If MS didn't exist anymore the Linux zealots would have to get a vision. They'd have to figure out what it is that they are after. I think they should focus more on a worthwhile vision than just on slaying the beast
Again I would have to ask why you think anything that happens in Linux world has anything to do with MS. Linux existed before Windows - it'll exist after.
But if there were no weaknesses in Linux, the zealots wouldn't need to resort to spreading FUD about MS.
Hah, Linux FUD. Because of course Linux is a centralised entity that fights against MS. How much is MS paying you again? No one is pretending linux is perfect unless they're stupid. But only complete idiots would claim MS is really ontop of security.
But they get real angry when they are forced to explain away yet another Firefox vulnerability, or why Open Office is so damn slow and bloated.
Yeah, it's real bad that we can actually see the problems in Firefox and OO and actually fix them - it's so much better when MS just keeps the source away from morons like us and doesn't allow us to help fix anything. I mean damn - no one claims these products are perfect. It's just a reaction against those who claim MS knows best when there is no evidence for that.
The other parts talked about various ways of making computers much more useful tools to help humans reach their goals.
There's that talking again. Microsoft talk a good talk but don't walk a good walk.
Besides, in what world is Google bigger than Microsoft?
The world of search. Microsoft lovers may think that being big on the desktop is big deal but most computers are embedded systems running on 4-bit microprocessors so what the fuck has MS got to do with that? They're spreading themselves very thin on Office and Windows - their only profitably products. It doesn't take a genious to see that it's not economically viable to subsidse everything you do on the strength of just two of your products - especially when you have lots of people determined to rip them from you.
Microsoft is big? Yeah so what. So are a lot of companies. Being big is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they can actually deliver on the hot air they spout.
I've never understood why/. has orgasms about everything Google does./.ers are easily swayed.
I don't. I'm interested in the product. The promise of a product is still a non-product. I used to use IE in the bad old days of NS4. I hated NS4 with a passion. And now I use Firefox.
So the simple message is Microsoft can huff and puff as much as they like and people like you can bang on about how great Microsoft is but I just don't give a fuck until I see something solid from them. Their promises are worth shit I'm afraid.
I've never heard anybody say what the goal is after MS is dead. No vision.
Because of couse, people work on Linux just to kill MS, not because they enjoy it or find it useful or interesting.
What will people do if MS dies? Carry on, carry on. You make it sound as if computer science would die if MS did.
Why in the world would you want to create stupid ass console apps when you can create apps with buttons and textboxes and menus?
I can think of many, many programs where a 'stupid ass console' is far superior to the cruft of a GUI. And no, you don't HAVE to be a *nix head to appreciate - even in the world of Windows console programs can be far more useful than a GUI one.
Buttons, textboxes and menus are, or should be if you're using good design, irrelevent to your actual program. I rarely start any project as a GUI - I design the program first then I design the GUI as a convenient way to interact with it. The best designed programs are apathetic with regards to how they are interacted with.
After all, that is what GUI stands for: Graphical User Interface. And hence an interface it should be - not the main thrust of the exercise of programming. If VS is telling you this is a stupid and oldhat way of doing things that's http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#no vitatem.argumentem ad novitatem and is certainly something that is wrong in that case.
So you have the UK potentially covered. What about everyone else?
As he and I are UK subjects I'm not entirely sure we're that worried about everyone else. Certainly not concerned about how Americans plan to get their content.
And what lawful sources in the UK are there other than the BBC?
Currently none. But so what? There's enough BBC content in their 60 year archive to satisfy anyone. I'm sure if ITV or Channel 4 (or perhaps even five)
wants to get on board with a scheme of their own they will.
The atoms that make up any individual are being rearranged all the time - it may matter to an individual on an emotional level but from a physical perspective it is totally inconsequential. One carbon atom is very much like another.
Bad analogy. X-Windows is more like an engine - we have cars with the same engine in them but with different styles on the outside - the Windowing systems are the chassis' and paintjobs and other nuts and bolts that make a complete car. People like to buy things with different styles - otherwise we'd still be driving Model T's. Windows is a bit like the Model T situation where you can have any UI you like as long as it's Windows. Choice is good. People like to choose.
guess the answer is that if you use switch to jump into a loop, the loop is still initialized?
Is there any intialization for this loop?
Does this have to do with how this translates to machine code? A do loop is just a conditional jump backwards, right?
Yes. 'do' doesn't actually do anything - it is merely a marker that specifies the start of a block of a do-while construct. There's no instruction to be created for it.
Would this still work with a loop where the test condition is at the beginning, so all you reach at the end is the end of the scope opened earlier
Well a while { } loop should still function correctly - unless an optimization meant that it was assumed a register contained the value of some object used in the conditional and hence performed an operation on a register without the correct contents (a likely scenario so it's possible that particular bit of dataflow peculiarity may have been accounted for in most compilers) - since the jump back to test for the condition will work no matter where you enter the loop. A for loop would probably cause trouble though if you used an initilization, otherwise it'd be equivalent to the while loop.
The basic thing to remember here is that case is just a special label for a point in code. Think about the code that would be generated - remember that C is not an interpreted language.
This is where Windows is lightyears ahead: setup screens all look the same, behave the same way, and are easy to install.
Why is this a Linux vs Windows issue? True, much software in the Windows world uses Install Shield but that in no way means that all does. Some will use other installers (goodbye same look and use) and some may just extract themselves into a directory leaving you not much better off than a source distribution with regards to software management. Windows by no means has any benefit with installation compared to Linux and infact lacks any regimented install system (the registry system is a joke). You can't blame linux because someone whose written a piece of software for linux hasn't spent time on an installer or packaged it.
As such Windows has nothing to really do with regards to installation so it can't be light years ahead of anything.
Well it would probably be a good idea, since you clearly have some high use of your site, to recruit some more moderators. You need a moderation heirarchy.
One needs to remember that just because something didn't exist in the Open Source world last week doesn't mean it doesn't exist now. I'm constantly astonished by the rapid development of some of the bigger Open Source projects - Linux in particular.
However, people are not assholes just because they don't have the same objectives as you.
Nice post Captain Strawman! I never argued as such. The advantage of Linux is diversity not uniformity. That doesn't mean people have to be rude because they consider GUIs to be beneath them or that they consider someone to be the wrong class of person to use 'their' OS - because it's the people's OS, not theirs.
Real 1337 users would be building their distro from the ground up so complaints that brand X is 'too dumbed down' doesn't fly with me.
As any businessman can tell you, scaring away the customers is not good for business.:-)
Indeed, but Linux is not a business and the people in the community you are referring to are not business-like. Unfortunately there's very little one can do if these people cannot be reasoned with. We just have to try our best to be more vocal in our helpfulness then they are in their scorn.
When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"
Some people are just assholes. People will say that for certain Windows software and such as well. It's not an exclusively Linux thing - it just happens to be more associated with it.
Ah yes but the point is that it only matters that for any road everyone applies the same standard - obviously applying the wrong standard on the wrong road won't work. It reinforces my point that it is not uniformity that is required, merely everyone knowing where they stand. Obviously if the correct driving protocol - whatever that may be in the Italian case - is secret that is a bad thing.
With regards to Italians most of the continent doesn't seem to care that much about road safety - in fact it seems to be an alien concept over there with some of the most dangerous roads in the world. And the French seem positively determined to run me down (perhaps they can just tell I'm a Brit?).
But standards *do* happen. There are just too many areas in life that would become totally inoperable if everyone did things differently. Like driving for example. But then having a standard doesn't necessarially mean 'everyone is uniform' - in this context it usually just means everyone can understand the interface or specification for your standard without needing the use of dowsing, divine revelation, mediums or perhaps reverse engineering to work with that interface of specification.
The basic problem is that it is a big program and uses a lot of memory. The basic trick IE uses that makes its load-up times faster is that it doesn't really 'load-up' at all - its process it a permenant residence of Windows. However there is a quick start agent for Mozilla - I don't remember if they turned it off by default or something but they did have one. I'm not sure one exists for Linux either. It's all about sacraficing boot times vs. individual loading times though.
Slashdot Mirror
If MS didn't exist anymore the Linux zealots would have to get a vision. They'd have to figure out what it is that they are after. I think they should focus more on a worthwhile vision than just on slaying the beast
Again I would have to ask why you think anything that happens in Linux world has anything to do with MS. Linux existed before Windows - it'll exist after.
But if there were no weaknesses in Linux, the zealots wouldn't need to resort to spreading FUD about MS.
Hah, Linux FUD. Because of course Linux is a centralised entity that fights against MS. How much is MS paying you again? No one is pretending linux is perfect unless they're stupid. But only complete idiots would claim MS is really ontop of security.
But they get real angry when they are forced to explain away yet another Firefox vulnerability, or why Open Office is so damn slow and bloated.
Yeah, it's real bad that we can actually see the problems in Firefox and OO and actually fix them - it's so much better when MS just keeps the source away from morons like us and doesn't allow us to help fix anything. I mean damn - no one claims these products are perfect. It's just a reaction against those who claim MS knows best when there is no evidence for that.
The other parts talked about various ways of making computers much more useful tools to help humans reach their goals.
/. has orgasms about everything Google does. /.ers are easily swayed.
There's that talking again. Microsoft talk a good talk but don't walk a good walk.
Besides, in what world is Google bigger than Microsoft?
The world of search. Microsoft lovers may think that being big on the desktop is big deal but most computers are embedded systems running on 4-bit microprocessors so what the fuck has MS got to do with that? They're spreading themselves very thin on Office and Windows - their only profitably products. It doesn't take a genious to see that it's not economically viable to subsidse everything you do on the strength of just two of your products - especially when you have lots of people determined to rip them from you.
Microsoft is big? Yeah so what. So are a lot of companies. Being big is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they can actually deliver on the hot air they spout.
I've never understood why
I don't. I'm interested in the product. The promise of a product is still a non-product. I used to use IE in the bad old days of NS4. I hated NS4 with a passion. And now I use Firefox.
So the simple message is Microsoft can huff and puff as much as they like and people like you can bang on about how great Microsoft is but I just don't give a fuck until I see something solid from them. Their promises are worth shit I'm afraid.
I've never heard anybody say what the goal is after MS is dead. No vision.
Because of couse, people work on Linux just to kill MS, not because they enjoy it or find it useful or interesting.
What will people do if MS dies? Carry on, carry on. You make it sound as if computer science would die if MS did.
Bill Gates speaks of all these cool visionary ideas and long-term research and all he get's from this crowd is hate.
That's because talk is cheap. And corporate posturing is worthless.
BTW what visionary ideas and long-term research do you refer to? I hardly call trying to play catch-up with Google visionary.
Why in the world would you want to create stupid ass console apps when you can create apps with buttons and textboxes and menus?
o vitatem.argumentem ad novitatem and is certainly something that is wrong in that case.
I can think of many, many programs where a 'stupid ass console' is far superior to the cruft of a GUI. And no, you don't HAVE to be a *nix head to appreciate - even in the world of Windows console programs can be far more useful than a GUI one.
Buttons, textboxes and menus are, or should be if you're using good design, irrelevent to your actual program. I rarely start any project as a GUI - I design the program first then I design the GUI as a convenient way to interact with it. The best designed programs are apathetic with regards to how they are interacted with.
After all, that is what GUI stands for: Graphical User Interface. And hence an interface it should be - not the main thrust of the exercise of programming. If VS is telling you this is a stupid and oldhat way of doing things that's http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#n
Your teacher's an idiot?
But then again I wasn't drunk and high while I was reading wikipedia....
How ironic that I find that is the best time to fire up a random page in Wikipedia.
Indeed, someday they might run across an alien race where there are three sexes.
/me thinks Alien Nation.
Cryptic clue word:
OAK.
So you have the UK potentially covered. What about everyone else?
As he and I are UK subjects I'm not entirely sure we're that worried about everyone else. Certainly not concerned about how Americans plan to get their content.
And what lawful sources in the UK are there other than the BBC?
Currently none. But so what? There's enough BBC content in their 60 year archive to satisfy anyone. I'm sure if ITV or Channel 4 (or perhaps even five) wants to get on board with a scheme of their own they will.
Which other lawful downloading did you have in mind?
BBC content perhaps?
Oh... any one of a million other chat systems. Who's gonna be checking up on this shit anyway?
The atoms that make up any individual are being rearranged all the time - it may matter to an individual on an emotional level but from a physical perspective it is totally inconsequential. One carbon atom is very much like another.
Bad analogy. X-Windows is more like an engine - we have cars with the same engine in them but with different styles on the outside - the Windowing systems are the chassis' and paintjobs and other nuts and bolts that make a complete car. People like to buy things with different styles - otherwise we'd still be driving Model T's. Windows is a bit like the Model T situation where you can have any UI you like as long as it's Windows. Choice is good. People like to choose.
guess the answer is that if you use switch to jump into a loop, the loop is still initialized?
Is there any intialization for this loop?
Does this have to do with how this translates to machine code? A do loop is just a conditional jump backwards, right?
Yes. 'do' doesn't actually do anything - it is merely a marker that specifies the start of a block of a do-while construct. There's no instruction to be created for it.
Would this still work with a loop where the test condition is at the beginning, so all you reach at the end is the end of the scope opened earlier
Well a while { } loop should still function correctly - unless an optimization meant that it was assumed a register contained the value of some object used in the conditional and hence performed an operation on a register without the correct contents (a likely scenario so it's possible that particular bit of dataflow peculiarity may have been accounted for in most compilers) - since the jump back to test for the condition will work no matter where you enter the loop. A for loop would probably cause trouble though if you used an initilization, otherwise it'd be equivalent to the while loop.
The basic thing to remember here is that case is just a special label for a point in code. Think about the code that would be generated - remember that C is not an interpreted language.
This is where Windows is lightyears ahead: setup screens all look the same, behave the same way, and are easy to install.
Why is this a Linux vs Windows issue? True, much software in the Windows world uses Install Shield but that in no way means that all does. Some will use other installers (goodbye same look and use) and some may just extract themselves into a directory leaving you not much better off than a source distribution with regards to software management. Windows by no means has any benefit with installation compared to Linux and infact lacks any regimented install system (the registry system is a joke). You can't blame linux because someone whose written a piece of software for linux hasn't spent time on an installer or packaged it.
As such Windows has nothing to really do with regards to installation so it can't be light years ahead of anything.
No - why does APACHE not SHIP with a got damn GUI for configuration?
Because having a pretty way of configuring a server may not perhaps be the most important thing in the world?
Well it would probably be a good idea, since you clearly have some high use of your site, to recruit some more moderators. You need a moderation heirarchy.
One needs to remember that just because something didn't exist in the Open Source world last week doesn't mean it doesn't exist now. I'm constantly astonished by the rapid development of some of the bigger Open Source projects - Linux in particular.
However, people are not assholes just because they don't have the same objectives as you.
Nice post Captain Strawman! I never argued as such. The advantage of Linux is diversity not uniformity. That doesn't mean people have to be rude because they consider GUIs to be beneath them or that they consider someone to be the wrong class of person to use 'their' OS - because it's the people's OS, not theirs.
Real 1337 users would be building their distro from the ground up so complaints that brand X is 'too dumbed down' doesn't fly with me.
As any businessman can tell you, scaring away the customers is not good for business. :-)
Indeed, but Linux is not a business and the people in the community you are referring to are not business-like. Unfortunately there's very little one can do if these people cannot be reasoned with. We just have to try our best to be more vocal in our helpfulness then they are in their scorn.
When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"
Some people are just assholes. People will say that for certain Windows software and such as well. It's not an exclusively Linux thing - it just happens to be more associated with it.
Ah yes but the point is that it only matters that for any road everyone applies the same standard - obviously applying the wrong standard on the wrong road won't work. It reinforces my point that it is not uniformity that is required, merely everyone knowing where they stand. Obviously if the correct driving protocol - whatever that may be in the Italian case - is secret that is a bad thing. With regards to Italians most of the continent doesn't seem to care that much about road safety - in fact it seems to be an alien concept over there with some of the most dangerous roads in the world. And the French seem positively determined to run me down (perhaps they can just tell I'm a Brit?).
But standards *do* happen. There are just too many areas in life that would become totally inoperable if everyone did things differently. Like driving for example. But then having a standard doesn't necessarially mean 'everyone is uniform' - in this context it usually just means everyone can understand the interface or specification for your standard without needing the use of dowsing, divine revelation, mediums or perhaps reverse engineering to work with that interface of specification.
Extensions? Remember those? Right, get SessionSaver and stop whinning.
I canne' change the laws of physics Capn'.
The basic problem is that it is a big program and uses a lot of memory. The basic trick IE uses that makes its load-up times faster is that it doesn't really 'load-up' at all - its process it a permenant residence of Windows. However there is a quick start agent for Mozilla - I don't remember if they turned it off by default or something but they did have one. I'm not sure one exists for Linux either. It's all about sacraficing boot times vs. individual loading times though.