Yes... because we all know that having a Bachelor's Degree makes you unbiased in the subject.
I'm sorry, but this suggestion is one of the more elitist ones I've heard. I've know PhD professors who were dumb as a doornail - in their supposed specialty! How they got a PhD, I don't know.. but they got one.
This is incorrect. When it comes to US copyright and patent law, ignorance is a VALID defense. It's called the "innocent infringer" defense. If you have no knowlege of the patent/copyright then you are held to be less liable, or not at all (especially if you made a good faith effort to search and didn't find anything).
It is up to the plantiff to prove that you had knowledge of the copyright/patent and that you willfully avoided compliance. It is also up to the copyright/patent holder to enforce their OWN patent/copyright, period.
If you do not search, then your product might be stopped from shipping until the situation is fixed, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that you'll receive damages.
Oh. The "they have more experience than you. Therefore they know better" argument. What a logical and very *stupid* argument!
Just because someone has been "in the field" doesn't mean that they know what's best - and people who think that need to learn more. Some of the stupidest people I've met have been in the "field" for 20 years. Why are they so stupid? Because they are so set in their "I have experience, therefore I know what works" mentality.
College students can make very good judgements precisely *because* they are in college! They have been exposed to so many different methodologies that they can usually tell crap from the gems.
While experience does help, it in itself is *not* a valid argument. You have to take into account how smart that person is.
And just to let you know. I've *been* on a project where XP was used. And you know what? It was a horrid experience and the project was later reorganized because we couldn't get anything done.
I've also been on a project where XP actually worked. It all depends on the personalities on the project.
Actually, even if the officer had stopped right away, he may not have gotten a warrant. In order to get a warrant an officer has to have probable cause from material that is in "plain view". These files may or may not fall into that category because the officer had to open the file to see the contents of it. The case pointed to by yourself shows this fact.
In that case, it just so happened that the officer didn't follow proper procedure anyway, so the issue of the files not being in "plain view" didn't have to be addressed.
Yes, suck it up. You *could* get a lawyer and go after the government, but that would still take ltos of time and money.
In order for them to get a search warrant, the FBI must present ample causation to a judge. Checks-and-balances are supposed to help prevent fishing expeditions.
If this is fishing expedition, then it'll be effective - and against the law. However, merely saying so, do not make it so. Wait until the FBI does what the "need" to do before crying foul.
--sea
People do the most wonderous of things behind closed doors.
If they took something not on the list, that can be shown to not fit into any categories that the FBI is authorized to search for... then a court can, and probably will, supress the evidence. See my above post.
According to cases that I've looked at (which isn't many), you are technically wrong.
I quote:
United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 1999). In Carey, the Tenth Circuit suppressed evidence of child pornography seized under a warrant authorizing officers to search for evidence of the sale and possession of cocaine. See id. In this case, however, the search at all times remained focused on the seizure of items related to alleged acts of sexual misconduct. At all times the warrants sought only evidence of sexual crimes and the warrants were not disregarded to seize evidence of other, unrelated crimes. The holding in Carey does not apply to this case.
It depends on who you are applying for. *Most* job applications will only ask about convictions.
However, these warrants do show up on a standard background check done by most employers - and *can* be used as a reason to not hire you.
When I was being interrogated by the CIA when I tried to get clearance (and 9 hours in a polygraph rooms counts as interrogation), I was asked about *suspected* crimes - even when I was a minor.
And damn me if they wouldn't give me clearence because of my *suspected* use of copyrighted material. I was never convicted of anything, but the suspicion was cited for the reason to not give me clearance - and thus I lost my "conditional offer of employment". And this was upheld by both my appeals.
Actually.. to file a patent you don't have to *invent* anything. You just have to show "the use of an idea for a process, machine, item of manufacture, or composition of matter". The mere writing it down is considered the "invention".
On a side note.. the idea is also supposed to be "novel, useful, AND, nonobvious". This topic fails on at least two of the cases. It's neither novel, nor nonobvious. This is U.S. Patent Law. If you don't like it, talk to your congressman.
--sea
Credit of quotes: class notes (Computers and the Law.. yeah who the hell needs to look stuff up?)
While there are a lot of options, I wouldn't call them "viable". To be viable option for *RedHat* users, it must: (1) have a significant support base, (2) be as easy to use, if not easier, and (3) be well known.
That limits the list severly - to a small list even: Debian, Gentoo, Suse, Mandrake, and Country-specific distros.
However, the slashdot "peoples" are right in picking Debian as "another option" simply because it's *different* (and they're biased).
There are three "foundations" to build from: Redhat, Debian, and Gentoo. And Redhat wins in that department... Gentoo isn't being used as a foundation yet, so that leave Debian.
I am the person your parent is talking about, so I guess I'll address you too.
wxWindows does indeed supply a common API to draw widgets, but the toolkit itself is extremely too static. In order to get an application capable of supporting QT *and* GTK+ (of which wxWindows doesn't even support QT), one would be required to compile the program not once, but twice - even if the target machine is the same. I have delved into the code of wxWindows to fix this issue, and it is quite an undertaking. So much so, that it is actually easier to rewrite a toolkit from scratch.
However, don't be misled by your parent and believe that the project is just a unifying API - that would not be worth a Master's thesis at all. The project is meant to incorporate dynamic and adaptive interfaces, as well as the ability to work with bonobo and kpart parts (meaning that a kpart could be embeded in a bonobo part if really want to, for some reason). These interfaces exist on *both* the developer and user side. You would have to see the entire project to note the complexity of it.
On a side note: For those who believe a Unifying API is a "bad solution", you are correct IF AND ONLY IF the developers approach it as a least common denominator. However, as wxWindows shows you can unify most APIs *without* going to the least common denominator. However, wxWindows does not go far enough - it is too static and it does not abstract to enough areas.
If you have questions or just want to bash me, then you can e-mail me at: sea at umr dot edu
Actually Ultima Online had a client for Linux. I used it many moons ago before they switched the client to "3D" and the original developers left Origin.
C++ templates are one of the best features of the language. Yes, they are a different concept, but embrace it, change is good.
They are no different than a majority of languages out there. Remember that C++ got it's roots from elsewhere.. C++ is anything but different and original. Change is not always good.. especially when the implementation is bad, IMO.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding templates being created at compile-time as being a bad thing. That's what generic programming is all about!!!
No sir. Generics should be resolved at run-time as much as possible (that is why they added RTTI to C++). With templates being done at compile-time it removes my ability to extend my Linked List to use basic_string and ints without adding yet more code. Templates suck at being generic, especially when you want it at runtime.
Its the compiler generating classes so that you don't have to. It has to be done at compile time. I'd love to hear an example of a language that implements some kind of generic stuff at runtime.
Smalltalk, Python, Dynace, Objective-C and even C... all nice languages
It makes absolutely no difference at runtime.=
I beg to differ. *every* template you instantiate adds to the binary size because of the need to use them. If I create a vector<string> and vector<int> I get *two* vector class and it will increase the binary size accordingly. Another downfall is that you can't mix and match types, so you have to encapsulate your nodes in yet *another* class... adding even more to the binary.
C++ is a young language with a young standard.
Even more reason not to use it!! the STL is *not* standardized, check your implementations.
YOU SHOULD NEVER INHERENT FROM AN STL CONTAINER. Period.
I disagree. You want to extend an STL containter to create better ones.
Remember, STL is standardized so there is no need to worry about stuff like that.
STL is *not* standardized...
For instance??? You are doing yourself an extreme disservice by avoiding STL.
hmm.. wxWindows, QT, Gtk+, Plib, and any other library that wishes to be *portable*. IMO, you do yourself a great disservice for using the STL.
To me the *concept* behind the STL is good. It's meant to be generic with little speed reduction. I just don't think the C++ STL is a good implementation.
My Reasons:
1. It uses templates. I know the name implies this but I can't stand the way C++ implements templates. Templates are created at compile-time which removes any advantages of generics in the first place.
2. While it may reduce developer time, it doesn't reduce code bloat. Templates are huge wasters of memory. This is because C++ creates a brand new class for *each* type of the template you use. So if memory consumption is an issue for you (like it is with me) then stay away.
3. Template are *not* portable. Each compilier has varying support for templates. Yes the *new* compiliers support *most* of the STL but if a developer wants to get to those older models on the shelves... stay away.
4. Using templates is verbose especially when you decide to throw inheritence in there. Template may look cool but they can get complicated really quickly (i.e. using the STL map template while inheriting from it)
5. Fragile Base Class. This is a C++ problem but it very much applies to the STL. If you build anything upon the STL and they add a virtual function... good-bye binary compatibility.
I fight extremely hard to not use the STL as there are other well-tested non-templated implementations of what the STL has.
These are my problems with the STL. I have other problem with C++ in general but the STL can't be faulted for those (except the STL is in C++).
The STL does have advantages but I don't think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Actually.. in my playing, they'll come through your land when you are on good terms with them. I've also had them actaully go *around* my borders just so they invoke my wrath:-D
Thanks for pointing this project out. I was in the midst of doing something very similar to this (exactly this actually). Now, I'll just throw my small weight behind this since they're a ways ahead of me.
Now.. I have to go read their source.. go about your business..
hmm, that sounds familiar... where have I heard that statement before? Oh yeah, from Microsoft(about Linux), for C++ developers(about Java), and from just about every other nay-sayer who thinks that a tool can't be made, or won't work. Television, radio, electricity, and the telephone come to mind.
Let them try. You don't like the project, don't use it. Much like if you don't like KDE, don't use it.
I'm tired of people like you. If a developer chooses to develop for a project, then that developer thinks it can be done. And the opinions from the likes of you shouldn't stop them. God knows where the world would be if everyone listens to opinions like that.
It's views like yours that hinder learning and research. It's those same views that stop people from making vast breakthroughs that may alter the landscape of their specific field.
"It can't be done!" "It's been tried, and that failed. If they couldn't do it, you can't". "That impossible to do."
Things like what you just said, were said for a multitude of things, (i.e. Nukes, lasers, space flight, UNIX, X, Linux). But guess what, they all happened.
Will this project change the landscape? No. Will this project alter history? No. Does the possibility exist that this project will force developers to look at their code differently? Yes. That's all that needs to exist to make this project worth while to the developers who choose to develop for it.
I don't care if you're a "well-known hacker". I don't care that you're the "Chairman for the Gnome Foundation", and, right now, I couldn't care less if AnyGUI went away. For you to completely blow off the whole project just shows me how short-sighted you are.
This is open-source. You don't like the project, don't use it. Let them do their thing, you go do your thing, and everyone is happy. Maybe within a year or two they, or some other project, will show you up and prove that it can be done.
And yes, AWT was dumped.. by a corporation who failed to see enough profits to come from their investment. This is not a corporation, they are not driven by their bottom line. You, of all people, should recognize that.
Actually, it's illegal for any Government agency to even ask for your SSN, or so says the SS Act. If they do ask they have to produce a "need-to-know" and even then the SSN is given up voluntarily(sp?). When I went to Langley, I refused to give my SSN to the guard, and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, because they couldn't produce a "need-to-know" that would satisfy me. The IRS (and employers) have a "need" for your SSN, as that's one reason SSN's were created.
What pisses me off is now Blood Centers want by SSN to donate blood... so they just lost a blood donation.
You are correct: the resources to create a desktop O.S. are out there. Otherwise Linux, Open/Net/FreeBSd and others wouldn't be here.
A monopoly is not bad or illegal until a company *abuses* that monopoly. IMO, Microsoft has. If you don't believe so, please inform Be and any other now nameless O.S. companies that have been applied any pressure to not deliver.
Also, Microsoft *abuses* their monopoly by leveraging that monopoly into their other products. Whoever controls the Operating System usually can control *what* can actually run on it and *how* those applications run, including but not limited to that application's performance. Microsoft has pressured OEM's to *not* load software onto the computers that the OEM sells. How? By leveraging the monopoly of their desktop Operating System.
And what are they doing with XP? Integrated MSN Messenger, Media Player and other applications. While doing that, they *again* pressure OEM's not to include competitor products, even though they say, "it's what the consumer wants". *THAT* abuses their monopoly. I *will not* have a company tell me what I do or do not want.
So what? They don't control anything but the x86 Desktop market... Of course, they'll *never* try to leverage their desktop Operating System onto other chips (Itanium, Alpha, Mips).. No, they would never do that. They are like the Borg: take a planet(x86), then move on to the next one and conquer it(Itanium). It must be nipped in the bud.
The government has every right to interfere when a company *abuses* their position in the market place. I'm glad everyone doesn't follow the libertarian point of view of "no government interference"... the economy would die in short.
Though I appreciate your opinion, I whole-heartily disagree with it. That's what makes countries like the US good, IMO.
And every person has their opinions. I am not a fan of KOffice. To me it hasn't reached what Star Office 5.2 can do, let alone what Open Office can do. Now that, my friend, a true troll.
Every program has bugs and crashes. I run the daily builds of Mozilla and the CVS version of Konqueror. You know what? Konqueror crashes just as much as Mozilla, and don't even try to pretend it doesn't. Not to mention Konqueror has nowhere near the capabilities of Mozilla.
Just a few things Mozilla has that Konqueror doesn't:
1. Embedded Java *in* the page( apparently this is a limitation of KDE itself or so I'm told by Konqueror developers ). Not to mention that Konqueror crawls when you use it.
2. VERY limited DOM support( face it, Konqueror DOM support really sucks.. for now )
3. Slows to a crawl when lots of animated gifs are on the page and/or when a plugin is heavily in use.
4. Limited to 5 threads( there needs to be an option to change that )
5. Must have that *Stupid* DCOP server! While not a complete memory hog, it's annoying for those who *don't* use KDE. As a result Mozilla actually starts up *faster* than Konqueror on a fresh start.
.. and if you want me to keep going I can prolly find more.
But you know what? Mozilla is *still* a second to Konqueror when I'm browsing the web. This is because of memory usage, and speed once the app is started( and the pages I go to, Konqueror usually does okay ).
But I have Mozilla waiting in the wings when Konqueror dies( and it does.. *alot* ). And Mozilla works when I use it on URLs that Konqueror dies misably on( and I've had Konqueror take X with it ).
So before you start saying stuff is horse shit you should probably look at the product your defending. While Konqueror is great, in my book there is a lot of trouble when trying to compare it to Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... because we all know that having a Bachelor's Degree makes you unbiased in the subject.
I'm sorry, but this suggestion is one of the more elitist ones I've heard. I've know PhD professors who were dumb as a doornail - in their supposed specialty! How they got a PhD, I don't know.. but they got one.
Yeah... because we all know that PhDs are the smart ones...
And for those of that think that, I have some PhDs I want you to meet and bash over the head for me.
This is incorrect. When it comes to US copyright and patent law, ignorance is a VALID defense. It's called the "innocent infringer" defense. If you have no knowlege of the patent/copyright then you are held to be less liable, or not at all (especially if you made a good faith effort to search and didn't find anything).
It is up to the plantiff to prove that you had knowledge of the copyright/patent and that you willfully avoided compliance. It is also up to the copyright/patent holder to enforce their OWN patent/copyright, period.
If you do not search, then your product might be stopped from shipping until the situation is fixed, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that you'll receive damages.
--sea
Oh. The "they have more experience than you. Therefore they know better" argument. What a logical and very *stupid* argument!
Just because someone has been "in the field" doesn't mean that they know what's best - and people who think that need to learn more. Some of the stupidest people I've met have been in the "field" for 20 years. Why are they so stupid? Because they are so set in their "I have experience, therefore I know what works" mentality.
College students can make very good judgements precisely *because* they are in college! They have been exposed to so many different methodologies that they can usually tell crap from the gems.
While experience does help, it in itself is *not* a valid argument. You have to take into account how smart that person is.
And just to let you know. I've *been* on a project where XP was used. And you know what? It was a horrid experience and the project was later reorganized because we couldn't get anything done.
I've also been on a project where XP actually worked. It all depends on the personalities on the project.
--sea
Actually, even if the officer had stopped right away, he may not have gotten a warrant. In order to get a warrant an officer has to have probable cause from material that is in "plain view". These files may or may not fall into that category because the officer had to open the file to see the contents of it. The case pointed to by yourself shows this fact.
In that case, it just so happened that the officer didn't follow proper procedure anyway, so the issue of the files not being in "plain view" didn't have to be addressed.
--sea
Yes, suck it up. You *could* get a lawyer and go after the government, but that would still take ltos of time and money.
In order for them to get a search warrant, the FBI must present ample causation to a judge. Checks-and-balances are supposed to help prevent fishing expeditions.
If this is fishing expedition, then it'll be effective - and against the law. However, merely saying so, do not make it so. Wait until the FBI does what the "need" to do before crying foul.
--sea
People do the most wonderous of things behind closed doors.
If they took something not on the list, that can be shown to not fit into any categories that the FBI is authorized to search for... then a court can, and probably will, supress the evidence. See my above post.
--sea
According to cases that I've looked at (which isn't many), you are technically wrong.
n ion/VIEW/00 ca-062.html
I quote:
United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 1999). In Carey, the Tenth Circuit suppressed evidence of child pornography seized under a warrant authorizing officers to search for evidence of the sale and possession of cocaine. See id. In this case, however, the search at all times remained focused on the seizure of items related to alleged acts of sexual misconduct. At all times the warrants sought only evidence of sexual crimes and the warrants were not disregarded to seize evidence of other, unrelated crimes. The holding in Carey does not apply to this case.
Source:
http://www.supremecourt.nm.org/pastopi
Number 17.
So a court *can* suppress evidence found using a search warrant if that evidence is taken using a warrant meant for something different.
--sea
Unless sealed by a judge, yes all warrants are public record.
/ november/ nw1108-13.htm
Just one source:
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2002
I'm sure given time, I could find an actual database somewhere.
--sea
It depends on who you are applying for. *Most* job applications will only ask about convictions.
:-)
However, these warrants do show up on a standard background check done by most employers - and *can* be used as a reason to not hire you.
When I was being interrogated by the CIA when I tried to get clearance (and 9 hours in a polygraph rooms counts as interrogation), I was asked about *suspected* crimes - even when I was a minor.
And damn me if they wouldn't give me clearence because of my *suspected* use of copyrighted material. I was never convicted of anything, but the suspicion was cited for the reason to not give me clearance - and thus I lost my "conditional offer of employment". And this was upheld by both my appeals.
That's ok.. HP paid me more
--sea
Actually.. to file a patent you don't have to *invent* anything. You just have to show "the use of an idea for a process, machine, item of manufacture, or composition of matter". The mere writing it down is considered the "invention".
On a side note.. the idea is also supposed to be "novel, useful, AND, nonobvious". This topic fails on at least two of the cases. It's neither novel, nor nonobvious. This is U.S. Patent Law. If you don't like it, talk to your congressman.
--sea
Credit of quotes: class notes (Computers and the Law.. yeah who the hell needs to look stuff up?)
While there are a lot of options, I wouldn't call them "viable". To be viable option for *RedHat* users, it must: (1) have a significant support base, (2) be as easy to use, if not easier, and (3) be well known.
That limits the list severly - to a small list even: Debian, Gentoo, Suse, Mandrake, and Country-specific distros.
However, the slashdot "peoples" are right in picking Debian as "another option" simply because it's *different* (and they're biased).
There are three "foundations" to build from: Redhat, Debian, and Gentoo. And Redhat wins in that department... Gentoo isn't being used as a foundation yet, so that leave Debian.
--sea
I am the person your parent is talking about, so I guess I'll address you too.
wxWindows does indeed supply a common API to draw widgets, but the toolkit itself is extremely too static. In order to get an application capable of supporting QT *and* GTK+ (of which wxWindows doesn't even support QT), one would be required to compile the program not once, but twice - even if the target machine is the same. I have delved into the code of wxWindows to fix this issue, and it is quite an undertaking. So much so, that it is actually easier to rewrite a toolkit from scratch.
However, don't be misled by your parent and believe that the project is just a unifying API - that would not be worth a Master's thesis at all. The project is meant to incorporate dynamic and adaptive interfaces, as well as the ability to work with bonobo and kpart parts (meaning that a kpart could be embeded in a bonobo part if really want to, for some reason). These interfaces exist on *both* the developer and user side. You would have to see the entire project to note the complexity of it.
On a side note: For those who believe a Unifying API is a "bad solution", you are correct IF AND ONLY IF the developers approach it as a least common denominator. However, as wxWindows shows you can unify most APIs *without* going to the least common denominator. However, wxWindows does not go far enough - it is too static and it does not abstract to enough areas.
If you have questions or just want to bash me, then you can e-mail me at:
sea at umr dot edu
--sea
Actually Ultima Online had a client for Linux. I used it many moons ago before they switched the client to "3D" and the original developers left Origin.
--sea
C++ templates are one of the best features of the language. Yes, they are a different concept, but embrace it, change is good.
They are no different than a majority of languages out there. Remember that C++ got it's roots from elsewhere.. C++ is anything but different and original. Change is not always good.. especially when the implementation is bad, IMO.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding templates being created at compile-time as being a bad thing. That's what generic programming is all about!!!
No sir. Generics should be resolved at run-time as much as possible (that is why they added RTTI to C++). With templates being done at compile-time it removes my ability to extend my Linked List to use basic_string and ints without adding yet more code. Templates suck at being generic, especially when you want it at runtime.
Its the compiler generating classes so that you don't have to. It has to be done at compile time. I'd love to hear an example of a language that implements some kind of generic stuff at runtime.
Smalltalk, Python, Dynace, Objective-C and even C... all nice languages
It makes absolutely no difference at runtime.=
I beg to differ. *every* template you instantiate adds to the binary size because of the need to use them. If I create a vector<string> and vector<int> I get *two* vector class and it will increase the binary size accordingly. Another downfall is that you can't mix and match types, so you have to encapsulate your nodes in yet *another* class... adding even more to the binary.
C++ is a young language with a young standard.
Even more reason not to use it!! the STL is *not* standardized, check your implementations.
YOU SHOULD NEVER INHERENT FROM AN STL CONTAINER. Period.
I disagree. You want to extend an STL containter to create better ones.
Remember, STL is standardized so there is no need to worry about stuff like that.
STL is *not* standardized...
For instance??? You are doing yourself an extreme disservice by avoiding STL.
hmm.. wxWindows, QT, Gtk+, Plib, and any other library that wishes to be *portable*. IMO, you do yourself a great disservice for using the STL.
--seaTo me the *concept* behind the STL is good. It's meant to be generic with little speed reduction. I just don't think the C++ STL is a good implementation.
My Reasons:
1. It uses templates. I know the name implies this but I can't stand the way C++ implements templates. Templates are created at compile-time which removes any advantages of generics in the first place.
2. While it may reduce developer time, it doesn't reduce code bloat. Templates are huge wasters of memory. This is because C++ creates a brand new class for *each* type of the template you use. So if memory consumption is an issue for you (like it is with me) then stay away.
3. Template are *not* portable. Each compilier has varying support for templates. Yes the *new* compiliers support *most* of the STL but if a developer wants to get to those older models on the shelves... stay away.
4. Using templates is verbose especially when you decide to throw inheritence in there. Template may look cool but they can get complicated really quickly (i.e. using the STL map template while inheriting from it)
5. Fragile Base Class. This is a C++ problem but it very much applies to the STL. If you build anything upon the STL and they add a virtual function... good-bye binary compatibility.
I fight extremely hard to not use the STL as there are other well-tested non-templated implementations of what the STL has.
These are my problems with the STL. I have other problem with C++ in general but the STL can't be faulted for those (except the STL is in C++).
The STL does have advantages but I don't think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
--sea
Actually.. in my playing, they'll come through your land when you are on good terms with them. I've also had them actaully go *around* my borders just so they invoke my wrath :-D
Thanks for pointing this project out. I was in the midst of doing something very similar to this (exactly this actually). Now, I'll just throw my small weight behind this since they're a ways ahead of me.
Now.. I have to go read their source.. go about your business..
--seahmm, that sounds familiar... where have I heard that statement before? Oh yeah, from Microsoft(about Linux), for C++ developers(about Java), and from just about every other nay-sayer who thinks that a tool can't be made, or won't work. Television, radio, electricity, and the telephone come to mind.
Let them try. You don't like the project, don't use it. Much like if you don't like KDE, don't use it.
I'm tired of people like you. If a developer chooses to develop for a project, then that developer thinks it can be done. And the opinions from the likes of you shouldn't stop them. God knows where the world would be if everyone listens to opinions like that.
--sea
It's views like yours that hinder learning and research. It's those same views that stop people from making vast breakthroughs that may alter the landscape of their specific field.
"It can't be done!""It's been tried, and that failed. If they couldn't do it, you can't".
"That impossible to do."
Things like what you just said, were said for a multitude of things, (i.e. Nukes, lasers, space flight, UNIX, X, Linux). But guess what, they all happened.
Will this project change the landscape? No. Will this project alter history? No. Does the possibility exist that this project will force developers to look at their code differently? Yes. That's all that needs to exist to make this project worth while to the developers who choose to develop for it.
I don't care if you're a "well-known hacker". I don't care that you're the "Chairman for the Gnome Foundation", and, right now, I couldn't care less if AnyGUI went away. For you to completely blow off the whole project just shows me how short-sighted you are.
This is open-source. You don't like the project, don't use it. Let them do their thing, you go do your thing, and everyone is happy. Maybe within a year or two they, or some other project, will show you up and prove that it can be done.
And yes, AWT was dumped.. by a corporation who failed to see enough profits to come from their investment. This is not a corporation, they are not driven by their bottom line. You, of all people, should recognize that.
--seaActually, it's illegal for any Government agency to even ask for your SSN, or so says the SS Act. If they do ask they have to produce a "need-to-know" and even then the SSN is given up voluntarily(sp?). When I went to Langley, I refused to give my SSN to the guard, and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, because they couldn't produce a "need-to-know" that would satisfy me. The IRS (and employers) have a "need" for your SSN, as that's one reason SSN's were created.
What pisses me off is now Blood Centers want by SSN to donate blood... so they just lost a blood donation.
Please note that ntfs is experimental.. If you're going to use it then know that it might not compile.
:-)
BTW, did you even try to see why it wouidn't compile and fix it? No? Well here's how:
In the file that won't compile (I forgot which one), add:
#include "ntfstypes.h"
Now compile
Rather simple.. though I'm amazed it slipped by.
--sea
You are correct: the resources to create a desktop O.S. are out there. Otherwise Linux, Open/Net/FreeBSd and others wouldn't be here.
A monopoly is not bad or illegal until a company *abuses* that monopoly. IMO, Microsoft has. If you don't believe so, please inform Be and any other now nameless O.S. companies that have been applied any pressure to not deliver.
Also, Microsoft *abuses* their monopoly by leveraging that monopoly into their other products. Whoever controls the Operating System usually can control *what* can actually run on it and *how* those applications run, including but not limited to that application's performance. Microsoft has pressured OEM's to *not* load software onto the computers that the OEM sells. How? By leveraging the monopoly of their desktop Operating System.
And what are they doing with XP? Integrated MSN Messenger, Media Player and other applications. While doing that, they *again* pressure OEM's not to include competitor products, even though they say, "it's what the consumer wants". *THAT* abuses their monopoly. I *will not* have a company tell me what I do or do not want.
So what? They don't control anything but the x86 Desktop market... Of course, they'll *never* try to leverage their desktop Operating System onto other chips (Itanium, Alpha, Mips).. No, they would never do that. They are like the Borg: take a planet(x86), then move on to the next one and conquer it(Itanium). It must be nipped in the bud.
The government has every right to interfere when a company *abuses* their position in the market place. I'm glad everyone doesn't follow the libertarian point of view of "no government interference"... the economy would die in short.
Though I appreciate your opinion, I whole-heartily disagree with it. That's what makes countries like the US good, IMO.
heh.. yes you sound like a troll.
And every person has their opinions. I am not a fan of KOffice. To me it hasn't reached what Star Office 5.2 can do, let alone what Open Office can do. Now that, my friend, a true troll.
Every program has bugs and crashes. I run the daily builds of Mozilla and the CVS version of Konqueror. You know what? Konqueror crashes just as much as Mozilla, and don't even try to pretend it doesn't. Not to mention Konqueror has nowhere near the capabilities of Mozilla.
Just a few things Mozilla has that Konqueror doesn't:
1. Embedded Java *in* the page( apparently this is a limitation of KDE itself or so I'm told by Konqueror developers ). Not to mention that Konqueror crawls when you use it.
2. VERY limited DOM support( face it, Konqueror DOM support really sucks.. for now )
3. Slows to a crawl when lots of animated gifs are on the page and/or when a plugin is heavily in use.
4. Limited to 5 threads( there needs to be an option to change that )
5. Must have that *Stupid* DCOP server! While not a complete memory hog, it's annoying for those who *don't* use KDE. As a result Mozilla actually starts up *faster* than Konqueror on a fresh start.
.. and if you want me to keep going I can prolly find more.
But you know what? Mozilla is *still* a second to Konqueror when I'm browsing the web. This is because of memory usage, and speed once the app is started( and the pages I go to, Konqueror usually does okay ).
But I have Mozilla waiting in the wings when Konqueror dies( and it does.. *alot* ). And Mozilla works when I use it on URLs that Konqueror dies misably on( and I've had Konqueror take X with it ).
So before you start saying stuff is horse shit you should probably look at the product your defending. While Konqueror is great, in my book there is a lot of trouble when trying to compare it to Mozilla.
Posted from Konqueror 1.9.8( CVS 20010106 )