I can believe "games", but can you be more specific about Apple? Which features does Apple have that they couldn't develop incrementally and make into the next big thing?
I can't think of anything, from a Mach microkernel to BSD Unix circa NeXT 1987 to Expose, Spaces, and Time Machine.
Companies who want to truly innovate (instead of add small incremental features) are left in the cold due to an inability to recoup the large initial R&D expense it takes to make the "next big thing."
Many of the newer restrictions put in between GPL2 and GPL3 were due to this little factoid, namely Tivo using GPL2 software in a way that RMS didn't like, and making money off of it.
Don't be obtuse. What language in the GPL v3 allows the non-commercial redistribution of unmodifiable GPL'd software while forbidding commercial redistribution?
Moreover, open source drivers make it very easy to reverse engineer the hardware itself -- again giving away your IP for free.
By "very easy", do you mean "Once you've spent a billion dollars building a fab, masking a few dies, and realizing you'll always be six to eighteen months behind what the state of the art?" That's like saying having the GCC source code makes it very easy to reverse engineer the Core 2 Duo.
I stand corrected. I guess the "developer hours" argument doesn't work either.
You had something about Ruby benefiting from hindsight though. The best thing you can say about Java from a language design perspective is that it took only 95% of the "must own the world" approach from Smalltalk and borrowed the syntactic and semantic simplicity of C++ (which is mostly backwards from what any sane language designer would do).
You can give Java-the-platform some credit for dragging the "Only pre-compiled software is serious software" world slightly toward JIT compilers and garbage collection, but again, Ruby the platform implements far more of Lisp than the JVM is likely to.
The only thing holding them back is negotiating open licenses with the owners of the technology they themselves licensed to produce the binary drivers.
Do you have a source for that? I talked to a couple of driver developers from NVidia last year, and they said the company's position was that they wouldn't get sufficient value from non-NVidia employees even if there were no licensing problems (S3 texture compression being the big one).
Perhaps things have changed in a year, but eight years after that little crusade which finally convinced NVidia to release beta binary blobs, I remain dubious that end-user pressure matters, at all. If Linux-based render farms decided not to use binary blobs, we might get somewhere.
To give incentive to the hardware manufacturers, we need a distro with the widest possible user base, not some fringe OSS purist crap.
Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.
The more interesting question is "Does the cultural anthropology question that theism progresses from animism to semi-anthropic polytheism to monotheism in a process of theological-cultural refinement have historical evidence?" Then again, higher criticism sometimes takes a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach to historical evidence.
I think the example I was reaching for was/%foo[bar]/. Again, what are the possibilities?
What does the documentation say? (If you didn't read the documentation and are just guessing at what could happen, you should probably not write programs anyone cares about.)
As far as $foo ending in a backslash, I don't know one way or the other, but I hope you're wrong, because that would be pretty hideous.
If this worked the way you think it should work, it would "work" like PHP's magic auto-escaping auto-SQL-injection-hole features. You need the quotemeta operator or the \Q...\E sequence in regular expressions.
My larger point is that Perl is needlessly arcane, to the point of incomprehensibility for most people.
Most people aren't programmers, let alone Perl programmers. No one in Japan cares that I can't read Kanji. How is that interesting?
My personal suspicion was qualified quotations from Q.
If I had an extant Q, I'd charge admission to see it with my first editions of The Garden of Forking Paths and On the Use of Mirrors in the Game of Chess!
As the Perl 5 regular expression documentation suggests, the array @foo interpolates, following standard interpolation rules. [bar] is probably a character class, unless there's a single backslash at the end of the interpolated string, in which case the opening square bracket is a literal square bracket and the character class becomes a literal string.
What if $foo's value ended in a single backslash?? Would that matter here?
Yes.
Obviously I'm not very knowledgeable about Perl, but I believe my larger point is being made here.
Which larger point is that? Of course people who don't know a language don't understand it! Why is that a surprise?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that a filesystem limit?
I understand, but what does that have to do with not being able to make incremental improvements?
I can believe "games", but can you be more specific about Apple? Which features does Apple have that they couldn't develop incrementally and make into the next big thing?
I can't think of anything, from a Mach microkernel to BSD Unix circa NeXT 1987 to Expose, Spaces, and Time Machine.
It's illegal to use GPLd code to commit wire fraud, too.
I'm curious. Can you name some?
Not at all. The GPL puts no restrictions on use. You can use it and modify it as you wish.
The GPL only applies when you redistribute it.
Don't be obtuse. What language in the GPL v3 allows the non-commercial redistribution of unmodifiable GPL'd software while forbidding commercial redistribution?
How does Google make money at anything? They'll sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone paid Slashdot to link to a Computerworld article to promote Silverlight? IronRuby? Computerworld?
May I recommend you put down Dan Brown and pick up Focault's Pendulum? The conspiracy theories there are immeasurably better.
From the GPL side, you can -- but you cannot distribute the resulting work.
It doesn't. The GPL only governs redistribution.
That may be because reasonable people recognize that you have more rights under the GPL than you have under standard copyright.
Citation, please.
I hope your other reasons have more basis in reality than the incorrect claim of the grandparent post.
By "very easy", do you mean "Once you've spent a billion dollars building a fab, masking a few dies, and realizing you'll always be six to eighteen months behind what the state of the art?" That's like saying having the GCC source code makes it very easy to reverse engineer the Core 2 Duo.
You had something about Ruby benefiting from hindsight though. The best thing you can say about Java from a language design perspective is that it took only 95% of the "must own the world" approach from Smalltalk and borrowed the syntactic and semantic simplicity of C++ (which is mostly backwards from what any sane language designer would do).
You can give Java-the-platform some credit for dragging the "Only pre-compiled software is serious software" world slightly toward JIT compilers and garbage collection, but again, Ruby the platform implements far more of Lisp than the JVM is likely to.
Do you have a source for that? I talked to a couple of driver developers from NVidia last year, and they said the company's position was that they wouldn't get sufficient value from non-NVidia employees even if there were no licensing problems (S3 texture compression being the big one).
Perhaps things have changed in a year, but eight years after that little crusade which finally convinced NVidia to release beta binary blobs, I remain dubious that end-user pressure matters, at all. If Linux-based render farms decided not to use binary blobs, we might get somewhere.
Ruby is arguably older than Java -- and if you want to quibble about Oak and public releases and whatnot, they're both fourteen or fifteen years old.
Yeah, NVidia and Adobe are really feeling the heat to provide source code now that millions of Linux users have demonstrated that a little temporary convenience thanks to binary blobs is acceptable.
The more interesting question is "Does the cultural anthropology question that theism progresses from animism to semi-anthropic polytheism to monotheism in a process of theological-cultural refinement have historical evidence?" Then again, higher criticism sometimes takes a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach to historical evidence.
Debatably, the influence goes the other way around: Hebrew theology influenced syncretic Persian theology.
You should read A unified theory of garbage collection by Bacon, Cheng, and Rajan.
Perl 5.8.0 (released July 2002) added pervasive Unicode support.
What does the documentation say? (If you didn't read the documentation and are just guessing at what could happen, you should probably not write programs anyone cares about.)
If this worked the way you think it should work, it would "work" like PHP's magic auto-escaping auto-SQL-injection-hole features. You need the quotemeta operator or the \Q...\E sequence in regular expressions.
Most people aren't programmers, let alone Perl programmers. No one in Japan cares that I can't read Kanji. How is that interesting?
If I had an extant Q, I'd charge admission to see it with my first editions of The Garden of Forking Paths and On the Use of Mirrors in the Game of Chess!
As the Perl 5 regular expression documentation suggests, the array @foo interpolates, following standard interpolation rules. [bar] is probably a character class, unless there's a single backslash at the end of the interpolated string, in which case the opening square bracket is a literal square bracket and the character class becomes a literal string.
Yes.