What in the world are you talking about? There's no developmental issues. It's purely an issue of height. The toilet is taller than she is. Are you some sort of child development specialist? Are you implying I should put her up for adooption simply because she's too short to sit on the toilet all by herself? You must think pretty highly of yourself to be able to jump to absurd conclusions based off of the non-existant information you have.
Kids have solved my problem with getting up in the morning. I don't even set my clock anymore. I wake up every morning at about 7 to my oldest yelling, "Daddy, I have to go potty!"
The thing is, cable companies do not have monopolies in most areas. That used to be the case, but it isn't now. If you want high speed internet you can either pay the phone company for DSL or pay the cable company for their access. If you want a bazillion channels you can either pay for a sattelite system or pay for cable.
I chose DSL because SBC gives a fantastic rate in exchange for a 1 year contract ($20/year) compared to the cable company charging $40 or $50. I chose Dish Network because I get all the channels I want for $30 instead of paying $40 for the equivalent service.
If the cable companies had a monopoly, I'd have RoadRunner internet and TimeWarner cable right now and be paying more than twice as much.
That's why the commercial distrubutions of Linux have to better articulate why they are better. Price can be a part of why they're better but it shouldn't be the only thing that we harp on. PHBs might like cheaper in some instances, but "free" will make them very nervous (and most PHBs don't distinguish between beer and liberty).
I think the argument needs to shift from Linux being cheaper to Linux being better. Microsoft and Novell (as well as other Linux companies) will argue forever which OS has the lowest TCO. Companies don't want the lowest cost, they want the best value, even if it costs more. That's why people would rather purchase Cadillacs instead of Metros.
Yet the BSD Unices and the Debian distro have no problem with this. Why don't we find out what they're doing and implement it and then it truly is a non-issue.
Then we can move along with a lot more confidence.
But how long could that last? Perl5 would ever be changing and getting better. How long will you employ those programmers to backport Perl until you finally have to bite the bullet and rewrite your app ? Companies might as well do it sooner than later so that it doesn't cost them any more than it has to.
While you may be able to sell your modifications to perl (I'm not sure what license it's under), all changes made under a GPL licensed code would have to be given out for free. Not much profit in that.
Anyway, porting from VB6 to VB.NET may be a bit painful, but it's not the end of the world. There are lots of tutorials on how to do it quickly and efficiently. You never know, maybe you could throw in some of those features that didn't make it into the last version of your software.
So what does it mean if they no longer support it. Does it mean that you can't develop in VB6 anymore? Of course not. Does it mean you can't call them up and ask them questions about VB6? I don't know of any developer that would call up Microsoft to ask them a question about VB6. If they have questions, they check out newgroups and mailing lists just like F/OSS developers do.
Really the only thing that will change is that Microsoft will no longer release bug fixes. When was the last time you downloaded a bug fix for VB6 anyway? If you have functioning legacy software that uses VB6 then bug fixes probably aren't needed. If you're going to develop something new, you still have the option of using VB6 or you can use the latest and greatest development tools/language.
I fail to see the difference between this and an F/OSS project that's abandoned by its maintainer, especially those that are waning in their usefulness.
I would agree with some of the scenes that you mentioned, but my way of judging good CG and bad CG is whether I notice whether it is CG or not. Considering how much CG was in Lord of the Rings, I rarely noticed the CG at all and lost myself within the film. The places where I did notice the CG were in parts that were difficult but could be done in few other ways, such as the wargs.
She actually did offer to work with the devs to identify the features most requested. She offered to write a php script to take the feature requests from bugzilla and allow people for a period of time to vote for their favorite 3 requests. When she offered to do this work for the devs is when they came back with their infamous statement that the only way a feature will get coded is if a dev wants to do it (ie has a need for it personally).
Slashdot Mirror
What in the world are you talking about? There's no developmental issues. It's purely an issue of height. The toilet is taller than she is. Are you some sort of child development specialist? Are you implying I should put her up for adooption simply because she's too short to sit on the toilet all by herself? You must think pretty highly of yourself to be able to jump to absurd conclusions based off of the non-existant information you have.
Don't you know it.
Kids have solved my problem with getting up in the morning. I don't even set my clock anymore. I wake up every morning at about 7 to my oldest yelling, "Daddy, I have to go potty!"
The thing is, cable companies do not have monopolies in most areas. That used to be the case, but it isn't now. If you want high speed internet you can either pay the phone company for DSL or pay the cable company for their access. If you want a bazillion channels you can either pay for a sattelite system or pay for cable.
I chose DSL because SBC gives a fantastic rate in exchange for a 1 year contract ($20/year) compared to the cable company charging $40 or $50. I chose Dish Network because I get all the channels I want for $30 instead of paying $40 for the equivalent service.
If the cable companies had a monopoly, I'd have RoadRunner internet and TimeWarner cable right now and be paying more than twice as much.
That's why the commercial distrubutions of Linux have to better articulate why they are better. Price can be a part of why they're better but it shouldn't be the only thing that we harp on. PHBs might like cheaper in some instances, but "free" will make them very nervous (and most PHBs don't distinguish between beer and liberty).
I think the argument needs to shift from Linux being cheaper to Linux being better. Microsoft and Novell (as well as other Linux companies) will argue forever which OS has the lowest TCO. Companies don't want the lowest cost, they want the best value, even if it costs more. That's why people would rather purchase Cadillacs instead of Metros.
Yet the BSD Unices and the Debian distro have no problem with this. Why don't we find out what they're doing and implement it and then it truly is a non-issue.
Then we can move along with a lot more confidence.
But how long could that last? Perl5 would ever be changing and getting better. How long will you employ those programmers to backport Perl until you finally have to bite the bullet and rewrite your app ? Companies might as well do it sooner than later so that it doesn't cost them any more than it has to.
While you may be able to sell your modifications to perl (I'm not sure what license it's under), all changes made under a GPL licensed code would have to be given out for free. Not much profit in that.
Anyway, porting from VB6 to VB.NET may be a bit painful, but it's not the end of the world. There are lots of tutorials on how to do it quickly and efficiently. You never know, maybe you could throw in some of those features that didn't make it into the last version of your software.
So what does it mean if they no longer support it. Does it mean that you can't develop in VB6 anymore? Of course not. Does it mean you can't call them up and ask them questions about VB6? I don't know of any developer that would call up Microsoft to ask them a question about VB6. If they have questions, they check out newgroups and mailing lists just like F/OSS developers do.
Really the only thing that will change is that Microsoft will no longer release bug fixes. When was the last time you downloaded a bug fix for VB6 anyway? If you have functioning legacy software that uses VB6 then bug fixes probably aren't needed. If you're going to develop something new, you still have the option of using VB6 or you can use the latest and greatest development tools/language.
I fail to see the difference between this and an F/OSS project that's abandoned by its maintainer, especially those that are waning in their usefulness.
I would agree with some of the scenes that you mentioned, but my way of judging good CG and bad CG is whether I notice whether it is CG or not. Considering how much CG was in Lord of the Rings, I rarely noticed the CG at all and lost myself within the film. The places where I did notice the CG were in parts that were difficult but could be done in few other ways, such as the wargs.
She actually did offer to work with the devs to identify the features most requested. She offered to write a php script to take the feature requests from bugzilla and allow people for a period of time to vote for their favorite 3 requests. When she offered to do this work for the devs is when they came back with their infamous statement that the only way a feature will get coded is if a dev wants to do it (ie has a need for it personally).
All of this information is in the second article.