Apple should not be required to support every tom dick and harry's implementation of a DRM scheme.
No. They should, however, be required to license theirs to people who will pay a reasonable fee, because they have a monopoly (not absolute, but comparable to that of windows) on portable players. And they refuse to do so, and change it deliberately to break interoperability when others figure out how to be compatible - exactly the things we rightly condemn microsoft for.
She's going against standard usage. Like fulsome, it's a word whose meaning has shifted, perhaps through lots of dumb people misunderstanding it, but shifted nonetheless.
The thing is though, there are people that stupid, I've met too many of them to doubt it.
Re:The real 90s versus outdated 00s software
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
And I can assure you that C is insanely slow because I have this dog-slow program, and it's written in C.
And I have a program written in C which isn't. Someone show me that in Java and I'll change my tune.
Hey dumbshit, do you really think that you can make a valid inference from a sample size of 1 (and probably a sample size of 1 stupid user running on his grandma's java 1.1 jre)?
Who said anything about size 1? I've tried at least 10 Java programs more or less at random, always using the latest stable JRE, and I go back and repeat it every few months. It still sucks.
I use many Java apps, and there is no seconds lag, no noticeable lag at all.
Well, good for you. I imagine you have a better machine.
There's no quasi about it, Sun owns the standard. There is no working open source Java, wheras Mono gives you an alternative implementation of.Net from a well known big competing vendor which is fully open source and actually works. So I will confinue to prefer.Net.
Re:Interpreted Versus Compiled
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand, a compiled language will flag the error at compile time.
Only if it's a very simple error, logic errors are more common and won't be caught. And if it's one that can be caught at compile time, it may well be caught in the bytecode compilation that will happen as the program's being run. All the compiler, which is very artificial in Java, does is force you to have two debug cycles - you write, compile, fix bugs, then when you've fixed them all and got it compiling you have a whole new set of new ones to handle.
I imagine it will always be easier to have "better platform-specific integration" when you only support one platform...
But Mono does it just as easily on Linux. JNI seems to have been made deliberately difficult to discourage people from using it. That's all well and good for a teaching language, but isn't something you should do with things aimed for real-world use.
That's just running the interpreter in Java. It allows you to access the Java stuff from Python, but that's one way. What you can't do is use the stuff you've done in Python from another such language, wheras if you use IronPython what you do in Python is on exactly the same level as what you do in C#, and you can extend on it in any of the other languages.
It's meant for full fledged, cross platform, programs. GUI or command line. Programs that are meant to be kept open and running for awhile. This is where Java excels.
No it doesn't. Java GUIs still suck incredibly, and if you leave it open and running for a while the VM will suck up more memory than you can afford.
Java has a niche, but it's pretty small. If the performance is critical, you're almost certainly better off with C++, and if it doesn't matter then python is far nicer to program in. The only reason I can see to use Java is if you need the OO all over it aspect that Java has, but that's a very niche situation.
Re:The real 90s versus outdated 00s software
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Java 5.0 VMs are vastly better than previous releases, with more optimisations and better garbage collection. They can routinely equal C++ in terms of performance.
If you listen to Java zealots, that's been true from day 1. In the real world, it still doesn't happen.
As for the windowing libraries, Swing is now hardware accelerated and totally indistinguishable from 'native' GUIs on MacOS/X and Windows Vista.
BS. I can tell by the seconds of lag when you click a menu before it appears.
Re:The real 90s versus outdated 00s software
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Its much more than just ramped up c/c++. It's a platform of it's own. c/c++ is compiled, as I am sure you are aware. For the most part java byte code is not executeable as such, its something between executeable and script, close enough to script to be decompiled directly to it's original structure.
So it's ramped up C/C++ changed to be bytecode like perl etc. so it runs at their speeds. What a great idea!
It is quite conceivable that you might have a normal user who wants to touch some advanced setting. But I would argue that it is better that they visit a secondary dialog or read a HOWTO to change it rather than confuse the hell out of everyone else who doesn't by lumping it in with other actions.
Is another option actually confusing? If you don't know what the option does, leave it. Anyway, we're not talking about a secondary dialog, that I wouldn't mind, modern gnome requires you to change the source yourself and recompile to change some quite basic things. That goes beyond what can be expected of the user, even the user who wants to do something a bit unusual.
Re:I use KDE, but GTK is a very important toolkit
on
Torvalds Says 'Use KDE'
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you're willing to pay the fees you can develop a closed-source application with Qt. And you can even use all the KDE stuff - it's made LGPL for this very reason. I think this is about the right level of "incentive" to have - you can make your program closed if it's really important, but it'll cost you. With a pure LGPL toolkit like GTK, all the little utilities could end up being closed-source freeware or shareware, which I think would be a bad thing for linux.
Even if there's no way it could possibly be causing the problem, it's nevertheless probably the cause. Can't run a particular program any more, just after you upgraded that old switch? Put the old one back. You'd be amazed at the level of interaction you get between parts of a computer system.
Installing a program may be easier for you; in my user role, it's definately not easier for me to find, install, start, and learn a new program than to click on a web link.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying for me as a user it's easier for me to do all that than to buy something from an ecommerce site. And it shouldn't be.
There's probably hundredes of implementations of most of the above, all with small differences, with the small differences creating different user experiences, fitting for slightly different audiences and tasks.
I feel it's less that they're tailored for their audiences and just that different people wrote them because there wasn't a standard one. The differences between, say, amazon and newegg's interfaces don't help me with what I need when ordering books or hardware, they just confuse me and give me more to learn.
Making the programs run from the web instead of through special protocols with programs installed on each machine *works better*. And making them work through a limited interface (the HTML interface) makes them close enough for people to figure out. With the interface weirdness many people are able to do through the web, no way I'd want them to have more capabilities at their disposal;)
There's far more variability in web applications than between normal applications done with the same toolkit. Give developers a standard set of widgets, yes with an "escape hatch" for when it's absolutely necessary to do something not covered by the set, make them part of the protocol, and then let the client represent them how they want, according to personal preference. That would make my ecommerce experience a lot nicer.
If that's how it was it has certainly improved drastically. I've been logged into KDE for five days in the past with nary a hint of trouble, and can't remember the last time I had any kind of stability issue.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They should, however, be required to license theirs to people who will pay a reasonable fee, because they have a monopoly (not absolute, but comparable to that of windows) on portable players. And they refuse to do so, and change it deliberately to break interoperability when others figure out how to be compatible - exactly the things we rightly condemn microsoft for.
Nor did the people who awarded them the last round of contracts
It's certainly doable, and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been done. If nothing else I'm pretty sure there's a perl interpreter for the JVM.
Could *have*. Could *have*. Or could've in shortened form as is usually used in speech.
Perl is at least as portable as Java, it just makes less fuss about it.
She's going against standard usage. Like fulsome, it's a word whose meaning has shifted, perhaps through lots of dumb people misunderstanding it, but shifted nonetheless.
He has a perfectly valid complaint - there's no way he can sell music for iPods - and if it were anyone other than Apple you'd be crying foul.
Believe it or not, those of us here laughing at the contestant do actually know.
The thing is though, there are people that stupid, I've met too many of them to doubt it.
And I have a program written in C which isn't. Someone show me that in Java and I'll change my tune.
Hey dumbshit, do you really think that you can make a valid inference from a sample size of 1 (and probably a sample size of 1 stupid user running on his grandma's java 1.1 jre)?
Who said anything about size 1? I've tried at least 10 Java programs more or less at random, always using the latest stable JRE, and I go back and repeat it every few months. It still sucks.
I use many Java apps, and there is no seconds lag, no noticeable lag at all.
Well, good for you. I imagine you have a better machine.
There's no quasi about it, Sun owns the standard. There is no working open source Java, wheras Mono gives you an alternative implementation of .Net from a well known big competing vendor which is fully open source and actually works. So I will confinue to prefer .Net.
Only if it's a very simple error, logic errors are more common and won't be caught. And if it's one that can be caught at compile time, it may well be caught in the bytecode compilation that will happen as the program's being run. All the compiler, which is very artificial in Java, does is force you to have two debug cycles - you write, compile, fix bugs, then when you've fixed them all and got it compiling you have a whole new set of new ones to handle.
But Mono does it just as easily on Linux. JNI seems to have been made deliberately difficult to discourage people from using it. That's all well and good for a teaching language, but isn't something you should do with things aimed for real-world use.
That's just running the interpreter in Java. It allows you to access the Java stuff from Python, but that's one way. What you can't do is use the stuff you've done in Python from another such language, wheras if you use IronPython what you do in Python is on exactly the same level as what you do in C#, and you can extend on it in any of the other languages.
No it doesn't. Java GUIs still suck incredibly, and if you leave it open and running for a while the VM will suck up more memory than you can afford.
Java has a niche, but it's pretty small. If the performance is critical, you're almost certainly better off with C++, and if it doesn't matter then python is far nicer to program in. The only reason I can see to use Java is if you need the OO all over it aspect that Java has, but that's a very niche situation.
If you listen to Java zealots, that's been true from day 1. In the real world, it still doesn't happen.
As for the windowing libraries, Swing is now hardware accelerated and totally indistinguishable from 'native' GUIs on MacOS/X and Windows Vista.
BS. I can tell by the seconds of lag when you click a menu before it appears.
So it's ramped up C/C++ changed to be bytecode like perl etc. so it runs at their speeds. What a great idea!
Is another option actually confusing? If you don't know what the option does, leave it. Anyway, we're not talking about a secondary dialog, that I wouldn't mind, modern gnome requires you to change the source yourself and recompile to change some quite basic things. That goes beyond what can be expected of the user, even the user who wants to do something a bit unusual.
If you're willing to pay the fees you can develop a closed-source application with Qt. And you can even use all the KDE stuff - it's made LGPL for this very reason. I think this is about the right level of "incentive" to have - you can make your program closed if it's really important, but it'll cost you. With a pure LGPL toolkit like GTK, all the little utilities could end up being closed-source freeware or shareware, which I think would be a bad thing for linux.
God yes. However, slashdot loves google, so you will hear people explaining why spyware's actually a good thing in this case.
Even if there's no way it could possibly be causing the problem, it's nevertheless probably the cause. Can't run a particular program any more, just after you upgraded that old switch? Put the old one back. You'd be amazed at the level of interaction you get between parts of a computer system.
No, just personal experience. I thought that went without saying on this site.
This is slashdot. That statement can be optimised out of existence.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying for me as a user it's easier for me to do all that than to buy something from an ecommerce site. And it shouldn't be.
There's probably hundredes of implementations of most of the above, all with small differences, with the small differences creating different user experiences, fitting for slightly different audiences and tasks.
I feel it's less that they're tailored for their audiences and just that different people wrote them because there wasn't a standard one. The differences between, say, amazon and newegg's interfaces don't help me with what I need when ordering books or hardware, they just confuse me and give me more to learn.
Making the programs run from the web instead of through special protocols with programs installed on each machine *works better*. And making them work through a limited interface (the HTML interface) makes them close enough for people to figure out. With the interface weirdness many people are able to do through the web, no way I'd want them to have more capabilities at their disposal ;)
There's far more variability in web applications than between normal applications done with the same toolkit. Give developers a standard set of widgets, yes with an "escape hatch" for when it's absolutely necessary to do something not covered by the set, make them part of the protocol, and then let the client represent them how they want, according to personal preference. That would make my ecommerce experience a lot nicer.
If that's how it was it has certainly improved drastically. I've been logged into KDE for five days in the past with nary a hint of trouble, and can't remember the last time I had any kind of stability issue.