The point is, is that when you move from one *system* to another, things are going to change.
If you simply go about emulating the system you are trying to eliminate, you really haven't made progress, have you?
I don't think windows is the right way, or linux is the right way.
What I *do* think, is that linux has some things right and windows has other things right. And the clipboard is one of those things that windows has right.
But I'm sure as hell not going to give up my command shells or my virtual terminals or anything else that I like about linux simply because grammy doesn't want to evolve.
Will people just give up the 'mass domination' thing already? It's tiresome, and if you really care, learn some software engineering and design the thing the way you want it -- after all, choice is good, and the fact that you're able to do it is even better.
People seem to forget one major thing when comparing the BSD and GNU tools to each other....
Documentation. Sure, the commercial unices aren't good at it either (take solaris for example), but to find 'quick' help in the BSD world means pouring over manpage after manpage, because there is no '--help' for a good 90% of them. At least the commercials have some way (read: Manuals and Certification = $$$) to get access to this information.
The GNU project has been a tremendous force in both documentation and internationalization. Just about every project that's 'official' (that means, turning the copyright over to the FSF) has ample documentation, and generally a well-accepted support base.
I'm not saying that the BSD world doesn't have these things, but they are nowhere CLOSE to what the GNU project and the FSF have done.
And where exactly is BSD's compiler? For any major BSD project? They simply don't exist, and if they do, they haven't been adopted - GCC, for a free software compiler, is too far ahead of the pack for anything else to be considered.
Note: This is not FSF apologism. IMO, the various BSD projects are the forefront in technology (especially WRT the kernel), and as a result I think they spend more time coding than drumming up support, and I commend that. I just don't think that the toolset should be compared.
The BSD toolset is made for BSD. The GNU project is made *IN MIND* for anyone who wants to port it.
>How about this: Textpad vs. UltraEdit, both of which kick the shit out of any GUI text editor on Linux.
Give me a break. Both vi and emacs have X versions, both of which perform rather nicely.
TextPad and UltraEdit are little more than scriptable versions of notepad. And last I checked (although I'll admit I haven't used them in a while), you can't even make modifications to the libraries they use in realtime, forcing you to restart the editor. Plus, the languages used to configure these editors are yet another language you have to learn.
I'm an emacs user, but tend to use vi for simple editing tasks (for speed). vi is availiable, for FREE (try getting a copy of either of those editors for free that way) on nearly EVERY unix machine in existence. vi is the unix equivalent of windows' notepad.
I won't even get started on EMACS. Let's just say that over 20 years of work is just simply being copied by other editors nowadays. And of course, if you don't like pretty much any little thing in emacs, you can fix it and do it while you're still coding.
Ironically, you didn't even touch on the REAL editors in windows. Slickedit? XEmacs/Win32?
>Windows computers make up 90%+ of the desktops of the world, and on those computers, you are functionally illiterate. Congratulations fuckwad, like the Simpsons character you so closely resemble, you've wasted your life.
And windows DEVELOPERS are less than 1% of that quote. I'm not saying that windows developers are useless or stupid, I'm just saying that the other 99% of windows users don't even know what notepad is much less a programmers editor.
And let me let you in on a little something - unless billy starts porting his toy OS to something that runs on big iron, all windows is ever going to be useful for is school papers and video games.
Yes, I'm feeding the troll. My karma sucks anyways.
When PHP released version 4 (or perl released version 5), there were a host of syntax changes, but continutity remiained. But if you look at the code that Damian Conway is generating, it's nothing like perl 5. At all. I think the 'print' statement is the only thing left, and I'm waiting for them to change that too.
The problem here is that you have a language being developed by a linguist, not a computer science guy. Therefore he feels the need to change and modify everything about the language to make it seem more 'friendly'.
The simple fact of the matter is, all of the grammar is changing. All of the keywords are changing. What's left that defines this language as perl? Nothing, really.
I don't think Stallman cares what you or anyone else thinks. He just wants to get his message of free software across. That's probably his most redeeming quality.
Personally, I've always felt that people who act like this on others opinions tend to get farther in life. The limiting factor of peer pressure on a person is an astounding thing to see.
If you're asking what I think, Stallman is an overbearing, childish zealot with a one track mind.
But that's what makes him great. With the likes of don't-care people like Linus (who are the ones who are really out there running the show nowadays), it's nice to see that a few people in power have the balls to sacrifice their public appearance to get the message that they need to across.
Religion is rarely successful on principles alone. Generally it's beaten into the heads of people repeatedly until it's something that's so part of the social norm that it's something to be desired. There is nothing different here, but we're only talking about software. What Richard does is cross the line enough to get his point across.
I think this is a great thing. It's going to allow those of us who are over the age of 18/21 access to much more adult content and things that further stretch the limit of free speech, just like movies and other various things.
Remember, the parent can still opt to rent/purchase these games for their children if they don't agree with the morals that the government has put upon us. Not unlike purchasing porn or various other over 18/21 items, like Beer, etc.
For those of you underage, quit complaining, you don't have a say in the matter anyways!
While there are many game programmers, designers, and the like around, I work in a programming shop too, and losing just *one* key member in a project can hurt the whole project for quite some time.
This is how it works in any shop where design and programming commence. You just odn't replace people that easily.
While I agree with you, Blizzard is also notorious for releasing their demos LONG AFTER the release of their products themselves, so that more people will buy the game.
The fact is, is that there are already enough cheaters on battle.net, and it would be nice to play on private servers.
"And you know what it does not ever need to catch up or surpass windows. I remeber a year or two ago anytime a SQL server vs Oracle debate sprang up on usenet the MS people always made the same argument. SQL server is good enough to do what you want and it costs much less. The same argument goes here. As soon as Linux is good enough OS with good enough apps everything then the price factor will kick in."
----
The problem with this analogy is that, for the most part, SQL is a defined standard, and can easily be compared by that standard. Just as many people use mysql versus 'better' SQL servers such as PostgreSQL, Oracle, even SQL Server, there is no comparison between Linux and Windows.
They will not run the same 'commands' (object code), talk in the same way (libraries), nor will they have the same interface.
I personally think that the biggest Linux hurdle out there is the fear of switching to a new OS. The fact that Linux has choice of interface tends to detract from the 'marketability' of that, that is, the shortest path to using the computer.
We are evolving, but it's going to take the computer users out there to evolve before that. Of course, I work on linux machines at work and our servers run linux and solaris. In our IT dept, we're finally seeing more and more linux desktops reaching the end users. Once the people who are setting up the computers for bob and jane start saying 'You know, this is a lot better', we'll start to see more linux users.
Of course if that never happens, I'll still be happy using linux.
The point is, is that these security holes in windows software are both PUBLISHED, and in most cases, already PATCHED.
Therefore the 'naked woman on the front door' analogy makes sense.
Now if someone was using unorthodox/unpublished/unpatched methods to take over a computer system, I could understand.
But note that Code Red, Nimda, etc, all take advantage of systems that had the ability to be protected.
This is like having a having a lock on teh front door, but leaving it unlocked because you forgot to buy a key for it. There is nothing stopping you from securing the door, provided you spent a little time to go out and get a key.
.. windows handling of this pisses me off and all that, but if these were ELF executables being tossed around that did the same thing (all of which is possible through a normal user account on most unix machines), I doubt that we would be laughing so much. Especially those of you who administer 1000+ users with shell accounts...
.... is that they are talking to Computer Resellers.
Frankly, when I buy a computer, I get the parts and I put it together myself. I don't want Dell, Gateway or Computer Manufacturer of the week on my box.
I've spent the time learning a bit about my computer (well, more than most of course), I've done the research and know what to expect out of it. I also know that I spent a good $1500 at least on it and want to get my money's worth.
I put together the machine, configure it, and it works. It keeps working and never has to be majorly upgraded because I use a linux distribution that I have researched and found to be suitable when it comes to small, automatic upgrades with minimal hassle (debian). I never have to buy a new piece of software to make my machine run smoother, faster, or more reliable.
When I rent a house/apartment, I research the location, size in square feet, and cost per month + utilities. I check if it uses gas or electric heating. I make sure that I have a place to park that's close to the building. I *ensure* that this place fits my needs.
When I buy a car... Well you get the point. If people are unable to research, learn, and evaulate the caveats of working with any piece of software, well, sorry to be brash, but fuck them.
Microsoft is trying to build a psychic computer. One that takes care of all of your needs, wants, and desires as a user.
The simple fact is that this does NOT exist, and will *never* be possible with out user intervention. The user that is not able to learn and make decisions regarding software/hardware choice is going to get left in the land of shoddy and expensive tech support, constant upgrades (to make the machine faster of course, instead of working to configure it to be), and a lot of cash missing from their wallet.
Linux, FreeBSD, and other mature 'free' operating systems are not going anywhere. We (those of us who use these systems) should not be worried. Nothing threatens our 'market' but users who do not opt to use the systems, which isn't really threatening at all, as long as users still exist.
Of course, some people who have researched will choose Microsoft because it suits their needs. That's fine IMHO, but the realization that you're in a cycle of relatively constant upgrades and/or possible support issues (Win95 anyone?) should be at least something to consider when you make that decision.
Basically, the point is that with any large purchase, if you're not going to spend the effort to learn about the product your purchasing, you deserve any hassle you'll get over it.
>Default variables (explicit is better than implicit)
Other than $_ and @_, I agree with you, but those two variables can be extremely useful when processing lists, which is something that PERL does extremely well (not as good as LISP does of course, but much better than most languages).
'Puncutation Variables' (such as $/, $!, etc) are personally one of my biggest gripes about PERL, minus the two listed above.
>Too many %&$.
Especially WRT references, these symbols are the most useful thing a programmer can have to improve the readability of code (well, at least in PERL). If you're using PERL properly, you know how to make it readable, and using these symbols to their utmost efficiency really helps.
>All the things that make one-liners possible.
PERL is a text processing language. If you're using PERL like you would 'sed', you would find that these 'things' make PERL akin to sed or awk on high-quality steroids.
IMNSHO, PERL is at it's heart an answer to both sed and awk as a text processing language. It provides other functions of course, but it's power is in Regular Expressions, List Processing, and 'loose' syntax.
PERL lets you control the landscape, much like C does.... While I would rarely, if ever, use something like this, it allows it so that it's possible for people to use it if needed. Making PERL a stricter language only detracts from it.
This goes to my last point. PERL is an open ended language. It allows you to do many things both grammatically and logically. But, part of being a good programmer is knowing your language, and knowing what is *GOOD* and what is *NOT GOOD* to use.
This goes to the 'ugly code' comment as well. I've seen *really* ugly PERL code that abuses the one-liner abilities of the language and could probably be construed as obfuscated.
But of course, the IOCCC exists for a reason, C and any other language can be just as bad, if the person decides that's how they're going to write their code.
You know what really chaps my hide? The fact that people seem to take this stuff as if it mattered.
The FSF is a great organization - they provide high quality software for 'free(dom)', and provide licenses and basic guidelines for joe blow software hacker to use in his own projects.
IF HE CHOOSES. People choose the GNU Public License because it fits their goal of a good software license for their projects. Not because of RMS's philosophies.
It would be really nice if people would focus on the GNU *PROJECT* and less on the GNU *PHILOSOPHY*.
Those who embrace it, good for them. Those who don't, take advantage of a good idea and use the hard work of a collective of people to further your own goals, which obviously would be to release your software to tbe public in a limited (yes, limited) fashion.
Nothing requires you to concede to the ideas of someone else. Proper thought encourages the critical analysis of SECTIONS of another persons thought and embracing those parts that you agree with, not the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why doesn't this work in emacs, xedit, xdm, or anything else that uses the athena widget.
All involved in this argument repeat after me:
This is not a window manager issue
I think that you're missing the point here.
The point is, is that when you move from one *system* to another, things are going to change.
If you simply go about emulating the system you are trying to eliminate, you really haven't made progress, have you?
I don't think windows is the right way, or linux is the right way.
What I *do* think, is that linux has some things right and windows has other things right. And the clipboard is one of those things that windows has right.
But I'm sure as hell not going to give up my command shells or my virtual terminals or anything else that I like about linux simply because grammy doesn't want to evolve.
Will people just give up the 'mass domination' thing already? It's tiresome, and if you really care, learn some software engineering and design the thing the way you want it -- after all, choice is good, and the fact that you're able to do it is even better.
People seem to forget one major thing when comparing the BSD and GNU tools to each other....
Documentation. Sure, the commercial unices aren't good at it either (take solaris for example), but to find 'quick' help in the BSD world means pouring over manpage after manpage, because there is no '--help' for a good 90% of them. At least the commercials have some way (read: Manuals and Certification = $$$) to get access to this information.
The GNU project has been a tremendous force in both documentation and internationalization. Just about every project that's 'official' (that means, turning the copyright over to the FSF) has ample documentation, and generally a well-accepted support base.
I'm not saying that the BSD world doesn't have these things, but they are nowhere CLOSE to what the GNU project and the FSF have done.
And where exactly is BSD's compiler? For any major BSD project? They simply don't exist, and if they do, they haven't been adopted - GCC, for a free software compiler, is too far ahead of the pack for anything else to be considered.
Note: This is not FSF apologism. IMO, the various BSD projects are the forefront in technology (especially WRT the kernel), and as a result I think they spend more time coding than drumming up support, and I commend that. I just don't think that the toolset should be compared.
The BSD toolset is made for BSD. The GNU project is made *IN MIND* for anyone who wants to port it.
Simple. Attorney Fees.
The norton protected recycle bin really does nothing but take advantage of a few (mis)features of the FAT file system.
If this works on NTFS too, then they are actually doing something new, since this stuff has been done since the early dos days.
and this is different from how undelete works, how?
Sure it takes 35 minutes to install.
But you don't have any of the programs you normally use, or the latest or even updated versions of drivers.
You get stock crap.
If you want to count REAL install time, look elsewhere. Most linux distributions have it beat tenfold.
>How about this: Textpad vs. UltraEdit, both of which kick the shit out of any GUI text editor on Linux.
Give me a break. Both vi and emacs have X versions, both of which perform rather nicely.
TextPad and UltraEdit are little more than scriptable versions of notepad. And last I checked (although I'll admit I haven't used them in a while), you can't even make modifications to the libraries they use in realtime, forcing you to restart the editor. Plus, the languages used to configure these editors are yet another language you have to learn.
I'm an emacs user, but tend to use vi for simple editing tasks (for speed). vi is availiable, for FREE (try getting a copy of either of those editors for free that way) on nearly EVERY unix machine in existence. vi is the unix equivalent of windows' notepad.
I won't even get started on EMACS. Let's just say that over 20 years of work is just simply being copied by other editors nowadays. And of course, if you don't like pretty much any little thing in emacs, you can fix it and do it while you're still coding.
Ironically, you didn't even touch on the REAL editors in windows. Slickedit? XEmacs/Win32?
>Windows computers make up 90%+ of the desktops of the world, and on those computers, you are functionally illiterate. Congratulations fuckwad, like the Simpsons character you so closely resemble, you've wasted your life.
And windows DEVELOPERS are less than 1% of that quote. I'm not saying that windows developers are useless or stupid, I'm just saying that the other 99% of windows users don't even know what notepad is much less a programmers editor.
And let me let you in on a little something - unless billy starts porting his toy OS to something that runs on big iron, all windows is ever going to be useful for is school papers and video games.
Yes, I'm feeding the troll. My karma sucks anyways.
The difference here is this:
Perl6 is nothing close to Perl 5
When PHP released version 4 (or perl released version 5), there were a host of syntax changes, but continutity remiained. But if you look at the code that Damian Conway is generating, it's nothing like perl 5. At all. I think the 'print' statement is the only thing left, and I'm waiting for them to change that too.
The problem here is that you have a language being developed by a linguist, not a computer science guy. Therefore he feels the need to change and modify everything about the language to make it seem more 'friendly'.
The simple fact of the matter is, all of the grammar is changing. All of the keywords are changing. What's left that defines this language as perl? Nothing, really.
Ironically, this movie was also directed by Peter Jackson (LOTR fame)
The only problem with this is that dynamic content (such as ads, various forms of dynamic links, etc) would screw up diff algorithms.
I don't think Stallman cares what you or anyone else thinks. He just wants to get his message of free software across. That's probably his most redeeming quality.
Personally, I've always felt that people who act like this on others opinions tend to get farther in life. The limiting factor of peer pressure on a person is an astounding thing to see.
If you're asking what I think, Stallman is an overbearing, childish zealot with a one track mind.
But that's what makes him great. With the likes of don't-care people like Linus (who are the ones who are really out there running the show nowadays), it's nice to see that a few people in power have the balls to sacrifice their public appearance to get the message that they need to across.
Religion is rarely successful on principles alone. Generally it's beaten into the heads of people repeatedly until it's something that's so part of the social norm that it's something to be desired. There is nothing different here, but we're only talking about software. What Richard does is cross the line enough to get his point across.
I think this is a great thing. It's going to allow those of us who are over the age of 18/21 access to much more adult content and things that further stretch the limit of free speech, just like movies and other various things.
Remember, the parent can still opt to rent/purchase these games for their children if they don't agree with the morals that the government has put upon us. Not unlike purchasing porn or various other over 18/21 items, like Beer, etc.
For those of you underage, quit complaining, you don't have a say in the matter anyways!
You're just figuring this out now?
debian users already have this:
/etc/apt/sources.list, and you'll get security updates for your programs as soon as they're released.
deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
add this line to
:)
I agree. This is what ANNOUNCE lists are for, and bugtraq...
While there are many game programmers, designers, and the like around, I work in a programming shop too, and losing just *one* key member in a project can hurt the whole project for quite some time.
This is how it works in any shop where design and programming commence. You just odn't replace people that easily.
While I agree with you, Blizzard is also notorious for releasing their demos LONG AFTER the release of their products themselves, so that more people will buy the game.
The fact is, is that there are already enough cheaters on battle.net, and it would be nice to play on private servers.
"And you know what it does not ever need to catch up or surpass windows. I remeber a year or two ago anytime a SQL server vs Oracle debate sprang up on usenet the MS people always made the same argument. SQL server is good enough to do what you want and it costs much less. The same argument goes here. As soon as Linux is good enough OS with good enough apps everything then the price factor will kick in."
----
The problem with this analogy is that, for the most part, SQL is a defined standard, and can easily be compared by that standard. Just as many people use mysql versus 'better' SQL servers such as PostgreSQL, Oracle, even SQL Server, there is no comparison between Linux and Windows.
They will not run the same 'commands' (object code), talk in the same way (libraries), nor will they have the same interface.
I personally think that the biggest Linux hurdle out there is the fear of switching to a new OS. The fact that Linux has choice of interface tends to detract from the 'marketability' of that, that is, the shortest path to using the computer.
We are evolving, but it's going to take the computer users out there to evolve before that. Of course, I work on linux machines at work and our servers run linux and solaris. In our IT dept, we're finally seeing more and more linux desktops reaching the end users. Once the people who are setting up the computers for bob and jane start saying 'You know, this is a lot better', we'll start to see more linux users.
Of course if that never happens, I'll still be happy using linux.
The point is, is that these security holes in windows software are both PUBLISHED, and in most cases, already PATCHED.
Therefore the 'naked woman on the front door' analogy makes sense.
Now if someone was using unorthodox/unpublished/unpatched methods to take over a computer system, I could understand.
But note that Code Red, Nimda, etc, all take advantage of systems that had the ability to be protected.
This is like having a having a lock on teh front door, but leaving it unlocked because you forgot to buy a key for it. There is nothing stopping you from securing the door, provided you spent a little time to go out and get a key.
.. windows handling of this pisses me off and all that, but if these were ELF executables being tossed around that did the same thing (all of which is possible through a normal user account on most unix machines), I doubt that we would be laughing so much. Especially those of you who administer 1000+ users with shell accounts...
Just my $.02
.... is that they are talking to Computer Resellers.
Frankly, when I buy a computer, I get the parts and I put it together myself. I don't want Dell, Gateway or Computer Manufacturer of the week on my box.
I've spent the time learning a bit about my computer (well, more than most of course), I've done the research and know what to expect out of it. I also know that I spent a good $1500 at least on it and want to get my money's worth.
I put together the machine, configure it, and it works. It keeps working and never has to be majorly upgraded because I use a linux distribution that I have researched and found to be suitable when it comes to small, automatic upgrades with minimal hassle (debian). I never have to buy a new piece of software to make my machine run smoother, faster, or more reliable.
When I rent a house/apartment, I research the location, size in square feet, and cost per month + utilities. I check if it uses gas or electric heating. I make sure that I have a place to park that's close to the building. I *ensure* that this place fits my needs.
When I buy a car... Well you get the point. If people are unable to research, learn, and evaulate the caveats of working with any piece of software, well, sorry to be brash, but fuck them.
Microsoft is trying to build a psychic computer. One that takes care of all of your needs, wants, and desires as a user.
The simple fact is that this does NOT exist, and will *never* be possible with out user intervention. The user that is not able to learn and make decisions regarding software/hardware choice is going to get left in the land of shoddy and expensive tech support, constant upgrades (to make the machine faster of course, instead of working to configure it to be), and a lot of cash missing from their wallet.
Linux, FreeBSD, and other mature 'free' operating systems are not going anywhere. We (those of us who use these systems) should not be worried. Nothing threatens our 'market' but users who do not opt to use the systems, which isn't really threatening at all, as long as users still exist.
Of course, some people who have researched will choose Microsoft because it suits their needs. That's fine IMHO, but the realization that you're in a cycle of relatively constant upgrades and/or possible support issues (Win95 anyone?) should be at least something to consider when you make that decision.
Basically, the point is that with any large purchase, if you're not going to spend the effort to learn about the product your purchasing, you deserve any hassle you'll get over it.
>Default variables (explicit is better than implicit)
Other than $_ and @_, I agree with you, but those two variables can be extremely useful when processing lists, which is something that PERL does extremely well (not as good as LISP does of course, but much better than most languages).
'Puncutation Variables' (such as $/, $!, etc) are personally one of my biggest gripes about PERL, minus the two listed above.
>Too many %&$.
Especially WRT references, these symbols are the most useful thing a programmer can have to improve the readability of code (well, at least in PERL). If you're using PERL properly, you know how to make it readable, and using these symbols to their utmost efficiency really helps.
>All the things that make one-liners possible.
PERL is a text processing language. If you're using PERL like you would 'sed', you would find that these 'things' make PERL akin to sed or awk on high-quality steroids.
IMNSHO, PERL is at it's heart an answer to both sed and awk as a text processing language. It provides other functions of course, but it's power is in Regular Expressions, List Processing, and 'loose' syntax.
>Side effects. Assignement in ifs.
>if ( $a = func() )
PERL lets you control the landscape, much like C does.... While I would rarely, if ever, use something like this, it allows it so that it's possible for people to use it if needed. Making PERL a stricter language only detracts from it.
This goes to my last point. PERL is an open ended language. It allows you to do many things both grammatically and logically. But, part of being a good programmer is knowing your language, and knowing what is *GOOD* and what is *NOT GOOD* to use.
This goes to the 'ugly code' comment as well. I've seen *really* ugly PERL code that abuses the one-liner abilities of the language and could probably be construed as obfuscated.
But of course, the IOCCC exists for a reason, C and any other language can be just as bad, if the person decides that's how they're going to write their code.
Sony actually has quite a bit of stock in Square, which is why you won't be seeing anything by them for any other console system anytime soon.
You know what really chaps my hide? The fact that people seem to take this stuff as if it mattered.
The FSF is a great organization - they provide high quality software for 'free(dom)', and provide licenses and basic guidelines for joe blow software hacker to use in his own projects.
IF HE CHOOSES. People choose the GNU Public License because it fits their goal of a good software license for their projects. Not because of RMS's philosophies.
It would be really nice if people would focus on the GNU *PROJECT* and less on the GNU *PHILOSOPHY*.
Those who embrace it, good for them. Those who don't, take advantage of a good idea and use the hard work of a collective of people to further your own goals, which obviously would be to release your software to tbe public in a limited (yes, limited) fashion.
Nothing requires you to concede to the ideas of someone else. Proper thought encourages the critical analysis of SECTIONS of another persons thought and embracing those parts that you agree with, not the whole thing.