I am not trying to be mean, but this is a horrible question. What do you mean by develop "your own technology"? Almost any programming project requires a certain amount of innovation (if its to mean anything, and be sellable by a company). <p> Secondly, like a previous "ask slashdot", you are confusing the method with the language. This is almost completely dependent on what the employees in your company. The question of whether to use Java is not so much a question of language, but whether you need it to work across platforms. However, keep in mind Java tends to be slow, and usually not such a great thing for realtime involving a lot of data. <p> If your company decides to use linux, there are many tools available for sound transfer. There are at least 2 or 3 sounds projects I know of. TCP/IP is almost free using any UN*X clone, and that sounds like the majority of your project.
While I agree it is somewhat inconvienent to have to continually installing a new version of QT, I suspect there are not many ways out of it. At some point they must require a switch over to the new QT, and its better to start now when they are still writting code, then have to completely rewrite later.
Plus, you can keep all your libraries by using:
rpm -ivh qtxxx.rpm
instead of
rpm -Uvh qtxxx.rpm
The first one just installs the libraries, the second will upgrade. Upgrading meaning get rid of the old versions, install just installs.
7259249913 Here is your navigator : Mozilla/4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) Just a security hole of Slashdot. You can find this kind of hole in all sites which has a forum. I think that in site like e-trade you can make some people asks for stocks. You can contact me there : Krakus.Irus à voila.com If you want to retry. If you want to know more.
If the whole legal trouble is not having licences for the DVD player then one solution might be to make a DVD player, have a 'company' (any sizable group of ppl) buy the license, and then distribute the source code for free. Of course, it would require the ppl who first used the software to pay for it (however much they could afford such that it could cover the original license cost). Due to the lack of funding our 'company' could go out of buisness leaving only a licensed version of the software. Obviously if someone were to take the source and compile it on their computer it would not be legal, but it would not be illegal to own like DeCSS is. No one can be sued over it because it was a company that no longer exists, and perhaps something could even be put into the agreement to allow ppl with licenses to extend that license to other ppl.
Does this mean that the case against the creators of decss is void? If the majority of the court case is based on the fact that people could illegally copy DVDs, then shouldn't they be prosecuting Pioneer as well?
Reading the original message it seems as though the IDE and the actual language are being confused. That is, I'm sure people have uses for RADs (once I figure out what they stand for, I might too..:)), but the best code is truly and always by hand. This goes for simple things such as HTML, C, C++, even Javascript.
If you are going to develop under Linux there are a couple of IDEs out there. None as nice as M$ developer, but in truth what they provide is mostly glitz. When I first switched I desperately wanted something equivalent.. I tried CodeCrusader, the KIDE, etc. When it came down to it, XEmacs/Emacs ended up being the most robust, easiest to use, all around good editor. This is not meant to try to say Emacs is better than VI, or that perhaps you may not perfer KIDE or Code Crusader. But rather, I think one might end up realizing that the glitz and controls one is used to M$ stuff, isn't as necessary/useful as the tools you can get with a more functional editor. I will say, however, things like a window with all your project files in it is something I miss.. Emacs has something called speedbar, but its nowhere near as useful.
Except for KIDE, none of these editors will provide you with an instant-application-creator (i.e. RAD). The closest you may come is glade (there is another one around with similiar functionality) that is damn close to a RAD.. maybe it even is a RAD, that allows you to quickly and easily build up GTK/GNOME applications.. I played with it for half an hour or so, so I don't know too much else about it.
As far as cross platformability, however, GTK will not cut it, and you're mostly left (at least to my knowledge) with either QT (I can't remember if KDE will run on W$ or not..), or wxWindows. Neither I am too fond of, but I suppose they are probably better than MFC. If you do go with KDE, and want a RAD, then KIDE is probably a good choice. I have no clue about wxWindows.. Someone was porting GTK to W$, but I don't think its stable yet.. Abe
Without making any assumptions, I would like to being by making the broad generalization that it seems most often the people who complain about forking developments usually aren't the developers, but rather just the end users
Personally I dislike KDE (flame-shield). I am not trying to advocate preferences to anyone else, but it stems from QT, and as cited by many individuals, the kludged-preprocessor that must be used for their connections/slot technology. Likewise, I think that the GTK model is perhaps one the best designed models around. This is not saying anything about the implementation, as I am not the most familiar with it, but just simply if I had to create my own widget toolkit, I would probably end up with something like it.
Yet another problem with KDE is that it is C++ based. I haven't checked, but I'm sure there are plenty of bindings that exist now for other languages, but there is an inherent problem. C is fundementally easier to port to C++ than the other way around simply because it is a subset of C++ (i.e. C++ was built from C). I usually almost always write C++ code, even when I don't use OOP, but if I were to create a widget toolkit, I would most likely use C to allow a greater audience. It is quite easy (and infact, this is one of the reasons C++ was made) to encapsulate C code in C++.
I should point out that I have been assuming that anyone that uses GTK would be in the GNOME catagory, but this is not necessarily true. Again there is forking of work simply because to different people different methods of developement are better. While I beleive the component methodology is good, I have to admit I am a little skeptical of CORBA. I should also admit I know very little about it. I think one thing that would be nice to see is more effort put on the GTK widgets, with a focus on their efficiency, and perhaps even on splitting a few widgets into smaller components. I would think this would be more of a GTK issue than GNOME.
My point (somewhat elongated) is simply that there are many views on how developement should be done. It is pointless for people to just blindly write code for a system they don't think works properly. For example, I have had to write MFC code before. I never again want to in my life. I shudder every time someone mentions making an MFC like model under *nix. Not only does it suffer from the same preprocessor problems that QT does (although its better hidden), (not too suprisingly) M$ has no concept what it means to be object oriented! I don't care what language you write code in -- heck, I've written OO ASM code before, but rather that you employ it in a meaningful way in which it helps one write code, not hinder it/confuse everyone. The worst part to MFC is their document/view model. This model works amazingly well for things such as word processors, but I think it flops (from several thousand feet up onto metal spikes in cement) for anything else. Its the usual M$ "our way" approach, which ends up in some of the most disgusting code (not written by me of course:)) I've ever seen.
Of course, I am more than happy to use any of the applications that come out of KDE, and am drooling for KWord to come out (if its all it is cracked up to be). I just rather not have to deal with the QT toolkit, and know that I'll be that much more efficient with GTK.
I'm just thinking that if M$ acts their usual self, it would be like making a deal with the devil. M$ might release their code, but in the act, they would find some way to make it totally useless.
For example, they could release the Win95 code now, then decide to release Win2000 with a few 'fixes' so it no longer runs normal Window software (actually, they are basically doing this anyways). We now have Win95 code (woohoo), but its useless. They goverment might even say, "hey! release win2000 code now." And of course M$ complies, but only after a couple court injunctions, +/- 2 or 3 years, etc.
In the end, M$ would get off scott free (and I feel sorry for Scott), consumers end up paying more to upgrade all their software to use the newest M$ OS (btw, don't forget Win 3.1... anyone still run programs from that?), and M$ gets even more money then they were before.
The one way around this that I can think of, is that gov. requiring M$ to use something such as CVS (no M$ crap where they might alter and hide code), and a required check for compilation check (that is, compile the code from CVS, and do a checksum to see they are indeed the same thing).
One last point, don't forget, normal M$ code is crap (consider MFC for a ms or so). If they are required to share code, one can only imagine them obscuring code even further (if this is possible). Remember when Netscape opened their source code? Granted, there would be more reason to look at the source code -- but it won't be an easy task.
Plus, who decides whats part of the operating system? Do device drivers count? Do they finally admit Windows is really just a shell on top of MSDOS 7, in which case they only release MSDOS? Etc.
It is extremely difficult to tell what the scientists found based on the article. For example, "..it processes information serially, even though the underlying neural hardware is operating in parallel."
It would seem from this statement that they are considering part of the brain 'hardware', while other parts not. This seems like fragile reasoning as last I checked it consists of neurons and glial cells (okay, throw in some blood and ions as well).
I am going to make an assumption that they are referring to a person's attention when talking about the 'other part of the brain' -- that is, the brain takes the entire scene in all at once (this we know happens), but can only attend to one particular part of the scene at a time.
This is not a new discovery. In fact it was pointed out quite a while ago by William James. He describes concsiousness as the process of selecting what to pay attention to. That is, we can only really pay attention to one task at a time, but the brain takes in a whole lot. James is usually right.
Looking later in the article: "Luck and Woodman discovered that the brain turned its attention from one block to the next at intervals of about 1/10th second." Thus it would seem instead of describing how we view the world, they are rather describing the rate at which we attend to physically seen objects.
I would suspect that they could do a similiar experiment with sound, taste, etc. I have not seen any mention to factors such as rate that they eye can move at (as mentioned by a previous post), or even how far apart objects were.
Finally they a measure a brainwave without giving a good reason to pay attention to that brain wave. It reminds me of a joke I read once: "A scientist wants to figure out what makes an insect concious. He theorizes it must be the legs [okay, not smartest person]. He takes one leg off. It appears that the insect cannot make decisions as well as before. He continues in this fashion until the insect can no longer walk, and thus make a concious decision where to move."
In reality it is very difficult to probe the brain. Taking EEGs only gets weak signals off the top of the brain, and cannot measure other impotrant parts of the brain. Other measuring tools such as a PET or CAT scan operate a large intervals, not giving an overall picture of the brain (from what I've been told they can only image something like every 5 minutes). Imagine a system that is totally chaotic, except that normalizes for large amounts of time. Of course you will sometimes get images of it doing 'abnormal' behavior, but all an average is done (as they do for all PET and CAT scans for studies), and it will appear as though it very predictable.
Just decided to throw my two cents in since I've been working on related code. I cannot comment on all toolkits I have seen since I only have so much time in my life. However, many of the frameworks I have seen seem to be almost the same thing, but packaged a little differently. I beleive what is really needed is a new approach to the problem. Instead of requiring the whole program be encapsulated into the graphical interface, it would be much nicer if you could write your program first, THEN tie in the graphical parts. After having worked with MFC, I have seen an approach that definately does not work. Its not that the document/view model will never work, but rather that it might not be the correct model for everyone. It makes it very hard to take an already existing program and transform it into a graphical counterpart. Don't get me wrong, I love OOP. C++ is one of my favourite languages (Scheme is about the same rank). But instead of creating a framework that both the program, and the GUI must be wrapped around, it makes more sense to have a more distributed approach (i.e. only involve the GUI when it is needed, associate enough code with the widget set that it can act on its own, but limit it so that it is reusable for almost any situation). And on a final note, the things wrong I have seen with QT: 1) deviation from C++. C++ is a very rich and expressive language. Not as expressive as PERL perhaps, but this can be a Good Thing (tm). Any time I see extensive uses of macros in C++, I will immediately give up on any hope (MFC and QT are the biggest offenders). 2) Virtual functions are cool. They're great in fact. But it seems a very limiting approach to use them to handle events. You are limiting yourself because you must handle those events regardless. You do have the ability to just do a return, but then theres a lot of extra code. Virtual functions are supposed to save us from work, not create more! There are other ways besides virtual functions (C has managed all this time).
Slashdot Mirror
I am not trying to be mean, but this is a horrible question. What do you mean by develop "your own technology"? Almost any programming project requires a certain amount of innovation (if its to mean anything, and be sellable by a company).
<p>
Secondly, like a previous "ask slashdot", you are confusing the method with the language. This is almost completely dependent on what the employees in your company. The question of whether to use Java is not so much a question of language, but whether you need it to work across platforms. However, keep in mind Java tends to be slow, and usually not such a great thing for realtime involving a lot of data.
<p>
If your company decides to use linux, there are many tools available for sound transfer. There are at least 2 or 3 sounds projects I know of. TCP/IP is almost free using any UN*X clone, and that sounds like the majority of your project.
Plus, you can keep all your libraries by using:
rpm -ivh qtxxx.rpm
instead of
rpm -Uvh qtxxx.rpm
The first one just installs the libraries, the second will upgrade. Upgrading meaning get rid of the old versions, install just installs.
7259249913
Here is your navigator : Mozilla/4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
Just a security hole of Slashdot. You can find this kind of hole in all sites which has a forum. I think that in site like e-trade you can make some people asks for stocks.
You can contact me there : Krakus.Irus à voila.com
If you want to retry.
If you want to know more.
If the whole legal trouble is not having licences for the DVD player then one solution might be to make a DVD player, have a 'company' (any sizable group of ppl) buy the license, and then distribute the source code for free. Of course, it would require the ppl who first used the software to pay for it (however much they could afford such that it could cover the original license cost). Due to the lack of funding our 'company' could go out of buisness leaving only a licensed version of the software. Obviously if someone were to take the source and compile it on their computer it would not be legal, but it would not be illegal to own like DeCSS is. No one can be sued over it because it was a company that no longer exists, and perhaps something could even be put into the agreement to allow ppl with licenses to extend that license to other ppl.
Does this mean that the case against the creators of decss is void? If the majority of the court case is based on the fact that people could illegally copy DVDs, then shouldn't they be prosecuting Pioneer as well?
If you are going to develop under Linux there are a couple of IDEs out there. None as nice as M$ developer, but in truth what they provide is mostly glitz. When I first switched I desperately wanted something equivalent.. I tried CodeCrusader, the KIDE, etc. When it came down to it, XEmacs/Emacs ended up being the most robust, easiest to use, all around good editor. This is not meant to try to say Emacs is better than VI, or that perhaps you may not perfer KIDE or Code Crusader. But rather, I think one might end up realizing that the glitz and controls one is used to M$ stuff, isn't as necessary/useful as the tools you can get with a more functional editor. I will say, however, things like a window with all your project files in it is something I miss.. Emacs has something called speedbar, but its nowhere near as useful.
Except for KIDE, none of these editors will provide you with an instant-application-creator (i.e. RAD). The closest you may come is glade (there is another one around with similiar functionality) that is damn close to a RAD.. maybe it even is a RAD, that allows you to quickly and easily build up GTK/GNOME applications.. I played with it for half an hour or so, so I don't know too much else about it.
As far as cross platformability, however, GTK will not cut it, and you're mostly left (at least to my knowledge) with either QT (I can't remember if KDE will run on W$ or not..), or wxWindows. Neither I am too fond of, but I suppose they are probably better than MFC. If you do go with KDE, and want a RAD, then KIDE is probably a good choice. I have no clue about wxWindows.. Someone was porting GTK to W$, but I don't think its stable yet.. Abe
Personally I dislike KDE (flame-shield). I am not trying to advocate preferences to anyone else, but it stems from QT, and as cited by many individuals, the kludged-preprocessor that must be used for their connections/slot technology. Likewise, I think that the GTK model is perhaps one the best designed models around. This is not saying anything about the implementation, as I am not the most familiar with it, but just simply if I had to create my own widget toolkit, I would probably end up with something like it.
Yet another problem with KDE is that it is C++ based. I haven't checked, but I'm sure there are plenty of bindings that exist now for other languages, but there is an inherent problem. C is fundementally easier to port to C++ than the other way around simply because it is a subset of C++ (i.e. C++ was built from C). I usually almost always write C++ code, even when I don't use OOP, but if I were to create a widget toolkit, I would most likely use C to allow a greater audience. It is quite easy (and infact, this is one of the reasons C++ was made) to encapsulate C code in C++.
I should point out that I have been assuming that anyone that uses GTK would be in the GNOME catagory, but this is not necessarily true. Again there is forking of work simply because to different people different methods of developement are better. While I beleive the component methodology is good, I have to admit I am a little skeptical of CORBA. I should also admit I know very little about it. I think one thing that would be nice to see is more effort put on the GTK widgets, with a focus on their efficiency, and perhaps even on splitting a few widgets into smaller components. I would think this would be more of a GTK issue than GNOME.
My point (somewhat elongated) is simply that there are many views on how developement should be done. It is pointless for people to just blindly write code for a system they don't think works properly. For example, I have had to write MFC code before. I never again want to in my life. I shudder every time someone mentions making an MFC like model under *nix. Not only does it suffer from the same preprocessor problems that QT does (although its better hidden), (not too suprisingly) M$ has no concept what it means to be object oriented! I don't care what language you write code in -- heck, I've written OO ASM code before, but rather that you employ it in a meaningful way in which it helps one write code, not hinder it/confuse everyone. The worst part to MFC is their document/view model. This model works amazingly well for things such as word processors, but I think it flops (from several thousand feet up onto metal spikes in cement) for anything else. Its the usual M$ "our way" approach, which ends up in some of the most disgusting code (not written by me of course :)) I've ever seen.
Of course, I am more than happy to use any of the applications that come out of KDE, and am drooling for KWord to come out (if its all it is cracked up to be). I just rather not have to deal with the QT toolkit, and know that I'll be that much more efficient with GTK.
For example, they could release the Win95 code now, then decide to release Win2000 with a few 'fixes' so it no longer runs normal Window software (actually, they are basically doing this anyways). We now have Win95 code (woohoo), but its useless. They goverment might even say, "hey! release win2000 code now." And of course M$ complies, but only after a couple court injunctions, +/- 2 or 3 years, etc.
In the end, M$ would get off scott free (and I feel sorry for Scott), consumers end up paying more to upgrade all their software to use the newest M$ OS (btw, don't forget Win 3.1... anyone still run programs from that?), and M$ gets even more money then they were before.
The one way around this that I can think of, is that gov. requiring M$ to use something such as CVS (no M$ crap where they might alter and hide code), and a required check for compilation check (that is, compile the code from CVS, and do a checksum to see they are indeed the same thing).
One last point, don't forget, normal M$ code is crap (consider MFC for a ms or so). If they are required to share code, one can only imagine them obscuring code even further (if this is possible). Remember when Netscape opened their source code? Granted, there would be more reason to look at the source code -- but it won't be an easy task.
Plus, who decides whats part of the operating system? Do device drivers count? Do they finally admit Windows is really just a shell on top of MSDOS 7, in which case they only release MSDOS? Etc.
It is extremely difficult to tell what the scientists found based on the article. For example, "..it processes information serially, even though the underlying neural hardware is operating in parallel."
It would seem from this statement that they are considering part of the brain 'hardware', while other parts not. This seems like fragile reasoning as last I checked it consists of neurons and glial cells (okay, throw in some blood and ions as well).
I am going to make an assumption that they are referring to a person's attention when talking about the 'other part of the brain' -- that is, the brain takes the entire scene in all at once (this we know happens), but can only attend to one particular part of the scene at a time.
This is not a new discovery. In fact it was pointed out quite a while ago by William James. He describes concsiousness as the process of selecting what to pay attention to. That is, we can only really pay attention to one task at a time, but the brain takes in a whole lot. James is usually right.
Looking later in the article: "Luck and Woodman discovered that the brain turned its attention from one block to the next at intervals of about 1/10th second." Thus it would seem instead of describing how we view the world, they are rather describing the rate at which we attend to physically seen objects.
I would suspect that they could do a similiar experiment with sound, taste, etc. I have not seen any mention to factors such as rate that they eye can move at (as mentioned by a previous post), or even how far apart objects were.
Finally they a measure a brainwave without giving a good reason to pay attention to that brain wave. It reminds me of a joke I read once: "A scientist wants to figure out what makes an insect concious. He theorizes it must be the legs [okay, not smartest person]. He takes one leg off. It appears that the insect cannot make decisions as well as before. He continues in this fashion until the insect can no longer walk, and thus make a concious decision where to move."
In reality it is very difficult to probe the brain. Taking EEGs only gets weak signals off the top of the brain, and cannot measure other impotrant parts of the brain. Other measuring tools such as a PET or CAT scan operate a large intervals, not giving an overall picture of the brain (from what I've been told they can only image something like every 5 minutes). Imagine a system that is totally chaotic, except that normalizes for large amounts of time. Of course you will sometimes get images of it doing 'abnormal' behavior, but all an average is done (as they do for all PET and CAT scans for studies), and it will appear as though it very predictable.
Just decided to throw my two cents in since I've been working on related code. I cannot comment on all toolkits I have seen since I only have so much time in my life. However, many of the frameworks I have seen seem to be almost the same thing, but packaged a little differently.
I beleive what is really needed is a new approach to the problem. Instead of requiring the whole program be encapsulated into the graphical interface, it would be much nicer if you could write your program first, THEN tie in the graphical parts.
After having worked with MFC, I have seen an approach that definately does not work. Its not that the document/view model will never work, but rather that it might not be the correct model for everyone. It makes it very hard to take an already existing program and transform it into a graphical counterpart.
Don't get me wrong, I love OOP. C++ is one of my favourite languages (Scheme is about the same rank). But instead of creating a framework that both the program, and the GUI must be wrapped around, it makes more sense to have a more distributed approach (i.e. only involve the GUI when it is needed, associate enough code with the widget set that it can act on its own, but limit it so that it is reusable for almost any situation).
And on a final note, the things wrong I have seen with QT: 1) deviation from C++. C++ is a very rich and expressive language. Not as expressive as PERL perhaps, but this can be a Good Thing (tm). Any time I see extensive uses of macros in C++, I will immediately give up on any hope (MFC and QT are the biggest offenders). 2) Virtual functions are cool. They're great in fact. But it seems a very limiting approach to use them to handle events. You are limiting yourself because you must handle those events regardless. You do have the ability to just do a return, but then theres a lot of extra code. Virtual functions are supposed to save us from work, not create more! There are other ways besides virtual functions (C has managed all this time).