I think the LGPL'ing of Qt 4.5 is going to kill Mono first, then GTK+, but not Java. As others have mentioned, Java is very popular on the server side of web development, and that won't be going away anythime soon. For desktop application development in Linux, Qt will become king. I have no problem with that.
Is that good enough for you? Because there are more. Lots more. Search the US Patent Office site for them.
Basically, Microsoft could enforce its patents to make Mono drop support for ADO.NET, ASP.NET and WinForms. Sure, they aren't part of the CLR, but Mono would be useless without them (especially in the eyes of Windows developers who the Mono team thought would flock to Linux if it had.NET support). It would basically kill Mono (although it seems pretty much dead now anyhow).
I have to admit I've never cared for the Griffiths E&M book. His writing style put me off, plus there's a bit too much hand-waving. At that level of E&M (beginning/intermediate) I prefer Purcell's "Electricity & Magnetism" or "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" by Reitz, Milford & Christy. The math and the explanations are better in those books than in Griffiths', in my opinion, and both are better preparation for Jackson's more comprehensive book.
Many people blame Bourbaki for the horrendous "new math" which infected mathematics teaching in the 1960's. And there is some validity to that accusation. A scathing indictment of Bourbaki was given by the renowned mathematician V.I. Arnold, author of famous books on classical mechanics and differential equations. Arnold tears apart the dry, lifeless and phony "rigor" and "purity" of Bourbaki and others who divorce mathematics from reality, which he describes as "sectarianism and isolationism which destroy the image of mathematics as a useful human activity in the eyes of all sensible people." Here's a link to his full comments: http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
As a mathematician, I have to agree with the critics of Bourbaki. It put mathematics on the wrong path, in my opinion, and much of that influence continues on today. Mathematicians would do well to heed Arnold's advice on the direction mathematics needs to take. "Pure mathematicians" and other people who still think that Bourbaki was "doing mathematics the right way" are simply misguided.
Actually, if you just want math typesetting for short documents (~ 1-3 pages), troff/groff + eqn is not a bad choice. You don't need to install anything extra since it already comes with every Linux/UNIX system. Throw in pic + grap + tbl and you could include some basic graphics as well.
I've been frustrated with LaTeX too, so I gave Lout a try several months ago. The language is definitely easier and more intuitive than LaTeX's, in my opinion. However the ouptut it produces doesn't look quite as good as LaTeX, with the exception of paragraph spacing. Also, there don't seem to be as many math symbols available as in LaTeX. This shouldn't be a problem unless you need some really obscure symbols, though. It's possible to use the LaTeX CM fonts in Lout, though I prefer Lout's default math font. And the built-in graphics capabilities in Lout aren't as powerful as packages such as PGF/Tikz or pstricks for LaTeX.
Overall, I would say that Lout is easier for a beginner to use. The learning curve is nowhere near as steep as LaTeX's, and you should be able to produce most types of documents in a shorter amount of time. But if you like to extensively customize your documents then you may miss some of the fine-grained functionality of LaTeX. LaTeX has simply been around a lot longer than Lout, and so it has a lot more packages available for it than Lout. In the end, Lout is still the same kind of typesetting system as LaTeX, just a bit simpler to use. For those who've never used either, I'd recommend Lout. But for long-time LaTeX users, there probably isn't a good enough reason to switch.
I agree with all your choices except for: * Quantum mechanics. I think Baym's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" is better than Shankar. Other good ones are Powell & Crasemann's "Quantum Mechanics" and Rojansky's "Introductory Quantum Mechanics".
* Electrodynamics. I've always thought Griffiths was overrated, and I found his writing style annoying. I much prefer "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" (3rd ed.) by Reitz, Milford and Christy. There's a new (4th) edition out, but the 3rd edition is great and can be had for cheap.
I think books on "mathematical methods in physics" would be useful, too. Someone else mentioned "Mathematical Physics" by Butkov, which I agree is excellent. Another good one is "Classical Mathematical Physics" by Thirring.
Also, "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler is a good (and sometimes overlooked) introduction to special relativity that may be helpful.
I think this is the most perceptive post on the whole topic. I've noticed that a lot of Libertarians are quite misanthropic. Their disdain for "big government" is really just a reflection of their disdain for people. A great deal of elitism goes into this, as the Libertarians think of themselves as being the only ones who are true "free thinkers" while society as a whole is just a bunch of sheep easily hoodwinked into accepting some of the benefits of "big government". Since that government was elected by those sheep, the Libertarians want to limit its powers as much as possible. To them, Government = Other People. I've definitely noticed that mentality among the Libertarians I know, all of whom are anti-social in varying degrees. Most of the ones I know also love Ayn Rand and are into Objectivism, which I guess makes sense. It's just a shame that they are represented way out of proportion among people in the IT field, for the reasons you gave.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if an Ubuntu/Microsoft patent deal is forthcoming, since Dell and Microsoft have such a deal for Dell's Suse Linux servers. Since Dell will be selling desktop systems with Ubuntu, they may make that same deal.
Especially this gem: "I have high regard for Microsoft. They produce some amazing software, and they made software much cheaper than it ever was before they were around. Many people at Microsoft are motivated by a similar ideal to one we have in Ubuntu: to empower people for the digital era."
Sorry, but I think Shuttleworth is an idiot for believing that nonsense. Too bad for Ubuntu.
While Microsoft still hasn't said exactly which patents are being violated, and many of their claims are likely invalid, they probably do have valid claims on certain parts of Mono's implementation of.NET (specifically, Windows.Forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET). If the Mono team removes those parts, then Mono is effectively dead, in my opinion. Not that I'll be losing any sleep over that, mind you. I always thought Mono was a waste of time for Linux. Even more so now that Java is GPLed.
I have a rotary phone at home too (I love retro stuff). Mine is the old-fashioned type that has the separate part you speak into on its own cord. And the ringer consists of brass bells and a small brass hammer...that sucker is LOUD. I mean waking the dead loud. I love it. I'm glad my landline provider still supports rotary.:) Here's a pic.
Wait a second, the reason which you are citing for not including Wine (namely, it'd be a support nightmare and would cause negative feeling towards Ubuntu) is not the reason that Shuttleworth gave (namely, that Linux shouldn't be seen as a cheap way to run Windows software). Are you saying that Shuttleworth was lying and that your reason is the real reason for not including Wine? So you are giving your hero a "pat on the back" for lying instead of being truthful about the reason?;)
How about this patent on ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, both of which are MS proprietary extensions which are *not* part of the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are many others. The Mono team admits that their implementation of ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms is a "potential" problem.
This one seems to cover Microsoft's ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, neither of which are covered by the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are lots more. The Mono project has admitted that ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms are patented extensions by Microsoft, and that they may have to remove those at some time (which would render Mono basically useless for most Windows developers and even some Linux developers).
Looks nice, but there are three things going against it: 1. It has the Windows keys. Give me a 101-key keyboard any day. 2. The programming utility doesn't work in Linux. 3. Only weighs about 4 lbs. Everyone knows that a decent keyboard should weigh at least 6 lbs.:)
Looks like I'll be sticking with my genuine Model M. What gets me is how much people pay for Model M's, I've always gotten mine either for free (company where I work discarded them for some reason) or dirt cheap ($1 each at a computer show). Now I have a whole stash of them, some of which I've given away to friends. I still have a bunch left, so I'll be clicking away the rest of my life.:)
Ugh, those Unicomp imitations have the awful Windows keys. The real Model M doesn't have those. Sorry, but there simply is no substitute for the real thing.
I wonder if those college students are aware that simple key combinations in Windows also give you basic (and advanced) accenting abilities. For example, to get the French cedilla ( ç ), just do Alt+0231, using the numbers on the numeric keypad (with NumLock on).
Mono also implements Windows.Forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are not part of the ECMA standard. Those are proprietary MS-patented extensions. Mono should either drop those or Linux distros should just drop Mono.
Lectures on Riemann Surfaces, RC Gunning (Best book I've read on Riemann surfaces.)
I've always liked "Introduction to Riemann Surfaces" by George Springer. The explanations are clear and his approach seemed more intuitive to me than other books'.
Enumerative Combinatorics I & II, Stanley (Everything you need to know about counting.)
Agreed, these are fantastic books on the subject. Marshall Hall's "Combinatorial Theory" is another good book on the subject.
Quantum Field Theory, Ryder (This is where I learned much of what I know.)
Ryder definitely has its strong points, and I've always been torn between Ryder and Hatfield for deciding which is my favorite QFT book.
Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology, Bott & Tu (A masterpiece of clarity.)
100% agreed, this book is fantastic. I learned spectral sequences from this book.
Introduction to Algorithms, Cormen, Leiserson & Rivest (I thought I knew it all until I read this!)
CLR is definitely a good and comprehensive book, but I've always preferred the classic "The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms" by Aho, Hopcroft & Ullman, for its mathematical rigor.
QED, Feynman (I'm lying, it's not on my shelf, I forgot who I lent it to. Eschew all QM books until you've read this.)
I think Roland Omnes' "Understanding Quantum Mechanics" is a good book to read before getting too much into the formal aspects.
Categories for the Working Mathematician, MacLane. (I'm lying again. It's too expensive, but it should be on my shelf...)
Never got into that subject, beyond what I learned in Lang's "Algebra", which was more than enough for me.:)
Thinking Forth, Brodie. (Forth is the most beautiful programming language ever...after Haskell.)
I have Brodie's "Starting Forth" book. But I think Lisp is the most beautiful language ever.:)
A First Course in General Relativity, Schutz. (I swear I understood this stuff 20 years ago, but age takes its toll...)
I like this book (though the notation is kind of annoying), but eventually anyone studying GR will have to read "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, which I think is a much more comprehensive book on GR. So I've always thought that MTW should be the GR book to read.
One book you didn't mention, but which I think every 'technical' person should own, is the classic "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin. People who know the book either love it or hate it. I'm in the "love it" camp. It's my favorite math book of all time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the LGPL'ing of Qt 4.5 is going to kill Mono first, then GTK+, but not Java. As others have mentioned, Java is very popular on the server side of web development, and that won't be going away anythime soon. For desktop application development in Linux, Qt will become king. I have no problem with that.
Here's one that covers ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6920461.PN.&OS=PN/6920461%3Cbr%20/%3E&RS=PN/6920461
Is that good enough for you? Because there are more. Lots more. Search the US Patent Office site for them.
Basically, Microsoft could enforce its patents to make Mono drop support for ADO.NET, ASP.NET and WinForms. Sure, they aren't part of the CLR, but Mono would be useless without them (especially in the eyes of Windows developers who the Mono team thought would flock to Linux if it had .NET support). It would basically kill Mono (although it seems pretty much dead now anyhow).
I have to admit I've never cared for the Griffiths E&M book. His writing style put me off, plus there's a bit too much hand-waving. At that level of E&M (beginning/intermediate) I prefer Purcell's "Electricity & Magnetism" or "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" by Reitz, Milford & Christy. The math and the explanations are better in those books than in Griffiths', in my opinion, and both are better preparation for Jackson's more comprehensive book.
Other CS books I like:
For math, my favorites are:
For physics, my favorites are:
Many people blame Bourbaki for the horrendous "new math" which infected mathematics teaching in the 1960's. And there is some validity to that accusation. A scathing indictment of Bourbaki was given by the renowned mathematician V.I. Arnold, author of famous books on classical mechanics and differential equations. Arnold tears apart the dry, lifeless and phony "rigor" and "purity" of Bourbaki and others who divorce mathematics from reality, which he describes as "sectarianism and isolationism which destroy the image of mathematics as a useful human activity in the eyes of all sensible people." Here's a link to his full comments:
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
As a mathematician, I have to agree with the critics of Bourbaki. It put mathematics on the wrong path, in my opinion, and much of that influence continues on today. Mathematicians would do well to heed Arnold's advice on the direction mathematics needs to take. "Pure mathematicians" and other people who still think that Bourbaki was "doing mathematics the right way" are simply misguided.
Actually, if you just want math typesetting for short documents (~ 1-3 pages), troff/groff + eqn is not a bad choice. You don't need to install anything extra since it already comes with every Linux/UNIX system. Throw in pic + grap + tbl and you could include some basic graphics as well.
I've been frustrated with LaTeX too, so I gave Lout a try several months ago. The language is definitely easier and more intuitive than LaTeX's, in my opinion. However the ouptut it produces doesn't look quite as good as LaTeX, with the exception of paragraph spacing. Also, there don't seem to be as many math symbols available as in LaTeX. This shouldn't be a problem unless you need some really obscure symbols, though. It's possible to use the LaTeX CM fonts in Lout, though I prefer Lout's default math font. And the built-in graphics capabilities in Lout aren't as powerful as packages such as PGF/Tikz or pstricks for LaTeX.
Overall, I would say that Lout is easier for a beginner to use. The learning curve is nowhere near as steep as LaTeX's, and you should be able to produce most types of documents in a shorter amount of time. But if you like to extensively customize your documents then you may miss some of the fine-grained functionality of LaTeX. LaTeX has simply been around a lot longer than Lout, and so it has a lot more packages available for it than Lout. In the end, Lout is still the same kind of typesetting system as LaTeX, just a bit simpler to use. For those who've never used either, I'd recommend Lout. But for long-time LaTeX users, there probably isn't a good enough reason to switch.
I agree with all your choices except for:
* Quantum mechanics. I think Baym's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" is better than Shankar. Other good ones are Powell & Crasemann's "Quantum Mechanics" and Rojansky's "Introductory Quantum Mechanics".
* Electrodynamics. I've always thought Griffiths was overrated, and I found his writing style annoying. I much prefer "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" (3rd ed.) by Reitz, Milford and Christy. There's a new (4th) edition out, but the 3rd edition is great and can be had for cheap.
I think books on "mathematical methods in physics" would be useful, too. Someone else mentioned "Mathematical Physics" by Butkov, which I agree is excellent. Another good one is "Classical Mathematical Physics" by Thirring.
Also, "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler is a good (and sometimes overlooked) introduction to special relativity that may be helpful.
He needs to both denounce and reject VB.
I think this is the most perceptive post on the whole topic. I've noticed that a lot of Libertarians are quite misanthropic. Their disdain for "big government" is really just a reflection of their disdain for people. A great deal of elitism goes into this, as the Libertarians think of themselves as being the only ones who are true "free thinkers" while society as a whole is just a bunch of sheep easily hoodwinked into accepting some of the benefits of "big government". Since that government was elected by those sheep, the Libertarians want to limit its powers as much as possible. To them, Government = Other People. I've definitely noticed that mentality among the Libertarians I know, all of whom are anti-social in varying degrees. Most of the ones I know also love Ayn Rand and are into Objectivism, which I guess makes sense. It's just a shame that they are represented way out of proportion among people in the IT field, for the reasons you gave.
53*47*43*41*37*34*31*29*11*7*5*2
so the 5*2 at the end guarantees that the answer will end in a 0.
Huh? Patent #6,920,461 is about the ADO.NET namespace and parts of ASP.NET. Where did you get that it was about WinForms? Try reading the patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6920461.PN.&OS=PN/6920461%3Cbr%20/%3E&RS=PN/6920461
By the way, ADO.NET and ASP.NET are not part of the ECMA standard for C# and the CLI. They are proprietary patented extensions (from MS) that Mono includes for "compatibility" reasons (i.e. no Windows developers would even think of using Mono without them). Sorry, but Mono is indeed a patent minefield.
For a bloat-free X app, you can't beat xlogo!
It wouldn't surprise me at all if an Ubuntu/Microsoft patent deal is forthcoming, since Dell and Microsoft have such a deal for Dell's Suse Linux servers. Since Dell will be selling desktop systems with Ubuntu, they may make that same deal.
Also, Shuttleworth appears to be a bit of a Microsoft fan. Read his confused comments here: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118
Especially this gem:
"I have high regard for Microsoft. They produce some amazing software, and
they made software much cheaper than it ever was before they were around.
Many people at Microsoft are motivated by a similar ideal to one we have
in Ubuntu: to empower people for the digital era."
Sorry, but I think Shuttleworth is an idiot for believing that nonsense. Too bad for Ubuntu.
While Microsoft still hasn't said exactly which patents are being violated, and many of their claims are likely invalid, they probably do have valid claims on certain parts of Mono's implementation of .NET (specifically, Windows.Forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET). If the Mono team removes those parts, then Mono is effectively dead, in my opinion. Not that I'll be losing any sleep over that, mind you. I always thought Mono was a waste of time for Linux. Even more so now that Java is GPLed.
I have a rotary phone at home too (I love retro stuff). :)
Mine is the old-fashioned type that has the separate part you speak into on its own cord. And the ringer consists of brass bells and a small brass hammer...that sucker is LOUD. I mean waking the dead loud. I love it. I'm glad my landline provider still supports rotary.
Here's a pic.
Wait a second, the reason which you are citing for not including Wine (namely, it'd be a support nightmare and would cause negative feeling towards Ubuntu) is not the reason that Shuttleworth gave (namely, that Linux shouldn't be seen as a cheap way to run Windows software). Are you saying that Shuttleworth was lying and that your reason is the real reason for not including Wine? So you are giving your hero a "pat on the back" for lying instead of being truthful about the reason? ;)
How about this patent on ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, both of which are MS proprietary extensions which are *not* part of the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are many others. The Mono team admits that their implementation of ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms is a "potential" problem.
This one seems to cover Microsoft's ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, neither of which are covered by the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are lots more. The Mono project has admitted that ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms are patented extensions by Microsoft, and that they may have to remove those at some time (which would render Mono basically useless for most Windows developers and even some Linux developers).
Looks nice, but there are three things going against it: :)
:)
1. It has the Windows keys. Give me a 101-key keyboard any day.
2. The programming utility doesn't work in Linux.
3. Only weighs about 4 lbs. Everyone knows that a decent keyboard should weigh at least 6 lbs.
Looks like I'll be sticking with my genuine Model M.
What gets me is how much people pay for Model M's, I've always gotten mine either for free (company where I work discarded them for some reason) or dirt cheap ($1 each at a computer show). Now I have a whole stash of them, some of which I've given away to friends. I still have a bunch left, so I'll be clicking away the rest of my life.
Ugh, those Unicomp imitations have the awful Windows keys. The real Model M doesn't have those. Sorry, but there simply is no substitute for the real thing.
I wonder if those college students are aware that simple key combinations in Windows also give you basic (and advanced) accenting abilities. For example, to get the French cedilla ( ç ), just do Alt+0231, using the numbers on the numeric keypad (with NumLock on).
Mono also implements Windows.Forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are not part of the ECMA standard. Those are proprietary MS-patented extensions. Mono should either drop those or Linux distros should just drop Mono.
Miguel supports this deal.
I've always liked "Introduction to Riemann Surfaces" by George Springer. The explanations are clear and his approach seemed more intuitive to me than other books'.
Agreed, these are fantastic books on the subject. Marshall Hall's "Combinatorial Theory" is another good book on the subject.
Ryder definitely has its strong points, and I've always been torn between Ryder and Hatfield for deciding which is my favorite QFT book.
100% agreed, this book is fantastic. I learned spectral sequences from this book.
CLR is definitely a good and comprehensive book, but I've always preferred the classic "The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms" by Aho, Hopcroft & Ullman, for its mathematical rigor.
I think Roland Omnes' "Understanding Quantum Mechanics" is a good book to read before getting too much into the formal aspects.
Never got into that subject, beyond what I learned in Lang's "Algebra", which was more than enough for me.
I have Brodie's "Starting Forth" book. But I think Lisp is the most beautiful language ever.
I like this book (though the notation is kind of annoying), but eventually anyone studying GR will have to read "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, which I think is a much more comprehensive book on GR. So I've always thought that MTW should be the GR book to read.
One book you didn't mention, but which I think every 'technical' person should own, is the classic "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin. People who know the book either love it or hate it. I'm in the "love it" camp. It's my favorite math book of all time.