Isn't it a lucky thing I didn't say that? There are other alternatives other then following a law or breaking a law. One is civil disobedience.
Um, civil disobedience IS breaking of the unjust law. You know, like when blacks went into Whites only areas an refused to leave. You can't have civil disobedience without breaking the unjust law..
But the thing is, what we consider reasonable is biased to our own beliefs. Some view prohibition as something reasonable people wouldn't be against. Then again, you'll call such people unreasonable;)
This is true in some cases. However, whether I drink or not doesn't really affect anyone else. When a child is molested, the child doesn't want to be touched in that way, and thus is having his / her rights violated. See the difference?
Good point. I'll have to think on it.
Please do; I think you'll find that you should no follow unjust laws. Also read our Founders words; not only did they believe that you do not have to follow unjust laws, they believed it was your DUTY as a citizen to NOT follow them.
Also reflect on other impacts of other unjust laws; for example, speeding tickets. People don't really think there's anything wrong with it, and the more police enforce laws like that (especially when the limits are set below the what the 85th percentile rule says they should be) the less people respect law and the government in general.
There are a lot of unjust laws today; perhaps thats why there's an overral feeling by people that the government isn't to be trusted or respected. Might be good to reflect on that was well.
I haven't "acted like Linux has the ultimate package management". I only discussed central package management vs. every-program-for-itself method. I'm fully aware that the package management solutions available in Linux are not perfect (in fact I think they're in many situations quite broken). That shouldn't stop me from criticizing something I believe is inferior from the get-go, should it?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Windows platform though. Windows includes 'package management,' and the Windows Installer API is actually very advanced. Now if developers don't take advantage of that, who's fault is that? Do you blame the developer on Linux when they DON'T make an RPM? Is it MS' fault they don't make installers for everyone that builds software for their platform? Contrary to your belief, Windows isn't 'every program for itself.'...and ad-aware, and Thunderbird, and Nero, etc. That was the problem I was addressing -- how is the user supposed to remember how and if specific programs are updated?
All of those apps have their own update mechinism that usually prompts the user about updates when the program is started. So which is better? The user having to find if there are updates on their own, or the program proactively telling the user about updates? I think the latter is more user friendly personally.
I'm sure your program is very secure since you said so, but what about the hundred others? Are their updates signed? How is the user supposed to evaluate that?
Mine is secure because I use a built in feature of the.Net framework. And yes, any other application which deploys via ClickOnce is just as secure. The best part is that its not my own custom process. Just like I wouldn't roll my own encryption, I'm not going to be so arrogant to believe that I know how to write a secure, automatic updating mechinism. FWIW, they don't know that updates on Linux are secure either do they? I seem to recall a few months / years ago about Debian's package servers being compromised...
Package management model naturally breaks if you want something not yet available in the repositories, this is the achilles heel of course... The good thing is that in that situation you can install software with whatever method you like: binary installer blobs or compiling from source -- just like on the every-program-for-itself install method. What's your point?
My point is that, except for open source programs targeting Windows, you'll ALWAYS have a Windows installer package to install an app on Windows. On Linux, its a crap shoot, and the time you have to wait for someone to make the RPM can be quite long indeed.
Its pretty commonly held that an unjust law is no law at all. Saying you should follow an unjust law just because it is law is actually a pretty odd thing to say.
Your child molesting is a red herring; no reasonable person said laws against molesting children were unjust, and its commonly held that molesting a child is violating that child's rights, because children have rights too.
Now, if you want to actually debate this, lets talk about a law which really is unjust. How about before Emancipation, when there were laws in the South which said it was illegal for a white person not capture and return a slave to his rightful owner. Is that a law people should follow just because its law? Or are they fighting it even if all they do is simply let the slave continue on his way, and don't help him escape in any other way?
First, a persons weight does not include something they sit on.
Second, if he weights 250 lbs (which is overweight) it is his fault. Even if he has lost all use of his limbs, he can still reduce his caloric intake so that he loses weight. If he has use of any of his limbs, some kinds of workouts are possible.
Finally, all buses in my city, which has a populate of under one million, are able to load wheelchairs. They can 'kneel' and have a lift for wheelchairs.
Price were about the same in both Rochester, NY (where I went to college) and my hometown of Philly. Don't know what gas prices in either are at the moment, but you should be able to figure it out if you want.
Power lines usually do already follow rural roads though. No one said it could be done overnight either. Go figure out the cost of electrification and adjust for inflation. I bet that is up there as well.
There is no excuse if band does choose standard copyright, if you got their high quality full song unless they offered it for free, you are a thief. I mean apologies but it is the real deal.
A band is popular because we, as a culture, say we want that band as part of our culture. Copyright was never meant to be a way to lock culture up, it was meant to create culture. There really is no ligitimate reason for copyright to last more than say seven years, which IIRC was the orginal length of time copyright was supposed to last in this country.
The notion that we own our own culture is not a new one at all, thats why copyright is SUPPOSED to expire and works which are no longer protected under it ARE supposed to be freely available (copyable) by anyone.
You miss the point. Some of that heat gets used to heat the inside of my car in the winter. THAT heat is not being wasted at all, it some cases its keeping me from freezing to death.
You also never answer my question; how will electric cars provide heat to the passanger cabin without a serious drain on the battery / cap?
That's because the 286 -> 386 change was within the same architecture. Parent is talking about nontrivial architecture changes (such as from x86 to PPC or the like).
Nope. because he specifically said moving from 32 bit to 64 bit ("AMD64 anyone?").
Erm... "on 64-bit?" Meaning, your 32-bit application runs on a 64-bit chip with 32-bit emulation/native support? Gee gosh!
Actually no. See, my app is built on the.Net framework, so an int is always 32 bits, no matter what platform I'm on. And yes, the framework exists on x86, IA64 and NATIVE x64.
Good! Does the installer ask any questions? If so, does it explain what the questions mean, what the consequences of each answer are, and what answer one should pick?
Yes, it says do you want to Install? If they click no, nothing happens. If they click yes, the application downloads, installs and runs. No options.
Ooh, spyware! Or, at least, it could be...if it's closed source and it connects to your website, without me telling it to, how do I know it's only checking for updates?
Updates need to be signed by the same publisher certficate as the previous installation. It does connect to the update sight automatically. It then says "There's an update. Do you want to install or skip?" I didn't write the installer; its call ClickOnce, and its part of the.Net 2.0 framework. Go read more yourself.
Yesteryear, the same was being said about Java. The same has been said about DirectX, Internet Explorer 5.5, Winsock, etc. What it really means is that you're targetting what happens to be the Latest and Greatest (C)(R)(TM) API from Microsoft, which they will have to support in length of ages to retain binary compatibility. What will happen when Vista is released, with more Latest and Greatest APIs? Will all of these be provided on older Windows versions, too?
You don't know anything about the.Net framework do you? First, MS is installing it by default with Win2k3 and above. Windows update has been installing it on WinXP. You can run many versions of the Framework side by side and they do not interfere with each other, also unlike Java. When Vista is released, it will have all versions of the framework (1.0, 1.1, 2.0). You do realize that.Net becoming the new kernel API right? Just like MS released Win32s so that people could target Win9x without abandoning 3.1x users.
But does Windows on Alpha or PowerPC provide binary compatibility with x86? The ability to run win16 apps on win32 uses a compatibility layer baked into the hardware, as well.
Yup. You already seem to know why as well, so I wonder why you even asked this question. Oh, the ability to run win16 apps wasn't 'baked into the hardware.' You don't know much about developering on Windows I guess.
Right, because you're compiling to virtual machine code. The same trick works on any other operating system, of course.
So that means that you can do it on Windows is irrelevent?
I guess not. That must be why a lot of software for Linux (if it's not included in popular distros) is shipped in a single (click and run, depending on your distro) binary, much like the installers Windows software uses. Takes some effort from the developer, sure, but I don't think Windows installers come out of thin air either (but I couldn't know, I've never developed for Windows).
Except it doesn't work as well as Windows Installers. RPM hell is magnitudes worse than DLL hell ever was. My installers is easy; all I do is point a simple program to my exe and tell it a publisher certficate, and it creates the necessary files. I then drop them on a network share, web server, cd rom.. whatever I want. Very easy. Other installers of course require more work.
You're not alone, and this is a real problem, and it probably won't be going away. Getting compilation to Just Work across a wide variety of platforms isn't easy. Since getting binaries to Just Work depends on getting that, it's even worse. I'm just saying: keep in mind that comparing a single version of Windows on a single machine architecture to a multitude of Linux distros on a multitude of machine architectures is comparing apples and oranges.
Which is one of the problems with developing for Linux. Too many targets. With Windows, you have Win9x or NT to target. Also, MS got this right with the.Net framework. As a developer, I can target any version of the framework I want. Certain features of the framework (like
Again, easier for you... For the user this approach means tens or hundreds of applications that have their own update methods (some need to be started, some want you to click 'update' somewhere, etc.) with different UIs for the updating.
Yes, I can see how the act of simply starting the program is more complex for the user. Actually most programs today on Windows check for updates and / or install them themselves. Acrobat does this, Firefox does this, Windows itself does this.
It also means security implications as the user now has X additional programs that are connected to the internet.
I can't speak for other programs, but I know that my updates are safe. Updates have to be signed by a publisher certificate so as long as that is safe, no one can spoof my application. Its one of the features MS added to the.Net framework. Read up on ClickOnce deployment.
Stand-alone installers have some good properties compared to package management. update deployment is not one of them.
Yes, because its very intiutive to go to an unrelated application to update another application. Oh, you might also be interested to know that your 'stand alone installers' aren't stand alone. Windows DOES have a package manager, Windows Installer. Can you go to it and ask it to find updates? Yes, if the application developer set that up. Unfortunately many do not.
I'd also point out though that package managers on linux also suffer similar problems. I would have loved to just click a button to update. It was never that simple. Usually, I had to install updates from their source. Now THAT'S a great user experience, huh? Please, don't act like Linux has the ultimate package management; it does not.
If you have severe disabilities all of that probably goes up by a few factors, I doubt people with 600lbs (life support + them) of mass would have much fun on public transportation.
While I agree with your points, the 600 pounder deserves whatever he gets. I have no sympathy for people that can't refuse a donut and walk more than 10 seconds.
I remember the days of $0.89/$0.99 a gallon too -- they were 13 years ag
Huh? I remember $0.99 / gallon in 1999... only 7 years ago. I remember because I was in my third year of college at the time, and was happy gas was so cheap on my college budget..
Not all the thermal energy is wasted, at least not here in Vermont in the winter. Its used to heat my car. How will an electric car be heated in the winter? It takes quite a bit of juice to run electric heaters..
For you or for users? Installing and maintaining software that is packaged for distributions can be easier than it is on Windows, and so much software has been packaged for Debian and Ubuntu that I feel the claim that "software installation and maintenance is easier on Debian than on Windows (or OS X)" is justified. On the other hand, packaging software for various distros can put an enormous burden on the developers.
Installing my application is simple. The users click a link and allow the installer to run. Deploying updates is even easier; it happens whenever they run the application.
Going the other way, providing software that can be installed on many different Linux distributions is a piece of cake for the developer. As long as you stick to a few sensible conventions (like not assuming things that tend not to be true across distros), users should be able to install your program without too much trouble, once they have all the necessary dependencies in place. Of course, this effort might still be too much for would-be users.
I don't have to limit myself in any way; as long as Windows and.Net is installed (which is being done via Windows update, and anything newer than Win2k3 includes it), my application will install and work just fine. no extra effort for me or my users.
Yes, but this comes with a hefty price tag. For example, binary compatibility will be broken the moment another hardware architecture comes along (AMD64, anyone?). It's entirely possible that this has kept PCs from evolving past x86 for so long - with actual drawbacks; various other architectures have been more performant, more affordable, etc. at various points in time. And that's just the hardware side; I'm sure many people can point out bugs and vulnerabilities that have persisted because of the need to maintain binary compatibility with some flawed earlier system.
Yup, just like how it was broken moving from 16 bit to 32. Opps, Windows provided backward compatability so this didn't happen. My application in particular will also run just fine on 64 bit, without any effort on my part.
Also, binary compatibility isn't completely achieved on Windows, either. Think of DLL Hell, for example.
This problem is going away as.Net picks up more and more steam.
Which doesn't have to be very advanced at all. For a lot of software, a single command suffices; often, it's the familiar./configure && make && sudo make install mantra (which isn't necessarily more complex than your average Windows installer), and there are often front ends to the compilation that ease the process.
Yeah, that's what a user wants to do. Open a command prompt and type THAT. Very friendly. Not to mention that this method doesn't always work. I had quite a few problems compiling from source and I'm an advanced user.
Also, if a user wants to run your software on an operating system that you do not support, is it your fault or theirs if the installation isn't easy? With the source, at least they _can_ make it work.
Developers may make it work. A normal user will just download a program that actually does.
Wow, I had no idea we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iraq and Afghanistan and replaced them with a dictators. I thought it was the other way around.
First, I never mentioned Afghanistan did I? Secondly, yes, that's exactly what we did in Iraq in 1963. The CIA funded and 'helped' in other ways the Batth party's rise to power.
Was it US produced chemical weapons causing that disease that turned everyone's finger purple?
I'm not aware of the incident you are talking about, if its indeed real.
Still, we're talking about terrorism here. I thought there were not terrorists in Iraq. I wish you guys would make up your mind! And yes, I did leave Iraq off the list, although we did help Iraq out in its war with Iran. That's really about it. We did not put Hussein in power as you seem to think we did. He was already in power before the 10 year war.
No one said there were no terrorists in Iraq (although if there were, its doubtful there were many while Saddam was in power). The pretext to war was that Saddam had WMD, which he did not. And we did put Hussein into power. This is documented, and the CIA has admitted as much. Really, is it hard to google?
My point was that we have been allies with all the countries I listed, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and I could even throw in Egypt and Turkey. That didn't seem to make much difference on 9-10-01.
Huh? I don't believe we were allies of Afghanistan, and I'm certain we weren't with Iran. Remember, we were helping Iraq fight Iran after all. I also don't recall us taking any action against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in response to 9/11.
We give millions yearly to the Palestinians and millions more to the Lebonese government.
Huh? We give the Palestinians nothing, and not much to Lebenon. We give LOTS to Israel though. None of the changes that we have helped install dictators into formally democratic countries.
We fought in Bosnia to prevent a Muslem genocide. We went to Somalia to feed Muslems... and of this for nothing. Showing "respect" for foreign countries does do much to stop terrorism. Let's not dance around the issue here. Until we allow an Israeli genocide by Arab states, there will be terrorists from the middle east.
None of this changes the fact that we are medalling in the affairs of other countries. Stopping genocide is good, I'm not going to argue that.. but overthrowing democracies and installing dictators DOESN'T make other nations respect us. As far as the roots of terrorism, do you honestly think that should we stop supporting Israel we would stop being targets? No, we wouldn't.
This is why I don't buy Nike. Still, the Chinese economy doesn't seem to be huring much these days.
I'm hard pressed to find anything not made in China anymore. Having a good economy doesn't mean the lives of the average Chinese person is bettering.
What you call "slave wages" is a pay raise for many of these people. While I will not buy products if I know that something like child labor was used, I see nothing wrong with paying people for what they are willing to work for. No one is forcing these people to work, that would be slavery. But there has to be a start. If you studied history (and I can tell by the rest of your post that have not), you would know that Americans were paid "slave wages" during the industrial revolution. Still, this was more than what these workers would have made otherwise. They busted their asses and saved what they could to build a better life for themselves and their children. The taxes they and the companies paid build an infrastructure and educational system that allowed for a stonger economy. The tide rose and all boats rose with it. Again, while I don't agree with what companies are paying foreign workers, I've been to the areas around factories, like the Ford plant in Mexico, and trust me, these people are extremely happy to have the work. They would not be able to feed
Well, I'm not an American, nor do I follow US politics closely, but to me, the real issues in the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing was trust/character. ie: if a man will breach his marriage vows, hopefully one of the most important committments made it his life, what will be the strength of his committment to keep his word to me?
I don't think its as simple as that. It depends on the person's priorities. There are some out there that would never compromise their professional ethics, but their personal ones are not as important.
I think its also important to start thinking about marriage, specifically why someone is LEGALLY bound to another for the rest of their lives. Think about it carefully, and you'll start to see it doesn't make much sense to have any legal force behind marriage at all. Why make it difficult for two people that no longer care about each other to go their seperate ways?
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I have a digital certificate and use it to sign emails I send out.
Isn't it a lucky thing I didn't say that? There are other alternatives other then following a law or breaking a law. One is civil disobedience.
;)
Um, civil disobedience IS breaking of the unjust law. You know, like when blacks went into Whites only areas an refused to leave. You can't have civil disobedience without breaking the unjust law..
But the thing is, what we consider reasonable is biased to our own beliefs. Some view prohibition as something reasonable people wouldn't be against. Then again, you'll call such people unreasonable
This is true in some cases. However, whether I drink or not doesn't really affect anyone else. When a child is molested, the child doesn't want to be touched in that way, and thus is having his / her rights violated. See the difference?
Good point. I'll have to think on it.
Please do; I think you'll find that you should no follow unjust laws. Also read our Founders words; not only did they believe that you do not have to follow unjust laws, they believed it was your DUTY as a citizen to NOT follow them.
Also reflect on other impacts of other unjust laws; for example, speeding tickets. People don't really think there's anything wrong with it, and the more police enforce laws like that (especially when the limits are set below the what the 85th percentile rule says they should be) the less people respect law and the government in general.
There are a lot of unjust laws today; perhaps thats why there's an overral feeling by people that the government isn't to be trusted or respected. Might be good to reflect on that was well.
I haven't "acted like Linux has the ultimate package management". I only discussed central package management vs. every-program-for-itself method. I'm fully aware that the package management solutions available in Linux are not perfect (in fact I think they're in many situations quite broken). That shouldn't stop me from criticizing something I believe is inferior from the get-go, should it?
...and ad-aware, and Thunderbird, and Nero, etc. That was the problem I was addressing -- how is the user supposed to remember how and if specific programs are updated?
.Net framework. And yes, any other application which deploys via ClickOnce is just as secure. The best part is that its not my own custom process. Just like I wouldn't roll my own encryption, I'm not going to be so arrogant to believe that I know how to write a secure, automatic updating mechinism. FWIW, they don't know that updates on Linux are secure either do they? I seem to recall a few months / years ago about Debian's package servers being compromised...
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Windows platform though. Windows includes 'package management,' and the Windows Installer API is actually very advanced. Now if developers don't take advantage of that, who's fault is that? Do you blame the developer on Linux when they DON'T make an RPM? Is it MS' fault they don't make installers for everyone that builds software for their platform? Contrary to your belief, Windows isn't 'every program for itself.'
All of those apps have their own update mechinism that usually prompts the user about updates when the program is started. So which is better? The user having to find if there are updates on their own, or the program proactively telling the user about updates? I think the latter is more user friendly personally.
I'm sure your program is very secure since you said so, but what about the hundred others? Are their updates signed? How is the user supposed to evaluate that?
Mine is secure because I use a built in feature of the
Package management model naturally breaks if you want something not yet available in the repositories, this is the achilles heel of course... The good thing is that in that situation you can install software with whatever method you like: binary installer blobs or compiling from source -- just like on the every-program-for-itself install method. What's your point?
My point is that, except for open source programs targeting Windows, you'll ALWAYS have a Windows installer package to install an app on Windows. On Linux, its a crap shoot, and the time you have to wait for someone to make the RPM can be quite long indeed.
Its pretty commonly held that an unjust law is no law at all. Saying you should follow an unjust law just because it is law is actually a pretty odd thing to say.
Your child molesting is a red herring; no reasonable person said laws against molesting children were unjust, and its commonly held that molesting a child is violating that child's rights, because children have rights too.
Now, if you want to actually debate this, lets talk about a law which really is unjust. How about before Emancipation, when there were laws in the South which said it was illegal for a white person not capture and return a slave to his rightful owner. Is that a law people should follow just because its law? Or are they fighting it even if all they do is simply let the slave continue on his way, and don't help him escape in any other way?
First, a persons weight does not include something they sit on.
Second, if he weights 250 lbs (which is overweight) it is his fault. Even if he has lost all use of his limbs, he can still reduce his caloric intake so that he loses weight. If he has use of any of his limbs, some kinds of workouts are possible.
Finally, all buses in my city, which has a populate of under one million, are able to load wheelchairs. They can 'kneel' and have a lift for wheelchairs.
Price were about the same in both Rochester, NY (where I went to college) and my hometown of Philly. Don't know what gas prices in either are at the moment, but you should be able to figure it out if you want.
Power lines usually do already follow rural roads though. No one said it could be done overnight either. Go figure out the cost of electrification and adjust for inflation. I bet that is up there as well.
Whether it says you can rip it to MP3 for personal use or not, that's what you are agreeing to. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Format shifting has been ruled Fair use by the courts.
There is no excuse if band does choose standard copyright, if you got their high quality full song unless they offered it for free, you are a thief. I mean apologies but it is the real deal.
A band is popular because we, as a culture, say we want that band as part of our culture. Copyright was never meant to be a way to lock culture up, it was meant to create culture. There really is no ligitimate reason for copyright to last more than say seven years, which IIRC was the orginal length of time copyright was supposed to last in this country.
The notion that we own our own culture is not a new one at all, thats why copyright is SUPPOSED to expire and works which are no longer protected under it ARE supposed to be freely available (copyable) by anyone.
If no one obeys a law even knowing the consequences, aren't they fighting?
Since when do actions which a reasonable majority partake in become illegitimate?
Not only did I get blood and gore on the PC version, I got a free gamepad!
You miss the point. Some of that heat gets used to heat the inside of my car in the winter. THAT heat is not being wasted at all, it some cases its keeping me from freezing to death.
You also never answer my question; how will electric cars provide heat to the passanger cabin without a serious drain on the battery / cap?
That's because the 286 -> 386 change was within the same architecture. Parent is talking about nontrivial architecture changes (such as from x86 to PPC or the like).
.Net framework, so an int is always 32 bits, no matter what platform I'm on. And yes, the framework exists on x86, IA64 and NATIVE x64.
Nope. because he specifically said moving from 32 bit to 64 bit ("AMD64 anyone?").
Erm... "on 64-bit?" Meaning, your 32-bit application runs on a 64-bit chip with 32-bit emulation/native support? Gee gosh!
Actually no. See, my app is built on the
Good! Does the installer ask any questions? If so, does it explain what the questions mean, what the consequences of each answer are, and what answer one should pick?
.Net 2.0 framework. Go read more yourself.
.Net framework do you? First, MS is installing it by default with Win2k3 and above. Windows update has been installing it on WinXP. You can run many versions of the Framework side by side and they do not interfere with each other, also unlike Java. When Vista is released, it will have all versions of the framework (1.0, 1.1, 2.0). You do realize that .Net becoming the new kernel API right? Just like MS released Win32s so that people could target Win9x without abandoning 3.1x users.
.Net framework. As a developer, I can target any version of the framework I want. Certain features of the framework (like
Yes, it says do you want to Install? If they click no, nothing happens. If they click yes, the application downloads, installs and runs. No options.
Ooh, spyware! Or, at least, it could be...if it's closed source and it connects to your website, without me telling it to, how do I know it's only checking for updates?
Updates need to be signed by the same publisher certficate as the previous installation. It does connect to the update sight automatically. It then says "There's an update. Do you want to install or skip?" I didn't write the installer; its call ClickOnce, and its part of the
Yesteryear, the same was being said about Java. The same has been said about DirectX, Internet Explorer 5.5, Winsock, etc. What it really means is that you're targetting what happens to be the Latest and Greatest (C)(R)(TM) API from Microsoft, which they will have to support in length of ages to retain binary compatibility. What will happen when Vista is released, with more Latest and Greatest APIs? Will all of these be provided on older Windows versions, too?
You don't know anything about the
But does Windows on Alpha or PowerPC provide binary compatibility with x86? The ability to run win16 apps on win32 uses a compatibility layer baked into the hardware, as well.
Yup. You already seem to know why as well, so I wonder why you even asked this question. Oh, the ability to run win16 apps wasn't 'baked into the hardware.' You don't know much about developering on Windows I guess.
Right, because you're compiling to virtual machine code. The same trick works on any other operating system, of course.
So that means that you can do it on Windows is irrelevent?
I guess not. That must be why a lot of software for Linux (if it's not included in popular distros) is shipped in a single (click and run, depending on your distro) binary, much like the installers Windows software uses. Takes some effort from the developer, sure, but I don't think Windows installers come out of thin air either (but I couldn't know, I've never developed for Windows).
Except it doesn't work as well as Windows Installers. RPM hell is magnitudes worse than DLL hell ever was. My installers is easy; all I do is point a simple program to my exe and tell it a publisher certficate, and it creates the necessary files. I then drop them on a network share, web server, cd rom.. whatever I want. Very easy. Other installers of course require more work.
You're not alone, and this is a real problem, and it probably won't be going away. Getting compilation to Just Work across a wide variety of platforms isn't easy. Since getting binaries to Just Work depends on getting that, it's even worse. I'm just saying: keep in mind that comparing a single version of Windows on a single machine architecture to a multitude of Linux distros on a multitude of machine architectures is comparing apples and oranges.
Which is one of the problems with developing for Linux. Too many targets. With Windows, you have Win9x or NT to target. Also, MS got this right with the
Again, easier for you... For the user this approach means tens or hundreds of applications that have their own update methods (some need to be started, some want you to click 'update' somewhere, etc.) with different UIs for the updating.
.Net framework. Read up on ClickOnce deployment.
Yes, I can see how the act of simply starting the program is more complex for the user. Actually most programs today on Windows check for updates and / or install them themselves. Acrobat does this, Firefox does this, Windows itself does this.
It also means security implications as the user now has X additional programs that are connected to the internet.
I can't speak for other programs, but I know that my updates are safe. Updates have to be signed by a publisher certificate so as long as that is safe, no one can spoof my application. Its one of the features MS added to the
Stand-alone installers have some good properties compared to package management. update deployment is not one of them.
Yes, because its very intiutive to go to an unrelated application to update another application. Oh, you might also be interested to know that your 'stand alone installers' aren't stand alone. Windows DOES have a package manager, Windows Installer. Can you go to it and ask it to find updates? Yes, if the application developer set that up. Unfortunately many do not.
I'd also point out though that package managers on linux also suffer similar problems. I would have loved to just click a button to update. It was never that simple. Usually, I had to install updates from their source. Now THAT'S a great user experience, huh? Please, don't act like Linux has the ultimate package management; it does not.
If you have severe disabilities all of that probably goes up by a few factors, I doubt people with 600lbs (life support + them) of mass would have much fun on public transportation.
While I agree with your points, the 600 pounder deserves whatever he gets. I have no sympathy for people that can't refuse a donut and walk more than 10 seconds.
I remember the days of $0.89/$0.99 a gallon too -- they were 13 years ag
Huh? I remember $0.99 / gallon in 1999... only 7 years ago. I remember because I was in my third year of college at the time, and was happy gas was so cheap on my college budget..
Not all the thermal energy is wasted, at least not here in Vermont in the winter. Its used to heat my car. How will an electric car be heated in the winter? It takes quite a bit of juice to run electric heaters..
Even better, newer (hopefully greener) power stations can be built, without affects any of the cars on the road.
;-)
Once again, this goes to show any problem can be solved by adding another layer of abstraction.
Cost didn't stop us from putting power and phone lines everywhere though.
For you or for users? Installing and maintaining software that is packaged for distributions can be easier than it is on Windows, and so much software has been packaged for Debian and Ubuntu that I feel the claim that "software installation and maintenance is easier on Debian than on Windows (or OS X)" is justified. On the other hand, packaging software for various distros can put an enormous burden on the developers.
.Net is installed (which is being done via Windows update, and anything newer than Win2k3 includes it), my application will install and work just fine. no extra effort for me or my users.
.Net picks up more and more steam.
./configure && make && sudo make install mantra (which isn't necessarily more complex than your average Windows installer), and there are often front ends to the compilation that ease the process.
Installing my application is simple. The users click a link and allow the installer to run. Deploying updates is even easier; it happens whenever they run the application.
Going the other way, providing software that can be installed on many different Linux distributions is a piece of cake for the developer. As long as you stick to a few sensible conventions (like not assuming things that tend not to be true across distros), users should be able to install your program without too much trouble, once they have all the necessary dependencies in place. Of course, this effort might still be too much for would-be users.
I don't have to limit myself in any way; as long as Windows and
Yes, but this comes with a hefty price tag. For example, binary compatibility will be broken the moment another hardware architecture comes along (AMD64, anyone?). It's entirely possible that this has kept PCs from evolving past x86 for so long - with actual drawbacks; various other architectures have been more performant, more affordable, etc. at various points in time. And that's just the hardware side; I'm sure many people can point out bugs and vulnerabilities that have persisted because of the need to maintain binary compatibility with some flawed earlier system.
Yup, just like how it was broken moving from 16 bit to 32. Opps, Windows provided backward compatability so this didn't happen. My application in particular will also run just fine on 64 bit, without any effort on my part.
Also, binary compatibility isn't completely achieved on Windows, either. Think of DLL Hell, for example.
This problem is going away as
Which doesn't have to be very advanced at all. For a lot of software, a single command suffices; often, it's the familiar
Yeah, that's what a user wants to do. Open a command prompt and type THAT. Very friendly. Not to mention that this method doesn't always work. I had quite a few problems compiling from source and I'm an advanced user.
Also, if a user wants to run your software on an operating system that you do not support, is it your fault or theirs if the installation isn't easy? With the source, at least they _can_ make it work.
Developers may make it work. A normal user will just download a program that actually does.
In the future though there are no more fat people.
Wow, I had no idea we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iraq and Afghanistan and replaced them with a dictators. I thought it was the other way around.
First, I never mentioned Afghanistan did I? Secondly, yes, that's exactly what we did in Iraq in 1963. The CIA funded and 'helped' in other ways the Batth party's rise to power.
Was it US produced chemical weapons causing that disease that turned everyone's finger purple?
I'm not aware of the incident you are talking about, if its indeed real.
Still, we're talking about terrorism here. I thought there were not terrorists in Iraq. I wish you guys would make up your mind! And yes, I did leave Iraq off the list, although we did help Iraq out in its war with Iran. That's really about it. We did not put Hussein in power as you seem to think we did. He was already in power before the 10 year war.
No one said there were no terrorists in Iraq (although if there were, its doubtful there were many while Saddam was in power). The pretext to war was that Saddam had WMD, which he did not. And we did put Hussein into power. This is documented, and the CIA has admitted as much. Really, is it hard to google?
My point was that we have been allies with all the countries I listed, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and I could even throw in Egypt and Turkey. That didn't seem to make much difference on 9-10-01.
Huh? I don't believe we were allies of Afghanistan, and I'm certain we weren't with Iran. Remember, we were helping Iraq fight Iran after all. I also don't recall us taking any action against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in response to 9/11.
We give millions yearly to the Palestinians and millions more to the Lebonese government.
Huh? We give the Palestinians nothing, and not much to Lebenon. We give LOTS to Israel though. None of the changes that we have helped install dictators into formally democratic countries.
We fought in Bosnia to prevent a Muslem genocide. We went to Somalia to feed Muslems... and of this for nothing. Showing "respect" for foreign countries does do much to stop terrorism. Let's not dance around the issue here. Until we allow an Israeli genocide by Arab states, there will be terrorists from the middle east.
None of this changes the fact that we are medalling in the affairs of other countries. Stopping genocide is good, I'm not going to argue that.. but overthrowing democracies and installing dictators DOESN'T make other nations respect us. As far as the roots of terrorism, do you honestly think that should we stop supporting Israel we would stop being targets? No, we wouldn't.
This is why I don't buy Nike. Still, the Chinese economy doesn't seem to be huring much these days.
I'm hard pressed to find anything not made in China anymore. Having a good economy doesn't mean the lives of the average Chinese person is bettering.
What you call "slave wages" is a pay raise for many of these people. While I will not buy products if I know that something like child labor was used, I see nothing wrong with paying people for what they are willing to work for. No one is forcing these people to work, that would be slavery. But there has to be a start. If you studied history (and I can tell by the rest of your post that have not), you would know that Americans were paid "slave wages" during the industrial revolution. Still, this was more than what these workers would have made otherwise. They busted their asses and saved what they could to build a better life for themselves and their children. The taxes they and the companies paid build an infrastructure and educational system that allowed for a stonger economy. The tide rose and all boats rose with it. Again, while I don't agree with what companies are paying foreign workers, I've been to the areas around factories, like the Ford plant in Mexico, and trust me, these people are extremely happy to have the work. They would not be able to feed
Well, I'm not an American, nor do I follow US politics closely, but to me, the real issues in the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing was trust/character. ie: if a man will breach his marriage vows, hopefully one of the most important committments made it his life, what will be the strength of his committment to keep his word to me?
I don't think its as simple as that. It depends on the person's priorities. There are some out there that would never compromise their professional ethics, but their personal ones are not as important.
I think its also important to start thinking about marriage, specifically why someone is LEGALLY bound to another for the rest of their lives. Think about it carefully, and you'll start to see it doesn't make much sense to have any legal force behind marriage at all. Why make it difficult for two people that no longer care about each other to go their seperate ways?