Anyhow - OO in Perl sucks. It's inelegant and not terribly efficient. End of discussion. No public,
private, protected variables. Poor performance on inheritance and polymorphism. Should I go on?
Sure, the modules use OO programming, but only a very simple subset of all the powerful
concepts a real OO implementation will provide.
You may be surprised that I actually agree with a lot of the points you make here. I wouldn't advocate perl as a drop-in C++ replacement, for example. The OO is "bolted on", and isn't terribly elegant. However, it works, despite it's ugliness. And it is actually quite effective.
For example, the modules work as nicely as they do, because of Perl's OO implementation.
As for poor performance and lack of strong typing, like I said, it's not a drop-in replacement for C++ or C. The fact that it's an interpreted, weakly typed language is a feature, though perhaps not always a desirable one.
Then you're no doubt familiar with the concept of a language that lets you shoot yourself in the foot (-; I'm sorry that Perl didn't work for you. But a lot of other people find that it works very nicely. The syntax is quite ugly, but it's not a show-stopping misfeature. Those familiar with the syntax can read it without that much difficulty. I use C++ and often come back to perl after a long break and don't have much trouble picking it up again.
IMO for fast admin like stuff people should use {ba,k,c}sh, sed, awk and expr.
These languages aren't substantially nicer. Try doing anything nontrivial in any of them (except perhaps awk) and you'll have a truly hideous beast on your hands.
Re:Messing things up or using Perl for what it fit
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The bottom line is that Perl is simply not the right tool for general programming purposes.
Says who ? If you don't use it for "general programming purposes", you're not in much of a position to make such a judgement.
Perl code can be readable and maintainable if it's written in C style and deliberately excludes the more esoteric features of the language.
It's disingenious to call the OO support in perl a "more esoteric feature" of the language -- nearly all the modules use it. If you use the modules, you're not really using a "C-style" any more, because you're using perl OO code.
For anything else, and any "serious" - i.e. complex - programming, pick C/C++ or Python.
You're getting bogged down in false dichotomies, and arbitrary/absurd classifications. What if you want to write a shortish (~1000 lines) program that leverages an existing module , and the program isn't a drop-in shellscript replacement ? And what if there's no such module for python ?
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why anyone uses Perl is a mystery to me.
Because it's useful.
If you
want to do scripting use shell script+awk. If you
want to write a proper app use C/C++.
This is a false dichotomy. Not everything is neatly classifiable as "scripting" or a "proper app". As for using shell script, it doesn't work very well when you need to use pointers (and awk, iirc), which rules it out for most nontrivial tasks. Also, neither shellscript or awk have the same available libraries as perl.
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 2
It means I can go to a webwsite and download a library and use it to write a perl script that (for example) creates midi files. Try that in bash or awk.
Oh yeah? I don't like Perl6's object-orientedness. Could you be so kind as to tell me how can I turn that off? Yeah, I thought so
He didn't say "turn it off", he said "don't use it". Perl is perfectly usable without creating packages.
Now can you please tell me why the fsck do I need a full-fledged object-oriented language to write scripts for cron jobs and CGI?
You don't. So don't use objects. I use perl as a drop-in replacement for bash script all the time, and it works just fine. I don't see how perl 6 is going to change that.
From what I could make of Larry's "Apocalypse", perl6 is going to be the next fsckin' Java. Bloated, slow and useless.
The problem there of course is that that opens up a can of worms on intellectual property, and
copyright all that crap.
It only opens such cans of worms if it is abused. The problem is the tendencies of the napsterite thugs to confuse providing information with providing entertainment. The confusion is deliberate, because "access to information" sounds like something one may believe they're entitled to, while "access to entertainment" isn't.
a
new found ability to communicate amongst one another is at risk right now.
If these P2P tools really were being used to "communicate", this wouldn't be an issue. I'd argue that distributing someone else's creative work is not "communicating" at all, it's more like providing a free entertainment service at someone else's expense.
No-ones trying to ban web-servers, because these typically are indeed used for "communication".
We all need to pay for the goods and services we use to access information, and those who work
hard to build that infrastructure need to reap the benefits.
I'm not clear on what your point is here.
but the actual money value of
information will go down simply because it is now so easily reproducible.
Not sure on this point either. Maybe you mean "market value" ? The utility of information doesn't change.
Profit should be made
in it's distribution and not in the hoarding of easily gotten patents and copyrights. That does no one
any good.
The problem with this is that if you're prepared to make the basic assupmtion that people will act in their own economic interests, then the result would be that everyone would want to distribute and no-one would want to create. Obviously, the only sensible and morally acceptable system is one where anyone who does useful work, whether it be distribution or creation, is compensated.
Let's not forget how international the internet is: English may be this guy's second, third or fourth language. I have a great deal of respect for multi-lingual people - their english is sometimes a bit off grammatically,
I'm aware of these issues (my S.O. is not a native speaker).
However, a lot of the people committing these lingual attrocities are American. BTW, non-native speakers tend to make more grammatical errors than spelling errors, and often use well-formed but idiosyncratic sentence structures.
Cheers,
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Well, yeah. One day he's repelling a Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the next he's bombing US embassies, attacking US ships, and murdering 5000 US civilians.
Or, as he'd see it, "repelling a US invasion in Saudi Arabia". The problem with "freedom fighters" is like this is that they're more interested in imposing their own agenda than in "freedom".
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Your completely missing the point. The problem is
the general pattern of flip-flopping. One day, Osama is a "freedom fighter", the next day he's a terrorist. Noriega on the other hand turned into an "evil drug lord". As for foreign aid, I'd like to see what it was spent on. A documentary (beneath the veil) showed the Taliban using a soccer field built with foreign aid money as an arena for public executions.
The good news is that the US appear to have learned from their mistakes in that they are exercising due caution in supporting the northern alliance. One hopes they don't try to turn these guys into heros.
You know, attacking someone's grammar to bolster your point is fit only for brainless dick-heads.
You mistakenly assume that my motivation was to "bolster my point". Actually, what motivates me here is that I simply find the level of illiteracy on slashdot annoying.
Capitalism, supply/demand and all that crap is all good on paper, but so is Marxism
Marxism fails even on paper, because it does not make the assumption that people will act in their own best interests.
Did the quality of the works improve because billions of dollars CAN be milked out of peanut-brained, hypnotized cattle?
It's difficult to compare the quality of the works. However, if you look at all the creative works produced over the last 50 years, I would suggest that you would find an enormous collection of works of exceptional quality.
Maybe it wouldnt be a bad thing if Authors who are ONLY in it for the money changed their profession, people should try and work on something they enjoy, it leads to better workmanship.
I agree 200% with this assertion, but my point still stands.
In my book someone who demands large amounts of compensation for there contribution, is contributing less because of their demands.
The economic reality is that people will, for the most part, ask for whatever they can get. That's why we have capitalism. We assume that people for the most part will act in their best interests.
Why does modern society generally look up to people who TAKE the most rather than those who GIVE the most.
Again, try to use well-formed sentences. End questions with a period. Don't confuse "there" and "their".
The above statement is an erroneous sweeping generalisation, and I'd argue that it's also false. Many of history's most admired people were really not that rich. Scientists, humanitarians, great leaders. The wealthy people who are admired are usually admired for what they gave, not what they took.
You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the free software movement if thats what you think we are saying
No, I'm not doing anything of the sort.I think you are erroneously confusing the recent napster/warez/anti-copyright leeches with the free software movement, and such confusion does an enormous dis-service to free software.
I don't see what this free-beer anti-copyright movement has to do with the free software movement. The free software movement is about giving, the free-beer movement is about taking. I suppose the free-beer crowd play the role of parasite who see the free software community as a convenient host.
In most arguments speaking out against copyright you will find there reasoning in there somewhere.
Reasoning ? I see very little of it in the arguments against copyright. BTW, I am surprised that someone such as yourself who is so obviously repelled by greed would not find the behaviour of the napster users repugnant. After all, their arguments against copyright are little more to them than a way to get something for nothing.
I dont need to say it, but it is coming, you can see change is coming. There is little doubt there. You can see it in the way the RIAA and MPAA are becoming ever so more active in the public eye what was once private.
It's moving in that direction, because there isn't a vocal, well organised lobby who has raised compelling moral counter-arguments. This is one of the problems with these slashmonkeys who just scream "free free free". They drown out all the good arguments. I agree that there are a lot of legitimate objections one can make to laws that have been passed, and laws that are being lobbied for.
This will increase speculation that the source will do well,
Some people would like to make well-informed purchase decisions, instead of buying on faith alone.
[snip: monopolies, etc]
but I don't see how a different model would help the problem. Actually, a model where people had to buy on reputation and faith alone would tend to make the market more conservative. It's the small authors who offer "try-before-you-buy" packages. Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM don't need to do this, because people will buy their products on reputation alone.
A reputation based system would lead to more market consolidation, and more conservative buyers.
And it doesnt matter if you are for or against it, its coming, and you either work with it or go up in arms against it.
That looks like a false dichotomy, but maybe it isn't. I'd argue that the record companies are looking for a way to work with it.
No, its worthless with copyrights. We see 'worthyness' from 2 diffrent perspectives.
Blah blah blah. You've wandered off into some obscure and pedantic discussion of semantics and avoided the issue I raise. The point is that it's difficult to make creative works available for appraisal without making them available for distribution.
This means the originator of such information could still make a lot of money if they build up a good enough reputation and there is a large enough market demand for this information.
I should point out that you are confusing information with creative works. They are not the same thing at all.
Let me address your claim. The main problem is that it creates a tragedy-of-commons issue in that there is a disincentive for anyone to pay for development of creative works. Where a corporation does need such works for their own use, there's a disincentive to release them. When works are released, there's a disincentive to release them without draconian copy-protection measures.
One of the problems with arguments for alternative systems to copyright is that the people who make them assume everyone will be altruistic. It never occurs to them that the correct assumption to make is that people will act in their own best interests.
Another problem is the issue of building a reputation. This obviously raises barriers to market entry, because it is much harder for the public to appraise a product. The ability of customers to make informed buying decisions is obstructed.
Again as I said in another post, monopolies kill the other possibilities, and that is why people rather give information away for free rather then sell information to other people.
Anyone is free to write their own software using their own model. Surely, there exists some part of the software market where no monopoly exists (actually, there exist several). So if these other models work so well, there's nothing stopping someone using them.
I am not playing a false dichotomy card here. I'm merely pointing out that if there's no financial incentive for authors, you'll see less authors.
that some existing businesses "developing software" will collapse and not be replaced has nothing to do with the viability of developing software as a business;
If the net effect is that there are less people developing applications, then it has quite a lot to do with the viability of developing software as a business. (To clarify, I'm not mandating that it
be replaced by a business with a similar model)
there are in fact legitimate objections to some methods of turning a profit,
There certainly are. Unfortunately, the legitimate objections are usually drowned out by a bunch of idiots screaming "free free free".
yes, extending copyright into perpetuity is...
I agree that the duration of copyrights is cause for legitimate concern. (Too bad that this concern is all too often drowned out by a bunch of idiots screaming "free free free".)
There is no reason why use shouldn't use ReiserFS. Performs just as well (for the most part) as ext2 and will improve uptime by eliminating nasty fscks in the event of a failure.
ReiserFS is nice, but it hasn't been stable for very long. So you'd need a fairly recent kernel to deploy it safely. Of course, if you've patched for the ptrace exploit, you're already running a recent kernel anyway (-;
Your abuse of the word "design" completely ignores the fact that developing software is a lengthy, expensive and labor intensive process, that involves design and implementation.
Your shoes analogy is not terribly pertinent, and
either dishonest or stupid.
Why should digital goods have the right to charge excessive (relative to ANY other industry ever) amounts for design ?
Design, prototyping, testing, and implementation.
As for your claim about "excessive" amounts, it's an arbitrary and nonsensical claim unless you are able to define what entails an "excessive" amount.
Do you honestly think if people didnt get money for designing things that people all over the owrld would suddenly down tools and change professions.
At least try to use well-formed sentences.
If a certain type of business is not economically viable (eg developing software), existing businesses will collapse, and there will be an absence of startups to replace the failed companies. In other words, yes. If people aren't paid for writing software, software will not get written.
Some people actually enjoy their work, and not for the $$$
I enjoy my work, and certainly don't do it for money, but I also need to eat.
Moreover, it's admirable to be enthusiastic enough about ones work to the point that money is not an issue. But those who demand this virtue of others are invariably scoundrels who demand that others to give freely so as they may take freely.
Scarcity exists in information, but only in the sense that an author has not released their work yet, once their work hits the market, it should be up to the market how much to pay for it,
Once their work hits "the market", it is worthless without copyrights, because "hitting the market" would mean that the work could freely be redistributed. And this is the problem.
it should be up to the market how much to pay for it, not up to the author, who would rather squeeze money out of the rich rather then let the market decide.
This is absurd. The market might want something for nothing, but it can't, and should not get it.
The author should be able to choose whatever pricing scheme they desire, and the market should decide whether or not the pricing scheme is acceptable. This is the way free markets work.
We will never know because we are stuck with this system, but we will still have people like you who would take an idea and claim it fact and ignore the other possibilties as if they didnt exist
Other possibilities exist perhaps, but until other possibilities demonstrate themselves to be viable business models, they deserve to be ignored.
Thats not to say digital works cost nothing to make, but its only the design of digital works that cost moeny, not manufacture, its a TOTALLY different thing.
Id like to see the elimination of the artifical scarcity of goods.
To do that, you'd need to find a decent payment
model to fund the creation of digital goods. IMO, copyrights are a pretty good model -- basically, everyone who uses the product pays, and everyone pays a modest amount (modest compared to the cost of production).
The problem is that you want to destroy the copyright system, but you are unable to propose an adequate replacement. "Free free free" is not an adequate replacement be3cause of the simple fact that someone has to pay for the initial production.
Its a diffrent way of doing things but has never (in theory or otherwise) been proven to be worst then copyrights,
If there is indeed a better way of doing things,
just go ahead and do it, and it will replace
copyrights, because it is a more efficient system.
IOW, if things like the "street performer protocol" are so damn good, they shouldn't require destruction of the copyright system.
This is a simple reality of the way markets work.
IMO, we've observed attempts at different models,
and they have been unsuccesful, because they simply don't provide financial incentives.
Most people at least believe copyright is in principle a good idea. The zealots who scream "free free free" all the time do a great job at marginalising themselves, and those who have a more moderate agenda than simply getting everything for free.
It's those same views that stop people from making vast breakthroughs that may alter the landscape of their specific field.
Nonsense. No-ones trashing "anygui" for being new and challenging conventional wisdom. It's being criticised because it's a rehash of old designs. If there were some evidence that the authors better understood the pitfalls of similar projects (AWT being a good example), and had some plan to address these issues, perhaps the posters here would be less cynical.
The article trashes java, while failing to point out how "anygui" will avoid the same pitfalls.
And yes, AWT was dumped.. by a corporation who failed to see enough profits to come from their investment.
And a corporation who realised that a complete
redesign would be a more effective use of limited resources than trying to fix AWT. Or are you trying to argue that Swing was a triumph of marketting over good design ? I think you'd find anyone who'd used both toolkits would find that laughable.
While the authors go out of their way to trash Java, I don't see how this is an improvement, in fact it looks worse. The problems I see are as follows:
Write once, debug anywhere -- this is a criticism the author makes of java, but it does not seem clear that "anygui" solves this problem. In fact, I would conjecture that it makes things even worse, because of the fact that anygui programs are supposed to be able to run on an even more diverse collection of platforms (eg including curses) To rigorously test an anygui application, you would certainly need to test curses and windowed versions, for example.
Ugly apps -- we're all familiar with the ugly-AWT app syndrome. The problem is that when you want to write an abstraction layer for several toolkits, you're stuck with the logical intersection of the feature set. The article explicitly mentions that "anygui" shoots at the lowest common denominator. This may have a useful niche for (eg:) installers, but for general purpose applications, it is not acceptable.
Object oriented ??? -- No, it seems rooted in the callback/event-loop paradigm, and that means it's going to be difficult to write nice
applications (the signal/slot mechanism used in GTK/Qt is much cleaner IMO)
Anyway, I find it hard to get excited about this toolkit, because it looks to me like a solution waiting for a problem.
that's because no perl code ever uses objects that they were implemented in such a bad way, but since no one uses them it doesn't matter,
This is demonstrably false. The majority of the
perl toolkits that I've used do make use of perl objects. Sure, in your 100 line web program or sysadmin script, it might not matter, but when you
want to write scalable modular software, it does.
On the other hand, most object oriented designs fail, take Gnome as the best example, circular library dependencies anyone?
GNOME is not a good example of "object oriented design", because very few OO projects use C as
the implementation language. As for circular dependencies, that is simply indicative of poor
design.
And attitudes like that, ladies and gentlemen, are
... largely irrelevant if the only people who subscribe to them are slashdot trolls. Clearly, this is not the kind of viewpoints held by coders in the KDE and GNOME projects.
Slashdot Mirror
private, protected variables. Poor performance on inheritance and polymorphism. Should I go on?
Sure, the modules use OO programming, but only a very simple subset of all the powerful
concepts a real OO implementation will provide.
You may be surprised that I actually agree with a lot of the points you make here. I wouldn't advocate perl as a drop-in C++ replacement, for example. The OO is "bolted on", and isn't terribly elegant. However, it works, despite it's ugliness. And it is actually quite effective.
For example, the modules work as nicely as they do, because of Perl's OO implementation.
As for poor performance and lack of strong typing, like I said, it's not a drop-in replacement for C++ or C. The fact that it's an interpreted, weakly typed language is a feature, though perhaps not always a desirable one.
Cheers,
Then you're no doubt familiar with the concept of a language that lets you shoot yourself in the foot (-; I'm sorry that Perl didn't work for you. But a lot of other people find that it works very nicely. The syntax is quite ugly, but it's not a show-stopping misfeature. Those familiar with the syntax can read it without that much difficulty. I use C++ and often come back to perl after a long break and don't have much trouble picking it up again.
IMO for fast admin like stuff people should use {ba,k,c}sh, sed, awk and expr.
These languages aren't substantially nicer. Try doing anything nontrivial in any of them (except perhaps awk) and you'll have a truly hideous beast on your hands.
Says who ? If you don't use it for "general programming purposes", you're not in much of a position to make such a judgement.
Perl code can be readable and maintainable if it's written in C style and deliberately excludes the more esoteric features of the language.
It's disingenious to call the OO support in perl a "more esoteric feature" of the language -- nearly all the modules use it. If you use the modules, you're not really using a "C-style" any more, because you're using perl OO code.
For anything else, and any "serious" - i.e. complex - programming, pick C/C++ or Python.
You're getting bogged down in false dichotomies, and arbitrary/absurd classifications. What if you want to write a shortish (~1000 lines) program that leverages an existing module , and the program isn't a drop-in shellscript replacement ? And what if there's no such module for python ?
Because it's useful.
If you
want to do scripting use shell script+awk. If you
want to write a proper app use C/C++.
This is a false dichotomy. Not everything is neatly classifiable as "scripting" or a "proper app". As for using shell script, it doesn't work very well when you need to use pointers (and awk, iirc), which rules it out for most nontrivial tasks. Also, neither shellscript or awk have the same available libraries as perl.
He didn't say "turn it off", he said "don't use it". Perl is perfectly usable without creating packages.
Now can you please tell me why the fsck do I need a full-fledged object-oriented language to write scripts for cron jobs and CGI?
You don't. So don't use objects. I use perl as a drop-in replacement for bash script all the time, and it works just fine. I don't see how perl 6 is going to change that.
From what I could make of Larry's "Apocalypse", perl6 is going to be the next fsckin' Java. Bloated, slow and useless.
Perl has very little in common with java.
It only opens such cans of worms if it is abused. The problem is the tendencies of the napsterite thugs to confuse providing information with providing entertainment. The confusion is deliberate, because "access to information" sounds like something one may believe they're entitled to, while "access to entertainment" isn't.
a new found ability to communicate amongst one another is at risk right now.
If these P2P tools really were being used to "communicate", this wouldn't be an issue. I'd argue that distributing someone else's creative work is not "communicating" at all, it's more like providing a free entertainment service at someone else's expense. No-ones trying to ban web-servers, because these typically are indeed used for "communication".
We all need to pay for the goods and services we use to access information, and those who work hard to build that infrastructure need to reap the benefits.
I'm not clear on what your point is here.
but the actual money value of information will go down simply because it is now so easily reproducible.
Not sure on this point either. Maybe you mean "market value" ? The utility of information doesn't change.
Profit should be made in it's distribution and not in the hoarding of easily gotten patents and copyrights. That does no one any good.
The problem with this is that if you're prepared to make the basic assupmtion that people will act in their own economic interests, then the result would be that everyone would want to distribute and no-one would want to create. Obviously, the only sensible and morally acceptable system is one where anyone who does useful work, whether it be distribution or creation, is compensated.
I'm aware of these issues (my S.O. is not a native speaker). However, a lot of the people committing these lingual attrocities are American. BTW, non-native speakers tend to make more grammatical errors than spelling errors, and often use well-formed but idiosyncratic sentence structures.
Cheers,
Or, as he'd see it, "repelling a US invasion in Saudi Arabia". The problem with "freedom fighters" is like this is that they're more interested in imposing their own agenda than in "freedom".
The good news is that the US appear to have learned from their mistakes in that they are exercising due caution in supporting the northern alliance. One hopes they don't try to turn these guys into heros.
You mistakenly assume that my motivation was to "bolster my point". Actually, what motivates me here is that I simply find the level of illiteracy on slashdot annoying.
Capitalism, supply/demand and all that crap is all good on paper, but so is Marxism
Marxism fails even on paper, because it does not make the assumption that people will act in their own best interests.
Did the quality of the works improve because billions of dollars CAN be milked out of peanut-brained, hypnotized cattle?
It's difficult to compare the quality of the works. However, if you look at all the creative works produced over the last 50 years, I would suggest that you would find an enormous collection of works of exceptional quality.
I agree 200% with this assertion, but my point still stands.
In my book someone who demands large amounts of compensation for there contribution, is contributing less because of their demands.
The economic reality is that people will, for the most part, ask for whatever they can get. That's why we have capitalism. We assume that people for the most part will act in their best interests.
Why does modern society generally look up to people who TAKE the most rather than those who GIVE the most.
Again, try to use well-formed sentences. End questions with a period. Don't confuse "there" and "their".
The above statement is an erroneous sweeping generalisation, and I'd argue that it's also false. Many of history's most admired people were really not that rich. Scientists, humanitarians, great leaders. The wealthy people who are admired are usually admired for what they gave, not what they took.
You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the free software movement if thats what you think we are saying
No, I'm not doing anything of the sort.I think you are erroneously confusing the recent napster/warez/anti-copyright leeches with the free software movement, and such confusion does an enormous dis-service to free software. I don't see what this free-beer anti-copyright movement has to do with the free software movement. The free software movement is about giving, the free-beer movement is about taking. I suppose the free-beer crowd play the role of parasite who see the free software community as a convenient host.
In most arguments speaking out against copyright you will find there reasoning in there somewhere.
Reasoning ? I see very little of it in the arguments against copyright. BTW, I am surprised that someone such as yourself who is so obviously repelled by greed would not find the behaviour of the napster users repugnant. After all, their arguments against copyright are little more to them than a way to get something for nothing.
It's moving in that direction, because there isn't a vocal, well organised lobby who has raised compelling moral counter-arguments. This is one of the problems with these slashmonkeys who just scream "free free free". They drown out all the good arguments. I agree that there are a lot of legitimate objections one can make to laws that have been passed, and laws that are being lobbied for.
This will increase speculation that the source will do well,
Some people would like to make well-informed purchase decisions, instead of buying on faith alone.
[snip: monopolies, etc]
but I don't see how a different model would help the problem. Actually, a model where people had to buy on reputation and faith alone would tend to make the market more conservative. It's the small authors who offer "try-before-you-buy" packages. Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM don't need to do this, because people will buy their products on reputation alone. A reputation based system would lead to more market consolidation, and more conservative buyers.
And it doesnt matter if you are for or against it, its coming, and you either work with it or go up in arms against it.
That looks like a false dichotomy, but maybe it isn't. I'd argue that the record companies are looking for a way to work with it.
Blah blah blah. You've wandered off into some obscure and pedantic discussion of semantics and avoided the issue I raise. The point is that it's difficult to make creative works available for appraisal without making them available for distribution.
This means the originator of such information could still make a lot of money if they build up a good enough reputation and there is a large enough market demand for this information.
I should point out that you are confusing information with creative works. They are not the same thing at all.
Let me address your claim. The main problem is that it creates a tragedy-of-commons issue in that there is a disincentive for anyone to pay for development of creative works. Where a corporation does need such works for their own use, there's a disincentive to release them. When works are released, there's a disincentive to release them without draconian copy-protection measures.
One of the problems with arguments for alternative systems to copyright is that the people who make them assume everyone will be altruistic. It never occurs to them that the correct assumption to make is that people will act in their own best interests.
Another problem is the issue of building a reputation. This obviously raises barriers to market entry, because it is much harder for the public to appraise a product. The ability of customers to make informed buying decisions is obstructed.
Again as I said in another post, monopolies kill the other possibilities, and that is why people rather give information away for free rather then sell information to other people.
Anyone is free to write their own software using their own model. Surely, there exists some part of the software market where no monopoly exists (actually, there exist several). So if these other models work so well, there's nothing stopping someone using them.
I am not playing a false dichotomy card here. I'm merely pointing out that if there's no financial incentive for authors, you'll see less authors.
that some existing businesses "developing software" will collapse and not be replaced has nothing to do with the viability of developing software as a business;
If the net effect is that there are less people developing applications, then it has quite a lot to do with the viability of developing software as a business. (To clarify, I'm not mandating that it
be replaced by a business with a similar model)
there are in fact legitimate objections to some methods of turning a profit,
There certainly are. Unfortunately, the legitimate objections are usually drowned out by a bunch of idiots screaming "free free free".
yes, extending copyright into perpetuity is
I agree that the duration of copyrights is cause for legitimate concern. (Too bad that this concern is all too often drowned out by a bunch of idiots screaming "free free free".)
ReiserFS is nice, but it hasn't been stable for very long. So you'd need a fairly recent kernel to deploy it safely. Of course, if you've patched for the ptrace exploit, you're already running a recent kernel anyway (-;
Your abuse of the word "design" completely ignores the fact that developing software is a lengthy, expensive and labor intensive process, that involves design and implementation.
Your shoes analogy is not terribly pertinent, and either dishonest or stupid.
Why should digital goods have the right to charge excessive (relative to ANY other industry ever) amounts for design ?
Design, prototyping, testing, and implementation. As for your claim about "excessive" amounts, it's an arbitrary and nonsensical claim unless you are able to define what entails an "excessive" amount.
Do you honestly think if people didnt get money for designing things that people all over the owrld would suddenly down tools and change professions.
At least try to use well-formed sentences. If a certain type of business is not economically viable (eg developing software), existing businesses will collapse, and there will be an absence of startups to replace the failed companies. In other words, yes. If people aren't paid for writing software, software will not get written.
Some people actually enjoy their work, and not for the $$$
I enjoy my work, and certainly don't do it for money, but I also need to eat.
Moreover, it's admirable to be enthusiastic enough about ones work to the point that money is not an issue. But those who demand this virtue of others are invariably scoundrels who demand that others to give freely so as they may take freely.
Once their work hits "the market", it is worthless without copyrights, because "hitting the market" would mean that the work could freely be redistributed. And this is the problem.
it should be up to the market how much to pay for it, not up to the author, who would rather squeeze money out of the rich rather then let the market decide.
This is absurd. The market might want something for nothing, but it can't, and should not get it.
The author should be able to choose whatever pricing scheme they desire, and the market should decide whether or not the pricing scheme is acceptable. This is the way free markets work.
We will never know because we are stuck with this system, but we will still have people like you who would take an idea and claim it fact and ignore the other possibilties as if they didnt exist
Other possibilities exist perhaps, but until other possibilities demonstrate themselves to be viable business models, they deserve to be ignored.
To do that, you'd need to find a decent payment model to fund the creation of digital goods. IMO, copyrights are a pretty good model -- basically, everyone who uses the product pays, and everyone pays a modest amount (modest compared to the cost of production). The problem is that you want to destroy the copyright system, but you are unable to propose an adequate replacement. "Free free free" is not an adequate replacement be3cause of the simple fact that someone has to pay for the initial production.
If there is indeed a better way of doing things, just go ahead and do it, and it will replace copyrights, because it is a more efficient system. IOW, if things like the "street performer protocol" are so damn good, they shouldn't require destruction of the copyright system.
This is a simple reality of the way markets work. IMO, we've observed attempts at different models, and they have been unsuccesful, because they simply don't provide financial incentives.
Most people at least believe copyright is in principle a good idea. The zealots who scream "free free free" all the time do a great job at marginalising themselves, and those who have a more moderate agenda than simply getting everything for free.
Nonsense. No-ones trashing "anygui" for being new and challenging conventional wisdom. It's being criticised because it's a rehash of old designs. If there were some evidence that the authors better understood the pitfalls of similar projects (AWT being a good example), and had some plan to address these issues, perhaps the posters here would be less cynical.
The article trashes java, while failing to point out how "anygui" will avoid the same pitfalls.
And yes, AWT was dumped.. by a corporation who failed to see enough profits to come from their investment.
And a corporation who realised that a complete redesign would be a more effective use of limited resources than trying to fix AWT. Or are you trying to argue that Swing was a triumph of marketting over good design ? I think you'd find anyone who'd used both toolkits would find that laughable.
Anyway, I find it hard to get excited about this toolkit, because it looks to me like a solution waiting for a problem.
This is demonstrably false. The majority of the perl toolkits that I've used do make use of perl objects. Sure, in your 100 line web program or sysadmin script, it might not matter, but when you want to write scalable modular software, it does.
On the other hand, most object oriented designs fail, take Gnome as the best example, circular library dependencies anyone?
GNOME is not a good example of "object oriented design", because very few OO projects use C as the implementation language. As for circular dependencies, that is simply indicative of poor design.