Stick to C++. It's not as fashionable, but is a far more powerful language, and it's not dominated by a corporation.
C++ is a little harder to learn, but worth the effort. Javas write-once-run-anyware claim sounds great, but if you use standard libraries, C++ code can be recompiled for any platform for which a compiler exists (and g++ runs on more architectures then any JVM).
During the dot-com-boom the industry was crying out for new programmers. Java was popular because it's easier to teach to novice progreammers. I can't see the appeal myself.
"Look at what's happening to GNOME and KDE (overengineering, bloat, chasing Moore's law). Now imagine what'll happen when these same developers start working on an X server. Aaargh."
Spot on. What could be worse will be if they start adding weird GNOME support and blurring the difference between their "desktop envinment" and the X-Server. I wouldn't put it past them at all.
Taken from a usenet post by Paul Cannon from linux.debian.legal on 2004-01-30:
The new license has a reworded disclaimer, and a numbered list of terms instead of the terms simply being stated. It goes farther than the old one in specifying that the conditions apply to binary distributions as well as source.
The change that causes problems is the addition of the third condition:
"3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments."
Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising clause":
"3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."
The FSF is quite clear (see here and here) in that they do not consider licenses with the advertising clause to be compatible with the GPL. In addition, the same reasons they give appear to apply also to the clause added by the XFree86 folks. That is, one cannot distribute something under the GPL with added restrictions like the one above quoted.
Hmm, maybe I should have quoted more of the article. He goes on to say:
"These instructions have to be converted from the programming language in which they are written, like C or Java or C++ into a binary equivalent that the computer can understand, but that process is not analogous to building a house from blueprints - it's more like translating a book from one language into another."
"In the coverage of the release of the Windows source code we've seen journalists try to describe what it is that has been posted to websites around the net, but those who didn't descend into cliche seemed only able to use the most misleading metaphors.
Perhaps the most common is to describe the source code as a "blueprint", presumably because we've all seen movies in which architects pore over blueprints of buildings under attack, or because middle-class readers all have the blueprints of their extensions carefully filed away.
But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself. The source is the set of instructions given to the computer that, when executed, cause the behaviour we see on screen."
I'd be interested to know why you consider me a "foe".
I honestly don't know (it would be nice if you could leave a comment to yourself and perhaps others when you change your relationship with someone). Most likely I disagreed with something you said to such an extent that I thought I'd mark you as a foe. Looking at you current sig ("Unless a Dem. candidate promises to continue and improve on current foreign policy, I'll vote for Bush. Defense first."), it could have been your politics. (No offence, but I don't think many Americans realise how objectionable the rest of the world finds the Bush administration)
Please don't take it personally. I use the friend/foe system to see who I generally agree/disagree with more that whether I like/dislike someone.
Oh - if you're right that's a shame. It's also pretty atrocious OS design (window management in the kernel? - shouldn't it be in userspace). Mind you, I remember when you could crash 2000 by echoing a file containing tabs and backspaces:)
Basically, having the source code to the Windows equivalent of an X window manger would allow the sort of diversity of usability features that we see in the Linux world.
I've never seen any *fundamental* modifications to the Windows "window manager".
I thought Litestep just replaces the shell (ie explorer.exe). Is there any way I can change the click-to-front behaviour of Windows to use the Amigas (or WindowLabs) click-to-focus but not click-to-front model.
Nope? - didn't think so.
The only way I can think of doing it is using hardcore hook stuff. Having the code would be *much* easier.
For the same reasons that Microsoft warned its IE developers to stay clear of Mozilla, open source coders should avoid even seeing this.
That said, I'd love to get hold of the dll code that does the equivalent of a window manager in X. How cool would it be to swap out a dll on the Windows box at work and have a completely custom windowing environment?
An aside - your last paragraph is exactly why capital punishment is wrong. The danger of miscarriage of justice is great enough to cast doubt on a penalty whose wrongful infliction is by definition impossible to compensate. We do not need notorious cases of miscarriage, like those of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, whose convictions for IRA bombings were eventually quashed, to see that the risk of human error and dishonesty probably makes it unsafe to condemn convicted murderers to death.
"...the reformed group is working together to bring "not just more eye candy but new functionality" to the X Window Manager for Linux and Unix."
Umm, they mean X Server don't they, or is there suppossed to be some sort of official window manager now? That would be very bad news in my opinion - Linux benefits greatly from the diversity of GUIs that exist for it.
"Hardware support?... Easy addition of new hardware?... Easy addition of new software?"
If we exclude home users for a moment, and think about linux on the desktop in businesses, all of these problems go away - normal users do not (or should not) do any of these things; their IT support department should.
I don't understand. What exactly is it about Linux on the desktop (say KDE/GNOME) that is too difficult for the average user? They have some sort of menu from which they can launch applications, they have file managers, they can print files. What's missing?
What would be really great would be if we could actually join the single currency rather then dithering about on the sidelines (as usual). The benefits that transparency in pricing would bring would see an end to "rip off Britain".
Am I the only person who's pissed off with the general sterotypes that get portrayed in modern media?
Improved communications have meant that it's easier then ever to talk to people from all over the globe, and yet we always come back to this sort of crap. As a UK resident who went to the states recently, it seems that if you don't speak the Queens English or Cockney, people don't know that you're from the UK.
I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but I doubt that the combination of technologies you suggest could handle the amount of emails Linus is likely to have built up since October 1991, or at least not in any kind of fast or stable way.
Dammit, the one time I don't click the preview button... That should have been:
You do know that the US dollar hit an all time low against the Euro last week don't you? In fact, the dollar's been in freefall for quite a while now...
You do know that the dollar hit an all time low against the US dollar last week don't you? In fact, the dollar's been in freefall for quite a while now...
This is typical of machines that use a custom chip approach to hardware. Anyone who remembers the appalling port of Street Fighter 2 to the Amiga 500 compared with the graphically superb (but poor playing) Elfmania knows what I mean. I'm sure there are other examples of really bad ports in gaming history...
Slashdot Mirror
Stick to C++. It's not as fashionable, but is a far more powerful language, and it's not dominated by a corporation.
C++ is a little harder to learn, but worth the effort. Javas write-once-run-anyware claim sounds great, but if you use standard libraries, C++ code can be recompiled for any platform for which a compiler exists (and g++ runs on more architectures then any JVM).
During the dot-com-boom the industry was crying out for new programmers. Java was popular because it's easier to teach to novice progreammers. I can't see the appeal myself.
"Look at what's happening to GNOME and KDE (overengineering, bloat, chasing Moore's law). Now imagine what'll happen when these same developers start working on an X server. Aaargh."
Spot on. What could be worse will be if they start adding weird GNOME support and blurring the difference between their "desktop envinment" and the X-Server. I wouldn't put it past them at all.
Hmm, maybe I should have quoted more of the article. He goes on to say:
"These instructions have to be converted from the programming language in which they are written, like C or Java or C++ into a binary equivalent that the computer can understand, but that process is not analogous to building a house from blueprints - it's more like translating a book from one language into another."
What's with calling code "blueprints"?
The BBCs Bill Thompson says in a recent article:
"In the coverage of the release of the Windows source code we've seen journalists try to describe what it is that has been posted to websites around the net, but those who didn't descend into cliche seemed only able to use the most misleading metaphors.
Perhaps the most common is to describe the source code as a "blueprint", presumably because we've all seen movies in which architects pore over blueprints of buildings under attack, or because middle-class readers all have the blueprints of their extensions carefully filed away.
But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself. The source is the set of instructions given to the computer that, when executed, cause the behaviour we see on screen."
I'd be interested to know why you consider me a "foe".
I honestly don't know (it would be nice if you could leave a comment to yourself and perhaps others when you change your relationship with someone). Most likely I disagreed with something you said to such an extent that I thought I'd mark you as a foe. Looking at you current sig ("Unless a Dem. candidate promises to continue and improve on current foreign policy, I'll vote for Bush. Defense first."), it could have been your politics. (No offence, but I don't think many Americans realise how objectionable the rest of the world finds the Bush administration)
Please don't take it personally. I use the friend/foe system to see who I generally agree/disagree with more that whether I like/dislike someone.
That's what I'm saying - litestep is an alternative to explorer.exe (the default shell). Window management is something quite different.
Oh - if you're right that's a shame. It's also pretty atrocious OS design (window management in the kernel? - shouldn't it be in userspace). Mind you, I remember when you could crash 2000 by echoing a file containing tabs and backspaces :)
Nope, that's focus-follows-mouse.
Basically, having the source code to the Windows equivalent of an X window manger would allow the sort of diversity of usability features that we see in the Linux world.
I've never seen any *fundamental* modifications to the Windows "window manager".
I thought Litestep just replaces the shell (ie explorer.exe). Is there any way I can change the click-to-front behaviour of Windows to use the Amigas (or WindowLabs) click-to-focus but not click-to-front model.
Nope? - didn't think so.
The only way I can think of doing it is using hardcore hook stuff. Having the code would be *much* easier.
For the same reasons that Microsoft warned its IE developers to stay clear of Mozilla, open source coders should avoid even seeing this.
That said, I'd love to get hold of the dll code that does the equivalent of a window manager in X. How cool would it be to swap out a dll on the Windows box at work and have a completely custom windowing environment?
"After a hard days work and a couple of beers, don't we all really wonder what our draft would look like under thousands of times magnification?"
Won't American beer just look like water?
An aside - your last paragraph is exactly why capital punishment is wrong. The danger of miscarriage of justice is great enough to cast doubt on a penalty whose wrongful infliction is by definition impossible to compensate. We do not need notorious cases of miscarriage, like those of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, whose convictions for IRA bombings were eventually quashed, to see that the risk of human error and dishonesty probably makes it unsafe to condemn convicted murderers to death.
What's next, Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a first person shooter?
What about Nethack?!?!
I don't know, but apparently Gates wants to get the Nobel prize too.
From the article
"...the reformed group is working together to bring "not just more eye candy but new functionality" to the X Window Manager for Linux and Unix."
Umm, they mean X Server don't they, or is there suppossed to be some sort of official window manager now? That would be very bad news in my opinion - Linux benefits greatly from the diversity of GUIs that exist for it.
"Hardware support? ... Easy addition of new hardware? ... Easy addition of new software?"
If we exclude home users for a moment, and think about linux on the desktop in businesses, all of these problems go away - normal users do not (or should not) do any of these things; their IT support department should.
I don't understand. What exactly is it about Linux on the desktop (say KDE/GNOME) that is too difficult for the average user? They have some sort of menu from which they can launch applications, they have file managers, they can print files. What's missing?
What would be really great would be if we could actually join the single currency rather then dithering about on the sidelines (as usual). The benefits that transparency in pricing would bring would see an end to "rip off Britain".
Am I the only person who's pissed off with the general sterotypes that get portrayed in modern media?
Improved communications have meant that it's easier then ever to talk to people from all over the globe, and yet we always come back to this sort of crap. As a UK resident who went to the states recently, it seems that if you don't speak the Queens English or Cockney, people don't know that you're from the UK.
God help people from the smaller EU states.
I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but I doubt that the combination of technologies you suggest could handle the amount of emails Linus is likely to have built up since October 1991, or at least not in any kind of fast or stable way.
Dammit, the one time I don't click the preview button... That should have been:
You do know that the US dollar hit an all time low against the Euro last week don't you? In fact, the dollar's been in freefall for quite a while now...
You do know that the dollar hit an all time low against the US dollar last week don't you? In fact, the dollar's been in freefall for quite a while now...
This is typical of machines that use a custom chip approach to hardware. Anyone who remembers the appalling port of Street Fighter 2 to the Amiga 500 compared with the graphically superb (but poor playing) Elfmania knows what I mean. I'm sure there are other examples of really bad ports in gaming history...