The appeal to the violence argument is ridiculous, too. Don't *add* porn, *remove* the violence! If that means that your kids (and you) end up watching less (or no) TV, and skip almost every movie, can you argue that you have been harmed in some way?
Yes. Its part of our culture, heck, it is our culture. If you can't live with TV and movies like that, there's no way you're going to survive out in the world.
Remember, this isn't a Linux distro, where the user has all the choices in the world except the one that matters most: the choice to have all of their apps look and behave in a consistent manner.
You can do that. I can get a perfectly good system using only KDE applications.
The odd app might have a really large third party library linked in and included in the app bundle, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, as the bundled libraries tend to be of the small, utility type that only run a few K. How bloated is it? Not very at all.
So there's very little code reuse in the OSX world? If there's that little use of libraries, I can only assume the bloat comes in when each app rewrites how to do a particular thing (Either that or the standard system library has ridiculous amounts of stuff).
Instead of one version of one or two frameworks, every third app is written against a different toolkit. Want GIMP? Install GTK. KDevelop? Need QT too.
That sounds like two frameworks to me.
Your text editor links against the athena toolkit, your system management utilities against Tk,
Not mine. Qt versions of those are fine.
your games against SDL,
Hardly the same thing. Games graphics and normal widgets don't have a lot in common.
your audio editor against WxWidgets,
I'm calling this my one odd app.
your file manager against GNOME,
Same thing as GTK
something else against FLTK, FOX, Lesstif, Xaw
Haven't needed any of those.
Binary compatibility between library releases is the exception rather than the rule.
Not with the KDE libs. Two incompatible changes in what, ten years?
You've got 6 different versions of three different XML parsing libraries installed,
Everything's libxml as far as I can see.
2 regex engines
Hmm? pcre is all I know of.
3 copies of your JPEG, PNG, etc libraries
Not on my system. JPEG 6b and libpng 1.2.8.
3 or 4 different audio libraries with a couple different versions installed. Multiple versions of multiple libraries; an endless proliferation of crap that all does the same job with only the most miniscule of differences.
Simply not true. And if it were, I'd be no worse off than you are. If we each have x programs, you're including x copies of the library to do whatever they do. If even two of mine have picked the same library to do it, I have one less library to worry about than you do.
What I don't understand is how virii can be considered non-living when other parasites are.
They're relying on their host for basic life functions, such as reproduction (OK, bad example as you have flowers/bees and so on) and even respiration. Every life form relies on something external for a food source, that's fair enough, but if you call a virus alive then you might as well say genes are life forms in their own right.
Really, who cares if there are multiple versions installed?
I don't care about it directly. I care about the performance implications.
Think of the library version problem: we need to get developers at disparate locations and levels of time commitment all to update to a specific level of library?
No you don't. If there's a change big enough to break compatibility, you bump the major version number, and users keep both versions installed until all their apps are using the new one. It's not rocket science.
a) disk space is cheap.. we're probably talking on the order of 10s of megabytes here. Maybe low 100s
Point, but it's still going to be a problem when they're loaded into memory.
b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other?
That's why you have versioning, foo.so.2 and foo.so.3 or similar (I appreciate gnu ld is not very good at versioning, so it's a poor example, but still). It's a very badly written library if you'll have problems with this sort of thing, and especially with upgrades.
On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a.app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies - everything it needs to run is either in the.app directory, or comes standard with Mac OS X.
How bloated must that be?
Seriously, how many copies of a library does that leave you having installed?
The hardware sensors stuff is in there. Enable the options (i2c/dev interface if you want/dev nodes, or I think it might have been renamed in new kernels), install lm-sensors for the userspace stuff, and you can get things like gkrellm monitors if you want.
Because if you measure an early modem's bandwidth in KB it sounds really really pathetic. It's just a marketing thing that's stuck, like how hard drives are measured in fake smaller GB (yeah, yeah, ISO, GiB, suck my balls) even though RAM and so on are in real GB.
The legality of closed kernel modules depends on whether or not you consider modules as part of the GPL's fucked up definition of "derivative works". The more sane kernel devs like Linus don't like closed modules but nevertheless don't consider them in violation of the GPL.
It's not the "GPL's fucked up definition". It's the legal definition that matters. The GPL just says it applies to derivative works - it probably varies from country to country whether the modules count, and may well be unclear - most copyright laws weren't designed with programming in mind. But it's unfair to blame the GPL.
Anyway, what people must understand is some drivers simply cannot be open source, notably video and wireless drivers. Look at Mac OS X: all hardware drivers are open source, save for... yep, video and wireless drivers. Think about it.
Not so long ago there were other sets of drivers that were never open source. What makes you so sure these won't be opened up?
I don't currently use it at home, though, because it's not a good fit for my current home network. Why? The 2.4GHz spectrum, and specifically 802.11B/G chanel range, is just too crowded in my neighborhood. I can war drive 4 different neighbor's APs, and see 2 muni wireless APs from about any room in my house--then there's my game controllers, the microwave and the neighbor's phones. So...I'm all about Cat6 to several jacks in every room, plus the garage.
That's a case of the technology not working as it's meant to, not that the technology would be a bad thing.
I also wholeheartedly argue that this is not automatically or universally true, and that educators have the right to dictate what tools they allow in their classrooms. Further, I argue that they definitionally know better than their students about what environment works best for learning the material at hand.
I think this is where we differ. I think at this level the student knows the best way for themself to learn. They know themselves better than the prof does. It's their learning, it's their responsibility to do it right.
Regarding the applicability of the luddite label to this professor, I believe there is a difference between not finding technology useful in general terms--perhaps she uses a laptop regularly for many things--and deciding that they are not beneficial in specific cases--such as her classroom.
Perhaps, but I'd be surprised. In my experience a claim of opposition only in this specific case is always hiding a deeper fear of technology.
On the IETF mailing list, there was a great whine-fest about wireless connectivity provided during a regional meeting, and he finished his comments on the matter with something like, "I remember a time when we developed many, many wonderful protocols in highly productive meetings without laptops and wireless connections. I guess that time has passed." Is he a luddite too?
It's hard to tell without context. Quite possibly those who were working with him were being stupid. But I'm certain anyone who managed to have a highly productive meeting without laptops and wireless connections could manage it with them.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1336
You don't think it might just be the way the story appears in BRIGHT PINK?
OMG that's so totally clever!!!
Not a good thing to be announcing round here. See how many friend requests you have by the end of the day.
Or even the faint of heart. Spelling macht frei!
Yes. Its part of our culture, heck, it is our culture. If you can't live with TV and movies like that, there's no way you're going to survive out in the world.
Yes, really
It's a risk, but I think it's going to work. They'll get their $2B - they're popular enough right now that someone will stump up the cash.
I think you're on your own there kiddo.
You can do that. I can get a perfectly good system using only KDE applications.
The odd app might have a really large third party library linked in and included in the app bundle, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, as the bundled libraries tend to be of the small, utility type that only run a few K. How bloated is it? Not very at all.
So there's very little code reuse in the OSX world? If there's that little use of libraries, I can only assume the bloat comes in when each app rewrites how to do a particular thing (Either that or the standard system library has ridiculous amounts of stuff).
Instead of one version of one or two frameworks, every third app is written against a different toolkit. Want GIMP? Install GTK. KDevelop? Need QT too.
That sounds like two frameworks to me.
Your text editor links against the athena toolkit, your system management utilities against Tk,
Not mine. Qt versions of those are fine.
your games against SDL,
Hardly the same thing. Games graphics and normal widgets don't have a lot in common.
your audio editor against WxWidgets,
I'm calling this my one odd app.
your file manager against GNOME,
Same thing as GTK
something else against FLTK, FOX, Lesstif, Xaw
Haven't needed any of those.
Binary compatibility between library releases is the exception rather than the rule.
Not with the KDE libs. Two incompatible changes in what, ten years?
You've got 6 different versions of three different XML parsing libraries installed,
Everything's libxml as far as I can see.
2 regex engines
Hmm? pcre is all I know of.
3 copies of your JPEG, PNG, etc libraries
Not on my system. JPEG 6b and libpng 1.2.8.
3 or 4 different audio libraries with a couple different versions installed. Multiple versions of multiple libraries; an endless proliferation of crap that all does the same job with only the most miniscule of differences.
Simply not true. And if it were, I'd be no worse off than you are. If we each have x programs, you're including x copies of the library to do whatever they do. If even two of mine have picked the same library to do it, I have one less library to worry about than you do.
They're relying on their host for basic life functions, such as reproduction (OK, bad example as you have flowers/bees and so on) and even respiration. Every life form relies on something external for a food source, that's fair enough, but if you call a virus alive then you might as well say genes are life forms in their own right.
I don't care about it directly. I care about the performance implications.
Think of the library version problem: we need to get developers at disparate locations and levels of time commitment all to update to a specific level of library?
No you don't. If there's a change big enough to break compatibility, you bump the major version number, and users keep both versions installed until all their apps are using the new one. It's not rocket science.
Point, but it's still going to be a problem when they're loaded into memory.
b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other?
That's why you have versioning, foo.so.2 and foo.so.3 or similar (I appreciate gnu ld is not very good at versioning, so it's a poor example, but still). It's a very badly written library if you'll have problems with this sort of thing, and especially with upgrades.
How bloated must that be?
Seriously, how many copies of a library does that leave you having installed?
120V AC to the processor sounds like a good way to be really sure you'd killed the application
The hardware sensors stuff is in there. Enable the options (i2c /dev interface if you want /dev nodes, or I think it might have been renamed in new kernels), install lm-sensors for the userspace stuff, and you can get things like gkrellm monitors if you want.
Erm, there were a couple of ickle wars in the last century where we were on the same side. We haven't been serious enemies for over a hundred years.
The soviet union. The military are always perparing to fight the last war, this is no different.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Observe: Java is slow and sucky.
Did you even read the post you replied to?
It'll save money, surely? And it might be seen as motivational.
Because if you measure an early modem's bandwidth in KB it sounds really really pathetic. It's just a marketing thing that's stuck, like how hard drives are measured in fake smaller GB (yeah, yeah, ISO, GiB, suck my balls) even though RAM and so on are in real GB.
It's not the "GPL's fucked up definition". It's the legal definition that matters. The GPL just says it applies to derivative works - it probably varies from country to country whether the modules count, and may well be unclear - most copyright laws weren't designed with programming in mind. But it's unfair to blame the GPL.
Anyway, what people must understand is some drivers simply cannot be open source, notably video and wireless drivers. Look at Mac OS X: all hardware drivers are open source, save for... yep, video and wireless drivers. Think about it.
Not so long ago there were other sets of drivers that were never open source. What makes you so sure these won't be opened up?
That's a case of the technology not working as it's meant to, not that the technology would be a bad thing.
I think this is where we differ. I think at this level the student knows the best way for themself to learn. They know themselves better than the prof does. It's their learning, it's their responsibility to do it right.
Regarding the applicability of the luddite label to this professor, I believe there is a difference between not finding technology useful in general terms--perhaps she uses a laptop regularly for many things--and deciding that they are not beneficial in specific cases--such as her classroom.
Perhaps, but I'd be surprised. In my experience a claim of opposition only in this specific case is always hiding a deeper fear of technology.
On the IETF mailing list, there was a great whine-fest about wireless connectivity provided during a regional meeting, and he finished his comments on the matter with something like, "I remember a time when we developed many, many wonderful protocols in highly productive meetings without laptops and wireless connections. I guess that time has passed." Is he a luddite too?
It's hard to tell without context. Quite possibly those who were working with him were being stupid. But I'm certain anyone who managed to have a highly productive meeting without laptops and wireless connections could manage it with them.