I dare you say a single thing, comedy or otherwise, that nobody can take offense at.
Richelieu's words are still as true as when they were first spoken, the solution is to try and be more accepting of others' words rather than attempt to offend no one without success.
No, but 2% and 6% are within the same order of magnitude so really, if you "can't afford" to ignore one, the same goes for the other. And if you can afford not to give a crap about one, same.
Prove it.
Prove a negative? prove you can run OSX easily on a VM. An easy how-to and an accompanying Youtube video should do, as long as it, you know, *works*.
Or, in other words, the only ones that approach the build quality of a garden variety MacBook, right? See how that works? You just made my argument for me, thanks!
Not really. The ones that not only approach but surpass the build quality of a garden variety MacBook are business laptops, not other luxury models made to appeal to the "rich and nerd" crowd. Like the Thinkpads I mentioned later in my post? yeah, those.
Citation, please. That's not what I hear from Lenovo owners, especially.
Any citations for those hypothetical Lenovo owners? I own a half dozen Thinkpads, and the only one that doesn't work flawlessly is a freaking 486 with a dead hard-drive after falling on concrete from over a meter high. Try that one with your MacBook Air, see if anything survives.
Besides, my point was clear: you can run Windows on any damn hardware you feel like as long as it meets its technological requirements, and the same goes for Linux, FreeBSD, FreeDOS, Minix, and pretty much every OS I can think of, even freakin' Android. Only exception? Apple's "thou shalt only use thy copy on thy Apple-branded computer" OSX.
Now go back whence you came, angry troll, and trouble our threads no more.
There are very good reasons why Emacs and Vi still command such popularity among professional programmers, and it's not because they're all teenagers needing to prove their masculinity. More the opposite, in fact, in that most of the people criticizing them appear to see their use by others as offensive to them for some reason.
Disclaimer: I'm mainly a Vim user, and as such prompt to take pot shots at Emacs when given the chance. I still recognize it's a damn fine editor, however, and any joke made at its users' expense is strictly tongue-in-cheek.
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
Wrong, unless your website caters exclusively to the US. Apple's worldwide marketshare is far lower than in the Hipster States of America.
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
Not really, it isn't. There's a perfectly good argument for running only a barebones OS directly on the metal and everything else on VMs, but if you try to do that with Apple's dearest you have to be prepared to go to hell and back for it, even on Apple's own hardware. The GP's line about OSX being VM-hostile may have been a "bald-faced allusion", whatever that is, but one thing it's not is inaccurate.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
The only ones costing more are luxury models, ala Ferrari laptop. A good Thinkpad however will cost you a fair bit less and will still be running long after the Mac hits the dumpster. Of course, by then most Apple heads will scream "but who would want to run a laptop that old!?", but then you're back with the "$300 laptop every few years" plan on the non-Apple side.
The article complains that there are 3 different package managers for OS X and that choosing between 3 tools confuses him... Well here's news for him, there's *way* more than 3 package managers for linux.
Which is akin to saying that Windows has more than one kernel. Yes, there's many package managers for Linux but only one per distro. Well, except for Arch but then one of those "package managers" compiles down to packages for the other, so in the end it's more or less the same thing.
no, actually, I "blathered on about" a cruddy argument. If he had valid complaints about TextMate I wouldn't call him a troll, but instead he simply states "man up and use emacs" â" this isn't an argument, it's just plain bare faced trolling.
You mean, like your comment about it being a better editor than Vi and Emacs? why, yes it is.
Honestly, in my opinion OSX isn't such a bad platform for web development, but Linux is better *and* free *and* it runs on my Thinkpad, AKA "the only series of laptops that have a keyboard worth crap" so OSX may as well be dead for me, but as always YMMV, some people do like those things Apple calls a keyboard after all.
Seriously. It's no more restrictive than any other framework I've used, and in some cases it's better since functions for instance expect a String object rather than a QtString and so you don't have to write an explicit conversion between the two back and forth. Is that a large issue? not really, it's a mild annoyance at worst, it's just I can't think of any where.NET is the more restrictive one so unless he's railing against any and all frameworks (naming him candidate for idiot of the year), this is merely anti-Microsoft zealotry, plain and simple.
And that's why you can't let things like providing good working conditions up to the Free Market and end customers. Most people simply don't care as long as it's not them being fucked over.
Not that choice of programming language is a topic that should be looked at *that* carefully, it's just your comment about Ol' Roy and farmers rubs me the wrong way.
True, but as unpleasant as it is to admit to some here at Slashdot, the same applies to people that only know C and C++, typically being the ones behind thousand-lines-long, unescrutable disasters instead of a simple 10-line solution because they lacked the capacity for abstract thought necessary to discover that solution.
The problem isn't with.NET, and it isn't with "developer productivity" languages; the problem is with people that refuse to learn more than one or two tools, particularly when the two follow a similar design philosophy. After all, the world still looks like a nail when all you've got are two hammers just from different brands.
My point is simple: your current standard of living is unsustainable, and isolationist laws coupled with military invasions will only give you at best a couple extra decades of it, so your best course of action is to step up and prepare for the change rather than cry that you can't afford it and pretend things can continue as they are indefinitely.
Except that there are other propietary ISVs besides Microsoft, and settling licensing deals with Adobe, Apple et al would likely bankrupt any corporation no matter the size.
Really, it seems like FOSS is the only viable option under this Microsoft-sponsored law. How convenient for them to have specifically excluded it from this legal minefield, thanks MS!
Your economy is in shambles *because* you're used to living like fat pigs. Your public transport system is attrocious, your food production can only be explained by an idiotic government with too much money to waste, and if your city planning wasn't paid by the automotive industry outright... no, actually there's no other explanation. And let us not even talk about the giant dick-sizing contest that is your defense spending.
Of course, fixing those now would be pretty costly, particularly your city planning but still, sometimes you just gotta let people face the consequences of their actions or lack thereof.
What's clear however, is that as far as the entire world is concerned, you *are* one of those superrich folks. So, if any sort of equalizer comes around (globalization, complete worldwide isolationism, whatever) you *will* end up with a lower standard of living, and thanks to your previous excesses you'll likely end up worse than saner countries. Then again, that's usually the case for 'superpowers' so really, sucks to be you.
True, but in most other countries they don't call themselves "liberal" and "conservative", it's just "left" or "right" which have looser definitions and, as such, can't be proven false so readily.
There's not a single person supporting this bill that wouldn't like that to happen. In fact, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is making a blantant power grab by betting on the isolationist crowd to get this bill passed without anyone looking too hard at it.
The saddest thing is that there's enough people in the US to give their plan a decent chance of success.
Perhaps the underlying law is unjust. But then you tackle the underlying law - you don't tackle some principle which makes it harder to enforce a law. Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
We've been trying for decades to no avail. The big guys simply have too much money and can easily bribe their way through any representative democracy, while we don't.
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
No. It is possible for a company to keep track of its own licenses, though it's often difficult, but expecting them to track *other* companies' licenses as well is simply insane and idiotic.
Tell me, is there anything in, say, the latest MacBook Pro from Apple that was manufactured or assembled by a company using "pirated" software? now let's see you prove it.
If something this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China and puts US companies to a better position again.
And watch as the price of all kinds of gadgets, from watches to cars, rise a whole order of magnitude minimum. Not that the anti-offshoring crowd cares much for that, or any other effect their little ideals may have really, but still.
With the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad Apple is selling some very, very popular devices. The software on these devices, and what you can and also what you can't do with them has a lot to do with the popularity. If you sold cars and started explaining to potential customers all the different ways you can tune the engine, then some (few) would be delighted, some wouldn't care, and some would _run_.
Which is why all cars nowadays are sold with the hood welded shut.
I know precisely what I'm talking about. Taking a collection, or even a single GPL product and placing it on a disc for sale is not what the overwhelming majority of people are talking about when they refer to commercial distribution of a product that uses GPL'd software. They are talking about their own products enabled by open-source technologies, such as libraries, or middleware. They have absolutely no desire to share the source nor communicate domain knowledge that would enable their competition. Many--regardless of their own position--are encumbered by NDAs signed with other companies.
Sucks for them. See what IBM is doing with open source? illegal under a non-commercial license such as CC-NC. See what Red Hat is doing? same thing.
Propietary does not equal Commercial, and if you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact you come across as a troll or shill looking to spread FUD.
The GPL acts in the legal sense like a virus. Anything I write for commercial purposes--which is to say I intend to limit distribution to licensed copies (purchased)--that links to GPL'd source, or by other means boxes up my work with GPL'd software in a manner that they are viewed as a single product then my product becomes infected and must be released under a GPL compatible license. Under these terms even distributing a GPL'd web server with my commercial product to be hosted on it becomes a playground for lawyers. Maybe I need to modify a configuration file on the server. Oh, jeez now I have to distribute the source-code for the server because I modified it. Nobody wants the expense nor hassle and most definitely not the legal ambiguity.
Which is why you only use software out in the Public Domain, right? oh, wait, you don't, you prefer to live in la-la land of blissful ignorance instead. Here's a hint: if you're liable under the GPL, you're liable under propietary licenses and for thousands-of-dollars settlement at minimum; you ain't getting away with merely ceasing to redistribute your product as with the FSF so if you come out without declaring bankrupcy you'd best thank your lucky stars.
If I am required to invest thousands if not millions of dollars of my company's money into R & D for a product then release the source code and what ever domain knowledge it communicate. I've given my competitor one heck of a gift and left myself without the ability to pay my employees' wages.
Better than be forced to declare bankrupcy and live the rest of your life paying the settlement to Big Corp, isn't it? yes, yes it is.
The GP was making an argument centered on the GPLv3's effects on end users, and for end users "running one alongside the other" is as much integration as they'll ever need.
As for TiVo, calling it the "most open" is deceitful: they were merely somewhat less closed than the alternatives, and the fact they made such a closed product by leeching off the Open Source community was what pissed off the "GNU tribe" as well as a good percentage of its user community, leading to the GPLv3.
Slashdot Mirror
I dare you say a single thing, comedy or otherwise, that nobody can take offense at.
Richelieu's words are still as true as when they were first spoken, the solution is to try and be more accepting of others' words rather than attempt to offend no one without success.
Lower than Linux? I think not.
No, but 2% and 6% are within the same order of magnitude so really, if you "can't afford" to ignore one, the same goes for the other. And if you can afford not to give a crap about one, same.
Prove it.
Prove a negative? prove you can run OSX easily on a VM. An easy how-to and an accompanying Youtube video should do, as long as it, you know, *works*.
Or, in other words, the only ones that approach the build quality of a garden variety MacBook, right? See how that works? You just made my argument for me, thanks!
Not really. The ones that not only approach but surpass the build quality of a garden variety MacBook are business laptops, not other luxury models made to appeal to the "rich and nerd" crowd. Like the Thinkpads I mentioned later in my post? yeah, those.
Citation, please. That's not what I hear from Lenovo owners, especially.
Any citations for those hypothetical Lenovo owners? I own a half dozen Thinkpads, and the only one that doesn't work flawlessly is a freaking 486 with a dead hard-drive after falling on concrete from over a meter high. Try that one with your MacBook Air, see if anything survives.
Angry much? ;)
Besides, my point was clear: you can run Windows on any damn hardware you feel like as long as it meets its technological requirements, and the same goes for Linux, FreeBSD, FreeDOS, Minix, and pretty much every OS I can think of, even freakin' Android. Only exception? Apple's "thou shalt only use thy copy on thy Apple-branded computer" OSX.
Now go back whence you came, angry troll, and trouble our threads no more.
Spoken as somebody who's never used Emacs.
There are very good reasons why Emacs and Vi still command such popularity among professional programmers, and it's not because they're all teenagers needing to prove their masculinity. More the opposite, in fact, in that most of the people criticizing them appear to see their use by others as offensive to them for some reason.
Disclaimer: I'm mainly a Vim user, and as such prompt to take pot shots at Emacs when given the chance. I still recognize it's a damn fine editor, however, and any joke made at its users' expense is strictly tongue-in-cheek.
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
Wrong, unless your website caters exclusively to the US. Apple's worldwide marketshare is far lower than in the Hipster States of America.
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
Not really, it isn't. There's a perfectly good argument for running only a barebones OS directly on the metal and everything else on VMs, but if you try to do that with Apple's dearest you have to be prepared to go to hell and back for it, even on Apple's own hardware. The GP's line about OSX being VM-hostile may have been a "bald-faced allusion", whatever that is, but one thing it's not is inaccurate.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
The only ones costing more are luxury models, ala Ferrari laptop. A good Thinkpad however will cost you a fair bit less and will still be running long after the Mac hits the dumpster. Of course, by then most Apple heads will scream "but who would want to run a laptop that old!?", but then you're back with the "$300 laptop every few years" plan on the non-Apple side.
The cool thing about choosing a Mac as a web dev. platform is that you can run nearly every OS on it.
Yeah, that's one of the perks of going with a closed platform in a sea of open ones.
The article complains that there are 3 different package managers for OS X and that choosing between 3 tools confuses him... Well here's news for him, there's *way* more than 3 package managers for linux.
Which is akin to saying that Windows has more than one kernel. Yes, there's many package managers for Linux but only one per distro. Well, except for Arch but then one of those "package managers" compiles down to packages for the other, so in the end it's more or less the same thing.
no, actually, I "blathered on about" a cruddy argument. If he had valid complaints about TextMate I wouldn't call him a troll, but instead he simply states "man up and use emacs" â" this isn't an argument, it's just plain bare faced trolling.
You mean, like your comment about it being a better editor than Vi and Emacs? why, yes it is.
Honestly, in my opinion OSX isn't such a bad platform for web development, but Linux is better *and* free *and* it runs on my Thinkpad, AKA "the only series of laptops that have a keyboard worth crap" so OSX may as well be dead for me, but as always YMMV, some people do like those things Apple calls a keyboard after all.
Yes, because the problem is that some people think too much.
No, rather it's they're unskilled at software design, which is as vital as software coding IMNSHO.
Seriously. It's no more restrictive than any other framework I've used, and in some cases it's better since functions for instance expect a String object rather than a QtString and so you don't have to write an explicit conversion between the two back and forth. Is that a large issue? not really, it's a mild annoyance at worst, it's just I can't think of any where .NET is the more restrictive one so unless he's railing against any and all frameworks (naming him candidate for idiot of the year), this is merely anti-Microsoft zealotry, plain and simple.
And that's why you can't let things like providing good working conditions up to the Free Market and end customers. Most people simply don't care as long as it's not them being fucked over.
Not that choice of programming language is a topic that should be looked at *that* carefully, it's just your comment about Ol' Roy and farmers rubs me the wrong way.
True, but as unpleasant as it is to admit to some here at Slashdot, the same applies to people that only know C and C++, typically being the ones behind thousand-lines-long, unescrutable disasters instead of a simple 10-line solution because they lacked the capacity for abstract thought necessary to discover that solution.
The problem isn't with .NET, and it isn't with "developer productivity" languages; the problem is with people that refuse to learn more than one or two tools, particularly when the two follow a similar design philosophy. After all, the world still looks like a nail when all you've got are two hammers just from different brands.
Face it - some people are too butt-ugly to be put on TV to endorse a product
And some aren't, but simply give your company an image that may not be entirely desireable.
My point is simple: your current standard of living is unsustainable, and isolationist laws coupled with military invasions will only give you at best a couple extra decades of it, so your best course of action is to step up and prepare for the change rather than cry that you can't afford it and pretend things can continue as they are indefinitely.
Except that there are other propietary ISVs besides Microsoft, and settling licensing deals with Adobe, Apple et al would likely bankrupt any corporation no matter the size.
Really, it seems like FOSS is the only viable option under this Microsoft-sponsored law. How convenient for them to have specifically excluded it from this legal minefield, thanks MS!
Your economy is in shambles *because* you're used to living like fat pigs. Your public transport system is attrocious, your food production can only be explained by an idiotic government with too much money to waste, and if your city planning wasn't paid by the automotive industry outright... no, actually there's no other explanation. And let us not even talk about the giant dick-sizing contest that is your defense spending.
Of course, fixing those now would be pretty costly, particularly your city planning but still, sometimes you just gotta let people face the consequences of their actions or lack thereof.
What's clear however, is that as far as the entire world is concerned, you *are* one of those superrich folks. So, if any sort of equalizer comes around (globalization, complete worldwide isolationism, whatever) you *will* end up with a lower standard of living, and thanks to your previous excesses you'll likely end up worse than saner countries. Then again, that's usually the case for 'superpowers' so really, sucks to be you.
True, but in most other countries they don't call themselves "liberal" and "conservative", it's just "left" or "right" which have looser definitions and, as such, can't be proven false so readily.
In my experience, in the US liberals and conservatives seldom are.
There's not a single person supporting this bill that wouldn't like that to happen. In fact, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is making a blantant power grab by betting on the isolationist crowd to get this bill passed without anyone looking too hard at it.
The saddest thing is that there's enough people in the US to give their plan a decent chance of success.
Perhaps the underlying law is unjust. But then you tackle the underlying law - you don't tackle some principle which makes it harder to enforce a law. Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
We've been trying for decades to no avail. The big guys simply have too much money and can easily bribe their way through any representative democracy, while we don't.
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
No. It is possible for a company to keep track of its own licenses, though it's often difficult, but expecting them to track *other* companies' licenses as well is simply insane and idiotic.
Tell me, is there anything in, say, the latest MacBook Pro from Apple that was manufactured or assembled by a company using "pirated" software? now let's see you prove it.
If something this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China and puts US companies to a better position again.
And watch as the price of all kinds of gadgets, from watches to cars, rise a whole order of magnitude minimum. Not that the anti-offshoring crowd cares much for that, or any other effect their little ideals may have really, but still.
With the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad Apple is selling some very, very popular devices. The software on these devices, and what you can and also what you can't do with them has a lot to do with the popularity. If you sold cars and started explaining to potential customers all the different ways you can tune the engine, then some (few) would be delighted, some wouldn't care, and some would _run_.
Which is why all cars nowadays are sold with the hood welded shut.
Oh, wait.
No, I think it'd give you a g-string.
Ahh, whatever, haven't fed trolls in a while.
I know precisely what I'm talking about. Taking a collection, or even a single GPL product and placing it on a disc for sale is not what the overwhelming majority of people are talking about when they refer to commercial distribution of a product that uses GPL'd software. They are talking about their own products enabled by open-source technologies, such as libraries, or middleware. They have absolutely no desire to share the source nor communicate domain knowledge that would enable their competition. Many--regardless of their own position--are encumbered by NDAs signed with other companies.
Sucks for them. See what IBM is doing with open source? illegal under a non-commercial license such as CC-NC. See what Red Hat is doing? same thing.
Propietary does not equal Commercial, and if you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact you come across as a troll or shill looking to spread FUD.
The GPL acts in the legal sense like a virus. Anything I write for commercial purposes--which is to say I intend to limit distribution to licensed copies (purchased)--that links to GPL'd source, or by other means boxes up my work with GPL'd software in a manner that they are viewed as a single product then my product becomes infected and must be released under a GPL compatible license. Under these terms even distributing a GPL'd web server with my commercial product to be hosted on it becomes a playground for lawyers. Maybe I need to modify a configuration file on the server. Oh, jeez now I have to distribute the source-code for the server because I modified it. Nobody wants the expense nor hassle and most definitely not the legal ambiguity.
Which is why you only use software out in the Public Domain, right? oh, wait, you don't, you prefer to live in la-la land of blissful ignorance instead. Here's a hint: if you're liable under the GPL, you're liable under propietary licenses and for thousands-of-dollars settlement at minimum; you ain't getting away with merely ceasing to redistribute your product as with the FSF so if you come out without declaring bankrupcy you'd best thank your lucky stars.
If I am required to invest thousands if not millions of dollars of my company's money into R & D for a product then release the source code and what ever domain knowledge it communicate. I've given my competitor one heck of a gift and left myself without the ability to pay my employees' wages.
Better than be forced to declare bankrupcy and live the rest of your life paying the settlement to Big Corp, isn't it? yes, yes it is.
The GP was making an argument centered on the GPLv3's effects on end users, and for end users "running one alongside the other" is as much integration as they'll ever need.
As for TiVo, calling it the "most open" is deceitful: they were merely somewhat less closed than the alternatives, and the fact they made such a closed product by leeching off the Open Source community was what pissed off the "GNU tribe" as well as a good percentage of its user community, leading to the GPLv3.