly after a couple of video game purchases, nevermind that the Wii comes with a game included. And that virtual console games are anywhere from $5 to $10.
$599 PS3
$60 x 5 = $300 F.E.A.R, Resistance: FOM, Sonic, CoD3, Untold Legends
================
$899 Total PS3 + 5 games
$250 Wii (includes Wii Sports)
$50 Zelda: TP for Wii
$129 PS2
$20 x 3 God of War + MGS3 + GTA3
$299 360 Core
$60 Halo3 (or other ultra-new game)
$30 Burnout Revenge (or some other older game)
==========
$878 Total package of three consoles with 6 games (7 including Wii sports)
And this doesn't even include the discounts available for the 360 right now. It is MORE than $100 cheaper than the PS3 option after 360 discounts. I could probably squeeze another value-title for 360 or PS2 in there to even up the totals, but you get the point. All prices are as seen on Amazon, btw.
What's that about our schools teaching math? That's right, this was never about math, it was about knowing good value and not being a fanboy. Here's a tip: anytime you're arguing that the latest, hottest, most advanced gadget is a good value, you're probably going to be wrong.
Ah, yes. Things can sometimes get out of hand...
"Why did this get modded "Troll"?"
Umm, because he's wrong?
Yes, I'm a die hard Linux user and gamer. But I am going to be as completely objective about this as I can be. The accounts are being *banned*. Which is to say: sure, if I try to run EQ2 (what I play instead of WoW) under Linux, and it works for a while and then breaks, all his points are valid. The problem then becomes that I can't go back to my Windows box and play from there. Why?
Because they banned the *account*! It's not like I tried to get F.E.A.R. working and it didn't so "waaaaah, I have to play under Windows!" Rather, I tried to play under Linux and now, even though I paid for the right to play, I cannot play under Linux or Windows at all.
Now, their nazi-EULA probably says they can terminate your *paid* account for whatever reason they want, but if you want to talk about whether there is something to "whine" about, there absolutely is. People's accounts should not be banned because they attempted to get their software working under an unsupported OS. That really is unfair.
I cannot address whether or not any of this is FUD, however, since I don't play WoW and I stopped paying for Cedega. It seems odd that only some of the Cedega users are affected, but not all.
Your interpretation of the topic was that we were talking about the number of restrictions - which license has fewer, which has more.
That was not my interpretation of the original topic. The topic started with:
"Just because the GPL isn't terribly restrictive doesn't mean there aren't alternatives that are less restrictive. The BSD license comes to mind."
So were not talking about number, but rather degree. How many restrictions something has does not necessarily correlate to how restrictive it is (at least in my mind). So, to my thinking, we must not only address how many restrictions are in place, but what those restrictions say.
I am merely raising a possible question (a thought experiment, if you will) as to how one defines how "restrictive" something is when the primary restriction being imposed is one of freedom. This is unlike other restrictions in the conventional sense, because it is restricting derived works from being closed source (i.e. planting a seed that is free, and ensuring that which grows from the seed will always be free). In this context, it is true that the developers have an additional restriction they must obey (open sourcing the product that builds upon the free software), but it is also true that the overall effect of the BSD license it to permit those freedoms to be denied (resulting in greater restriction down the line - take OS X). In the end, I think BSD is more restrictive as a societal phenomenon and the GPL is less restrictive. It is important to note that I believe that these licenses are in fact a social (societal) phenomenon, so I count that aspect of their impact quite heavily in my analysis.
Again, I do not see the issue being as black and white as others seem to. The purpose of my post was to try to convey my point of view in that respect. It seems I was not successful.
"EVERYTHING you can do with GPL'd code, you can do with BSD'd code."
It lacks the assurance that your software will remain Free and open source to anyone who uses it. This is something you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot with BSD'd code; make a legal guarantee about the freedom of the software.
Which is more free?
1) that which ensures freedom or
2) that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom
You make the argument that the answer is obvious, but if you pause to think rather than simply mashing the "reply" button, you may find that it is actually a question worthy of some consideration. I'm not saying I know the answer, but the answer has far reaching ramifications many arenas (abortion, wars, government, software, etc.)
The GPL v2 stipulates that you may not redistribute code if you cannot grant downstream users the same patent use that you have. So, if MS decided to license to Novell and ONLY Novell, Novell can no longer distribute their distro open source under the GPL. Which, of course, means they cannot redistribute at all.
Go to about:config.
Filter on "tabs"
Find the entry for "browser.tabs.closeButtons". It'll probably be set at "1". Setting it to "2" makes the close button only visible on the active tab. Setting it to "3" makes the close button the right appear again (1.5 behavior).
Hope this helps.
Indeed. Some interesting articles have been written about how to fly without an ID, including the "Identity Project, asking people to try to fly with no ID and report their experiences.
I used Gentoo for a few years as well before choosing Kubuntu for all my machines these days. The Gentoo community's knowledge is outstanding, as is their documentation, but Kubuntu has served me well since the switch (about 8 months ago). Having worked extensively with FC, CentOS, Debian, openSUSE, Gentoo and (k)ubuntu, I would have to say that Kubuntu is my favorite. I'll admit I'm looking at installing PC-BSD or DesktopBSD onto my laptop though, just to learn it. =)
Clearly, you've never tried to compile Firefox! =)
If you want to see the source file in emacs that generated that, check out the muse source for my site. Keep in mind that when using it in Emacs, the markup doesn't actually appear - it is converted to the proper fonts on-the-fly in Emacs.
In this context, the use of htmlize is perfect for generating an HTML form of your code buffer from emacs. Whatever your color scheme, htmlize will pick up the colors and use them to generate the HTML. If you're not publishing an entire page, I suggest you set htmlize to use the "font" method for generating html that can be used without corresponding matching CSS. If you use Emacs color-theme package, the theme "BlippBlopp" produces good results for publishing on the web.
The only thing this system lack that I care about is comments, but since no one reads my blog, its not that big of an issue. I installed SimpleMachine's SMF for blog comments and other forum needs. Vanilla may also be a good choice.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that I can then edit my site from anywhere via Tramp mode in Emacs, which allows seamless file editting on remote servers over SSH. This way, I can edit my site from my laptop on the road, or my deskktop at home without worrying about having the code with me. Muse will then publish remotely as well (though there seems to be a bug with RSS generation and Tramp that I need to work out).
Umm, that was his point. He was agreeing with parent. =)