What percent of software installed on a typical Windows machine is written in interpreted language or compiled into "write-once-run-anywhere" bytecode?
Software written in languages you mention is mostly server-side. Even Java failed as a platform for desktop applications.
And no, "most developers" aren't coding web apps. The need for raw speed is still critical (ever tried using Eclipse? How many people have you seen using it?)
They don't believe in hype. Why do they keep bumping up version numbers then? It all began with 1.6.x becoming 2.0 and right then 3.0 without major changes (ok, at least THAT major to justify 2.0->3.0 bump up) in code. Now, after just 4 years after being 1.6.x they are becoming 5.0.
Upon seeing that desperate trying to catch up with other BSDs versions (I guess it might be something personal with de Raadt's OpenBSD, which gets released regularly) I just stopped using their OS and switched to FreeBSD, they are more serious about versions and releases (switch wasn't that painful anyway, and I got a working nvidia driver).
One of the things that keeps us safe, and keeps us from fighting long, protracted wars is the fact that other countries have a damned hard time competing with us technologically on the battlefield.
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection. Why is not software?
I'm not an American, so may I ask you, whether it is possible in US for "general public"
to inspect a nuclear power plant building for safety
to get a complete documentation on ATM or at least credit card they use
to get a complete list of ingredients of medication they buy?
Can one get at least a complete map of the place he/she lives, with all the underground communication documented?
The freedom to restrict another's freedom is not freedom, it is tyranny.
That's an exaggeration. From what we heard here in Russia, Americans value a thing called "private property". Doesn't your right to "own" something restrict my equal right to own that thing too?:>
Sure it does grant. I could have made it for my own exclusive use and you have no right to demand that I sell it to you.
If you do me a favor (e.g. save my life, or just pay enough money), I make it available for you as well. But I don't approve all of your acquaintances and don't want it to get into wrong hands, so I ask you (and you agree, effectively signing a contract) not to share it with others.
Please stop calling all Eastern Europeans "Russians". Russia is not in the EU and Russians cannot easily move to Ireland (certainly not in large numbers). Poles and other Western/Southern Slavs have similar languages to Russian, but they are not Russians (in the same way as Dutch/Danish aren't Germans and French aren't English).
What substantial changes in development process had happened to allow this? I doubt that new Windows is that good as long as they continue hiring students and rushing the projects. And Windows 7, with its 2009 release date looks like it is going to be a rushed project, once again.
I think it's more about fear of losses than actual losses itself. Most people who buy pirated stuff cannot afford buying (the same amount of) legal stuff, so it is incorrect to count all the counterfeit sales as "losses".
As an example: people in Russia earn about $400/month on average - do you think it increases the chances for Linux/free software popularity? No, everyone just buys counterfeited Windows, which costs about 2-3$ in semi-legal shops. You can even find custom Windows "distros" on the net. Does that count as "loss of sales" for Microsoft? I doubt that.
Well, at least for me it is news that Finnish ISP do blacklist [arbitrary] sites. I'm not in Finland myself (have been there to Assembly demoparty though), but I didn't expect them (a pretty liberal nation, at least as it seems from Russian POV) to censor the internet.
French authorities are smart. In order to speed up creating the database, they put up an online petition against it, so people are giving their names themselves:)
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Well, don't speak for all the geeks:) Firefox is a bit unresponsive on my older FreeBSD box (Dell GX 260) - I'd give Chrome a try, if it were available for my platform.
You ignore Javascript boost, which is crucial for older hardware. Try opening Slashdot in Firefox and switch between tabs - it takes more than a second to navigate away from one Slashdot article to another at my box, sometimes I even have to wait for a few seconds. I hope Chrome will be better.
You may try FreeBSD (if you are familiar with Unix) or DesktopBSD / PC-BSD (if your Unix journey started with Ubuntu). BSD are actually quite indistinguishable from Linux if everything you use is X applications.
The nice thing about BSDs is that they can be shipped with binary and other non-GPL kernel modules installed by default (because they use BSD license). The bad thing about BSDs is that video hardware support is poor (only FreeBSD boasts good 3D performance when using NVidia proprietary drivers - but ATI R300 series is not a good choice even for FreeBSD).
I think the main problem is not the packaging, but lack of backward compatibility in Unix world. I mean, if you are downloading an application written for Windows 98 in 1999, it's likely that it will run on your XP, because base libraries (like msvcrt.dll etc) are still there. Now, try to install some 1999-ish Linux software (especially if it's commercial and available in binary form only) on any modern distro.
Okay, my bad. I checked up and the case looks like that: it's my right to redistribute/possess the GPL'd software which I'm not copyright holder of is uncertain (some people were already fined for having "unlicensed" Linux distributions installed, which is absurd). However, Russian law still forbids me to incorporate GPL'd code into my programs.
But frankly speaking, I've seen GPL'd code used in closed source product of at least one Russian company, and I think that other software companies (except perhaps Russian FOSS supporters) do violate the license, too.
While theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely in practice. At least with publishers our company had to deal with - they all sell only copy-protected games. That means encrypting the exe and tying it to medium/license in some way in order to forbid running it without valid key. That cannot be done to a GPL'd program.
Well, copyright laws are there. Copyright owners of the GPL code are still (theoretically) able to sue the Russian who incorporated their code in Russian court. What is not certain is whether GPL (as included with most programs, i.e. in English and without paper form) is recognized, e.g. you may have no rights to redistribute the GPL'd program in Russia.
However, in practice, in a country where Windows is sold for mere few bucks (in 2006 prices) it is highly unlikely that anyone will be punished for violating GPL any time soon.
GPL'd code is de facto public domain in Russia (and I guess in other parts of Eastern Europe, too).
If GPL really made programming unprofitable there would be probably no market for software in countries that recognize the GPL:) Software will be developed by volunteers who are funded by the government (by the way, pretty similar to the way software was developed in USSR).
Well, I'm a programmer myself. If you are saying that I'm not "adding value" to the product, you don't value my job. Prior to saying that I should be stopped from "making money from software" make sure that you are able to implement all of applications you use yourself, or make sure that you're comfortable with using only "free" ones.
And no, people won't pay for GPL'd program if they know they can have it for free, no matter whether it works or not. Even Slashdot uses CentOS, though they can probably afford sufficient number of RHEL subscriptions. And as I have already said, not every product can live off the support.
If you succeed in making programming not profitable, then I just start violating GPL. And luckily for me, a Russian citizen, no Russian court is going to do anything against that, because GPL status in Russia is still unclear (we're not bound to contracts that are not written on paper, and license agreements in foreign languages are invalid if signed between two Russian subjects).
I am a former game programmer too. I know that no one is going to invest the time to clean up BSD code so it's safe to give it back (except maybe for a few occasional patches). But I don't see the possibility of using GPL'd code in a game at all. It's incompatible with copy protection, to begin with. And most games are still sold the traditional way.
Well, I know that some (East European) gamedev companies use GPL'd code secretly... but it does not count - they aren't giving their changes back anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
What percent of software installed on a typical Windows machine is written in interpreted language or compiled into "write-once-run-anywhere" bytecode?
Software written in languages you mention is mostly server-side. Even Java failed as a platform for desktop applications.
And no, "most developers" aren't coding web apps. The need for raw speed is still critical (ever tried using Eclipse? How many people have you seen using it?)
But Google does not call itself "The Pirate search engine" :)
They don't believe in hype. Why do they keep bumping up version numbers then? It all began with 1.6.x becoming 2.0 and right then 3.0 without major changes (ok, at least THAT major to justify 2.0->3.0 bump up) in code. Now, after just 4 years after being 1.6.x they are becoming 5.0.
Upon seeing that desperate trying to catch up with other BSDs versions (I guess it might be something personal with de Raadt's OpenBSD, which gets released regularly) I just stopped using their OS and switched to FreeBSD, they are more serious about versions and releases (switch wasn't that painful anyway, and I got a working nvidia driver).
Just put everything in ROM and don't care about the updates...
One of the things that keeps us safe, and keeps us from fighting long, protracted wars is the fact that other countries have a damned hard time competing with us technologically on the battlefield.
That, and the fact that you live so far away.
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection. Why is not software?
I'm not an American, so may I ask you, whether it is possible in US for "general public"
Can one get at least a complete map of the place he/she lives, with all the underground communication documented?
The freedom to restrict another's freedom is not freedom, it is tyranny.
That's an exaggeration. From what we heard here in Russia, Americans value a thing called "private property". Doesn't your right to "own" something restrict my equal right to own that thing too? :>
Sure it does grant. I could have made it for my own exclusive use and you have no right to demand that I sell it to you.
If you do me a favor (e.g. save my life, or just pay enough money), I make it available for you as well. But I don't approve all of your acquaintances and don't want it to get into wrong hands, so I ask you (and you agree, effectively signing a contract) not to share it with others.
What's so wrong and unethical about this?
And why do those UI improvements should matter in benchmarks?
Please stop calling all Eastern Europeans "Russians". Russia is not in the EU and Russians cannot easily move to Ireland (certainly not in large numbers). Poles and other Western/Southern Slavs have similar languages to Russian, but they are not Russians (in the same way as Dutch/Danish aren't Germans and French aren't English).
Does he run Linux?
Shake has always been available for Linux - in fact, it has been ported to MacOS/Windows from that OS. Shake 4 for Linux is sold for $4999 right now.
Besides, have you heard about Autodesk Smoke? That's a complete Linux-based online video editing suite.
What substantial changes in development process had happened to allow this? I doubt that new Windows is that good as long as they continue hiring students and rushing the projects. And Windows 7, with its 2009 release date looks like it is going to be a rushed project, once again.
I think it's more about fear of losses than actual losses itself. Most people who buy pirated stuff cannot afford buying (the same amount of) legal stuff, so it is incorrect to count all the counterfeit sales as "losses".
As an example: people in Russia earn about $400/month on average - do you think it increases the chances for Linux/free software popularity? No, everyone just buys counterfeited Windows, which costs about 2-3$ in semi-legal shops. You can even find custom Windows "distros" on the net. Does that count as "loss of sales" for Microsoft? I doubt that.
Well, at least for me it is news that Finnish ISP do blacklist [arbitrary] sites. I'm not in Finland myself (have been there to Assembly demoparty though), but I didn't expect them (a pretty liberal nation, at least as it seems from Russian POV) to censor the internet.
French authorities are smart. In order to speed up creating the database, they put up an online petition against it, so people are giving their names themselves :)
Well, don't speak for all the geeks :) Firefox is a bit unresponsive on my older FreeBSD box (Dell GX 260) - I'd give Chrome a try, if it were available for my platform.
You ignore Javascript boost, which is crucial for older hardware. Try opening Slashdot in Firefox and switch between tabs - it takes more than a second to navigate away from one Slashdot article to another at my box, sometimes I even have to wait for a few seconds. I hope Chrome will be better.
You may try FreeBSD (if you are familiar with Unix) or DesktopBSD / PC-BSD (if your Unix journey started with Ubuntu). BSD are actually quite indistinguishable from Linux if everything you use is X applications.
The nice thing about BSDs is that they can be shipped with binary and other non-GPL kernel modules installed by default (because they use BSD license). The bad thing about BSDs is that video hardware support is poor (only FreeBSD boasts good 3D performance when using NVidia proprietary drivers - but ATI R300 series is not a good choice even for FreeBSD).
I think the main problem is not the packaging, but lack of backward compatibility in Unix world. I mean, if you are downloading an application written for Windows 98 in 1999, it's likely that it will run on your XP, because base libraries (like msvcrt.dll etc) are still there. Now, try to install some 1999-ish Linux software (especially if it's commercial and available in binary form only) on any modern distro.
Once you sell a single copy of your GPL'd program, the client is able to redistribute it to everyone at no cost.
Okay, my bad. I checked up and the case looks like that: it's my right to redistribute/possess the GPL'd software which I'm not copyright holder of is uncertain (some people were already fined for having "unlicensed" Linux distributions installed, which is absurd). However, Russian law still forbids me to incorporate GPL'd code into my programs.
But frankly speaking, I've seen GPL'd code used in closed source product of at least one Russian company, and I think that other software companies (except perhaps Russian FOSS supporters) do violate the license, too.
While theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely in practice. At least with publishers our company had to deal with - they all sell only copy-protected games. That means encrypting the exe and tying it to medium/license in some way in order to forbid running it without valid key. That cannot be done to a GPL'd program.
Well, copyright laws are there. Copyright owners of the GPL code are still (theoretically) able to sue the Russian who incorporated their code in Russian court. What is not certain is whether GPL (as included with most programs, i.e. in English and without paper form) is recognized, e.g. you may have no rights to redistribute the GPL'd program in Russia.
However, in practice, in a country where Windows is sold for mere few bucks (in 2006 prices) it is highly unlikely that anyone will be punished for violating GPL any time soon.
GPL'd code is de facto public domain in Russia (and I guess in other parts of Eastern Europe, too).
If GPL really made programming unprofitable there would be probably no market for software in countries that recognize the GPL :) Software will be developed by volunteers who are funded by the government (by the way, pretty similar to the way software was developed in USSR).
Well, I'm a programmer myself. If you are saying that I'm not "adding value" to the product, you don't value my job. Prior to saying that I should be stopped from "making money from software" make sure that you are able to implement all of applications you use yourself, or make sure that you're comfortable with using only "free" ones.
And no, people won't pay for GPL'd program if they know they can have it for free, no matter whether it works or not. Even Slashdot uses CentOS, though they can probably afford sufficient number of RHEL subscriptions. And as I have already said, not every product can live off the support.
If you succeed in making programming not profitable, then I just start violating GPL. And luckily for me, a Russian citizen, no Russian court is going to do anything against that, because GPL status in Russia is still unclear (we're not bound to contracts that are not written on paper, and license agreements in foreign languages are invalid if signed between two Russian subjects).
I am a former game programmer too. I know that no one is going to invest the time to clean up BSD code so it's safe to give it back (except maybe for a few occasional patches). But I don't see the possibility of using GPL'd code in a game at all. It's incompatible with copy protection, to begin with. And most games are still sold the traditional way.
Well, I know that some (East European) gamedev companies use GPL'd code secretly... but it does not count - they aren't giving their changes back anyway.