I really hadn't thought about it that way. I guess that without thinking I buy into the hacker ethic where speed and efficiency are valued above all else. However objectively you are probably right, and instead of celebrating speed I should be celebrating "today Linux reduced its code base by X-thousand lines and reduced its API by Y-hundred lines". Unfortunately no one ever seems to brag like that.
Earlier I said that nothing could change your mind, and in response you said: "Right. I won't and I am guessing most people won't either." This is your admission that nothing could change your mind. If you wish to retract that feel free.
No you can't, although that fact had slipped my mind. How sad for C. The real question here then is: why isn't there a better language than C for creating OSs in? A real macro system and overloading would probably be nice for kernel dev.s everywhere.
It's good to know that even in this day and age of faster and faster computers there are still people who care about speed and efficiency instead of simply waiting for hardware to solve their problems for them. I do have one tiny complaint though, and it is that some of the performance gains are only possible by using new system calls. This is bad for three reasons:
1- More work for developers, some of whom may never learn about these faster calls.
2- Old applications can't benefit
3- Applications that wish to be backwards compatible can't benefit
Obviously though it is necessary to write new functions on occassion; for example when the new function is worse than the old function is under some circumstances. It may be that all the new functionality is of this type, but I don't have enough information to know for sure.
I also said "you are unlikely to blow things up" indicating that your attitude was like that of a fanatic, not your actions. Nor have I said that I accept his word at face value. I am however willing to entertain the possibility that Microsoft may act less evil in the future, and that it is possible that this is evidence of such a change. You might have good grounds for saying this is unlikley, but until the future actually happens you are unable to know for sure. However earlier, by your own admission, you said that nothing could change your mind. This is a sign of unreasonability. I on the other hand might change my mind about you. If you had said instead that you weren't 100% sure, or that there was a possibility Microsoft could change I would not accuse you have having an irrational attitude.
I wouldn't say that we know for sure that Microsoft is playing nice; I am saying that we have to admit that there is a possibilty. It is more foolish to insist that you opinions on Microsoft are right and need never change no matter what Microsoft does (assuming that they actually work on comparability and not just release press statements).
Well you are entitled to your opinion, but your unfalsifiable belief in it is what most people would call fanaticism. For example Islamic fanatics will believe that their extreme reading of the Koran is correct no matter what evidence you present them with. Not that I expect you to blow anybody up, but being so closed to the possibility that you may be in error actually makes the positions you defend look bad.
I love the responses to this article. No matter what they do everyone hates MS. If they had announced that they weren't going to be compatible with OSS eveyone would have, justly, been accusing them of being evil. However instead MS has agreed to at least interoperate with OSS, and yet everyone still accuses them of being evil (not in general mind you, evil on this specific issue, i.e. They are going to corrupt the standard!). This indicates the many people's opinions about MS are not based on the facts (although most of us knew that already), and thus are best described as irrational.
What is likely has nothing to do with opinion either. (If we all think that a die will land on a 6 it is no more likely to than if we all thought it would land on a five.) The problem with your argument is that no matter what MS does you will not be convinced that they are playing nice with the GPL, and thus it is not falsifiable, and hence not rational.
Maybe someone just showed him some numbers that demonstrated that opposing OSS would cause MS to lose money in the long run. Also, I fail to see what a vote has to do with the truth; if popular opinion did reflect the truth science would be much simpler. Special relativity? Let's take a vote.
After finding the article and reading it this is what it really seems to say: open source is great, since so many more people understand your code you are that much cheaper to fire after you have done the creative work and replace with someone cheaper. I love open source, but if companies are really thinking like this it would be a good reason to make your projects closed source, as sad as that sounds.
But people do argue that they are NOT somehow related, and that scientists produce the missing links between them. This is the silliness that I am arguing against. Also if you go far back enough in the fossil record I can guarantee you that there are some species which left no fossils, no matter how much we learn they will always be "missing links". Why do I say this? Because not every animal is fossilized, and the older fossils are the more of them have been destroyed by the elements. This combined with the sheer number of species that have existed here for the past few billion years gives me good statistical reason to believe that at least some of them have been lost to time.
But there are standards of proof that generally are agreed upon as being sufficient. Evolution has as much or more evidence than special relativity does (it's hard to find extremely fast objects and study them in a controlled setting; it is somewhat easier to find fossils). Few people think it makes sense to doubt that special relativity at least approximates the ultimate physical laws, why should it be acceptable to doubt evolution? The evolution camp can never find all the links, simply because not every animal is fossilized, thus there are, by necessity, some missing links. However we don't expect physicists to study every fast moving particle to verify special relativity, why should biologists uncover every possible fossil to verify evolution?
I find it possible that something that small could fly and carry a human passenger. What I find much less likely is that it could carry enough fuel for a sustained flight. And if it can't stay in the air for more than a few minutes on it's own power it will never be more than a novelty. (not even a luxury sporting item)
No you fools, now there are two missing links (previously we wanted to find C between A and B, now we want to find D between A and C, and E between C and B) Of course this all really goes to show that you can never completely verify evolution no matter how much evidence you collect (just like any scientific theory), which is fine since you can be certain of the truth of something even if there is a remote possibility of later disproof. The public's obsession with "missing links" just goes to show that they don't understand knowledge very well.
Slashdot Mirror
I really hadn't thought about it that way. I guess that without thinking I buy into the hacker ethic where speed and efficiency are valued above all else. However objectively you are probably right, and instead of celebrating speed I should be celebrating "today Linux reduced its code base by X-thousand lines and reduced its API by Y-hundred lines". Unfortunately no one ever seems to brag like that.
Earlier I said that nothing could change your mind, and in response you said: "Right. I won't and I am guessing most people won't either." This is your admission that nothing could change your mind. If you wish to retract that feel free.
No you can't, although that fact had slipped my mind. How sad for C. The real question here then is: why isn't there a better language than C for creating OSs in? A real macro system and overloading would probably be nice for kernel dev.s everywhere.
Why not just call it sendfile then? If it can take more parameters, well that is what overloading is for.
It's good to know that even in this day and age of faster and faster computers there are still people who care about speed and efficiency instead of simply waiting for hardware to solve their problems for them. I do have one tiny complaint though, and it is that some of the performance gains are only possible by using new system calls. This is bad for three reasons:
1- More work for developers, some of whom may never learn about these faster calls.
2- Old applications can't benefit
3- Applications that wish to be backwards compatible can't benefit
Obviously though it is necessary to write new functions on occassion; for example when the new function is worse than the old function is under some circumstances. It may be that all the new functionality is of this type, but I don't have enough information to know for sure.
I also said "you are unlikely to blow things up" indicating that your attitude was like that of a fanatic, not your actions. Nor have I said that I accept his word at face value. I am however willing to entertain the possibility that Microsoft may act less evil in the future, and that it is possible that this is evidence of such a change. You might have good grounds for saying this is unlikley, but until the future actually happens you are unable to know for sure. However earlier, by your own admission, you said that nothing could change your mind. This is a sign of unreasonability. I on the other hand might change my mind about you. If you had said instead that you weren't 100% sure, or that there was a possibility Microsoft could change I would not accuse you have having an irrational attitude.
I wouldn't say that we know for sure that Microsoft is playing nice; I am saying that we have to admit that there is a possibilty. It is more foolish to insist that you opinions on Microsoft are right and need never change no matter what Microsoft does (assuming that they actually work on comparability and not just release press statements).
Do you even bother to read what I have written?
That is a reasonable opinion, unfortunately it's not the one that is getting modded to the sky.
Well you are entitled to your opinion, but your unfalsifiable belief in it is what most people would call fanaticism. For example Islamic fanatics will believe that their extreme reading of the Koran is correct no matter what evidence you present them with. Not that I expect you to blow anybody up, but being so closed to the possibility that you may be in error actually makes the positions you defend look bad.
I love the responses to this article. No matter what they do everyone hates MS. If they had announced that they weren't going to be compatible with OSS eveyone would have, justly, been accusing them of being evil. However instead MS has agreed to at least interoperate with OSS, and yet everyone still accuses them of being evil (not in general mind you, evil on this specific issue, i.e. They are going to corrupt the standard!). This indicates the many people's opinions about MS are not based on the facts (although most of us knew that already), and thus are best described as irrational.
What is likely has nothing to do with opinion either. (If we all think that a die will land on a 6 it is no more likely to than if we all thought it would land on a five.) The problem with your argument is that no matter what MS does you will not be convinced that they are playing nice with the GPL, and thus it is not falsifiable, and hence not rational.
Maybe someone just showed him some numbers that demonstrated that opposing OSS would cause MS to lose money in the long run. Also, I fail to see what a vote has to do with the truth; if popular opinion did reflect the truth science would be much simpler. Special relativity? Let's take a vote.
Or you know, maybe he changed his mind. Not everyone who has strong opinions is irrational.
I can't tell if this is meant as serious or as an insult aimed at mac fanboys.
Of course since no article was linked when I posted this maybe I read the wrong one. *sigh*
After finding the article and reading it this is what it really seems to say: open source is great, since so many more people understand your code you are that much cheaper to fire after you have done the creative work and replace with someone cheaper. I love open source, but if companies are really thinking like this it would be a good reason to make your projects closed source, as sad as that sounds.
The idea is that if the ads are cool you will tell your friends about them, and then they will see them and spread them to their friends, hence viral.
But people do argue that they are NOT somehow related, and that scientists produce the missing links between them. This is the silliness that I am arguing against. Also if you go far back enough in the fossil record I can guarantee you that there are some species which left no fossils, no matter how much we learn they will always be "missing links". Why do I say this? Because not every animal is fossilized, and the older fossils are the more of them have been destroyed by the elements. This combined with the sheer number of species that have existed here for the past few billion years gives me good statistical reason to believe that at least some of them have been lost to time.
But there are standards of proof that generally are agreed upon as being sufficient. Evolution has as much or more evidence than special relativity does (it's hard to find extremely fast objects and study them in a controlled setting; it is somewhat easier to find fossils). Few people think it makes sense to doubt that special relativity at least approximates the ultimate physical laws, why should it be acceptable to doubt evolution? The evolution camp can never find all the links, simply because not every animal is fossilized, thus there are, by necessity, some missing links. However we don't expect physicists to study every fast moving particle to verify special relativity, why should biologists uncover every possible fossil to verify evolution?
I find it possible that something that small could fly and carry a human passenger. What I find much less likely is that it could carry enough fuel for a sustained flight. And if it can't stay in the air for more than a few minutes on it's own power it will never be more than a novelty. (not even a luxury sporting item)
Obviously the scientists are in league with the ducks! And not just any ducks, evil ducks.
No you fools, now there are two missing links (previously we wanted to find C between A and B, now we want to find D between A and C, and E between C and B) Of course this all really goes to show that you can never completely verify evolution no matter how much evidence you collect (just like any scientific theory), which is fine since you can be certain of the truth of something even if there is a remote possibility of later disproof. The public's obsession with "missing links" just goes to show that they don't understand knowledge very well.
+10, most insightful thing I have ever read on /.
ulp. sorry missed the doubled part, disregard some of criticism.