"If you use BitKeeper, then I will control your development process. I am free to change how you work at just a whim." Can you imagine even ONE company that would accept terms like this? I can't.
Uh, pretty much all proprietary software is based on that model. A lot of people and companies don't seem to mind it, even when it hurts them. Why do you think MS changes their development tool set every few years? Well, probably a lot of reasons, but one of them is that it sets back their competitors: First, learn OLE. Nope, we're going to use COM. Now DCOM. Now ATL; oops, no, that's no good. Let's try.NET. Next week, Avalon... and don't even begin to think about DB access!
From the review, I see no evidence at all that you, the reviewer, would recommend the book for anyone. Yet you rate it 4 (out of 10, right?) How bad would it have to be to rate 1?
A) the MAC address is available only on the last segment. Or rather, it's at the ethernet (not IP) level, and it's used to direct packets along a particular segment. It changes all the time as a packet moves through the internet, or even disappears completely if you go through an ATM cloud or some such.
B) Most (or at least many) devices allow you to change the MAC address. There are good reasons for doing this.
(Damn, no mod points when you need them.)
Owl is nice: easy to setup, easy to use, decent
search and organization capabilities, multiple
versions. I like it.
If I'm writing code solely to fulfill my own needs, I'm not going to release it at all. Why bother?
I release so that other people may benefit from my work, as I've benefitted from theirs. I would like this process to continue. The value of my code is traded for the value of their code.
If someone else wants to make money selling my code, then they need to share some of *that* wealth. Money or code. No free rides.
I'm really mystified by people assume that there is no value in code. Because that's what you're doing if you think copyleft style licenses don't bring value to the code writer.
I don't mind the having to do seperate commits and updates; if it's truly an independent project, you *should* have to think about what you're doing.
The real problem with svn:externals is that they don't branch and tag "properly"; that is, the external still refers to the original part of the tree, and will get any changes made to it. You can work around this, and because the definition of "properly" is heavily dependent on intent, I doubt there really is a general solution. But it's a pain.
Thus, I've gone with the choice mentioned by the other poster: just copy the library into the project, and treat it just like a vendor drop of 3rd party code. That way, you don't have to worry about breaking other projects, or other projects breaking you, and tags and branches work as expected.
Because, of course, all terrorists are Middle Eastern. Right. And all muggers are black. And all spies are Chinese (Or is it Russian? I get confused, sometimes, despite how obvious all this is for some people.)
Reviewers receiving advance copies is standard practice. If you're going to be suspicious of that, you pretty much have to ignore reviewers in general.
Ebay usually has Audreys available, don't forget the USB ethernet adapter. FWIW, I've got one in my kitchen, it works fine, but it's browser is pretty
limited: no javascript/java, which may make some
of the popular recipe sites hard to use. If you're
doing your own recipe DB though, no problem.
The Neuros supports Ogg/Vorbis. They've also supported Linux users for years. Yeah, it's not the sleekest/smallest player available, but it works fine, and sounds better than many. No one said that supporting free software would be cheap!
OGG may not be the answer for everyone, but it certainly is the answer for a lot of us.
A secondary MX won't help for the case where the machine that gets your old dynamic address happens to be running a mail server. Depending on how unlucky you are, the message will be rejected (because the address isn't valid on that machine), or worse, accepted. In either case, the secondary MX will never see it. Admittedly, this is unlikely, but it *could* happen.
Supports all record types, dynamic updates, and it's free for first 5 domains.
But you don't want to run a mailserver on a dynamic DNS machine anyway. When the IP changes, some of your mail will be delivered to some other machine until all the DNS caches expire. If you're lucky, than other machine won't be running a server, and it will just bounce. If you're unlucky, the other machine will reject the mail, and you'll never see it.
Actually, despite the misleading prefix (HR), it's already passed the House and is in the Senate. As a side note, it's got an extremely misleading title.
Oh, bullshit. The person giving you the ride can easily determine whether or not the flight is on time and arrive at the airport to pick you up. In fact, it's *more* likely to be accurate: you don't know what the conditions are like at the airport, but the people/computer estimating at-the-gate times do.
Is it really to much to ask all you yell-phone users to just STFU for a couple of hours?
There is no monetary advantage to opening source or revealing trade secrets.
Sure there is. I buy only hardware that is supported by open source drivers. Philips, Nvidia, and ATI are in the hardware business. If they want to sell hardware to people like me, they'll have to supply the docs. I'm not asking them to supply drivers, although that would be nice. I'm asking them to make the docs available, so that others can write drivers.
The Philips case is especially absurd. I'm prepared to believe that ATI and Nvidia have stuff in their drivers that gives them a competitive advantage. But some dinky little compressor? Give me a break. I bet it's only proprietary because it's some crappy little algortithm that it would embarass them to release.
They've released software that translates the raw GPS satellite data into corrected, useful coordinates (e.g. latitude/longitude) in a variety of mapping systems. These are the calculations that are done inside a typicall GPS unit. Unless you are building a homebrew GPS receiver, you probably don't need it.
It depends on the application, the cost of being cross-platform, and the potential value of the expanded market.
The likely answer is really that you can't afford to be cross-platform. Good cross-platform development is expensive. It's *not* just a matter of coding everything in (say) MONO/GTK#. You have to have installers for each platform. You have to have documentation for each platform. You have to have support for each platform. You have to have test infrastructure for each platform. It just goes on and on and on.
Therefore, if you have an application that makes sense on Windows, the market for non-Windows versions is so small that it's silly to waste the money and time to be cross-platform. Alternatively, if you have an app that is going to be Unixy, then just get the Unixy one right, and go after that market. Your revenues might not be as large, but I bet your profit margins will be better.
Sure, there are exceptions. But general statements like "you need to be cross-platform" means you probably haven't really thought about your target market and don't have any how much cross-platform really costs. (Just to be clear: running on a few different Unix variants isn't what I'm talking about, although even just that adds a surprising amount of effort.)
Slashdot Mirror
"If you use BitKeeper, then I will control your development process. I am free to change how you work at just a whim." Can you imagine even ONE company that would accept terms like this? I can't.
Uh, pretty much all proprietary software is based on that model. A lot of people and companies don't seem to mind it, even when it hurts them. Why do you think MS changes their development tool set every few years? Well, probably a lot of reasons, but one of them is that it sets back their competitors: First, learn OLE. Nope, we're going to use COM. Now DCOM. Now ATL; oops, no, that's no good. Let's try .NET. Next week, Avalon... and don't even begin to think about DB access!
From the review, I see no evidence at all that you, the reviewer, would recommend the book for anyone. Yet you rate it 4 (out of 10, right?) How bad would it have to be to rate 1?
A) the MAC address is available only on the last segment. Or rather, it's at the ethernet (not IP) level, and it's used to direct packets along a particular segment. It changes all the time as a packet moves through the internet, or even disappears completely if you go through an ATM cloud or some such.
B) Most (or at least many) devices allow you to change the MAC address. There are good reasons for doing this.
Not if your goal is to increase your own site traffic. Note that the link for the article is the same as the link for the submitter.
(Damn, no mod points when you need them.) Owl is nice: easy to setup, easy to use, decent search and organization capabilities, multiple versions. I like it.
If I'm writing code solely to fulfill my own needs, I'm not going to release it at all. Why bother?
I release so that other people may benefit from my work, as I've benefitted from theirs. I would like this process to continue. The value of my code is traded for the value of their code.
If someone else wants to make money selling my code, then they need to share some of *that* wealth. Money or code. No free rides.
I'm really mystified by people assume that there is no value in code. Because that's what you're doing if you think copyleft style licenses don't bring value to the code writer.
Because there is a reasonably good book available for free online.
I don't mind the having to do seperate commits and updates; if it's truly an independent project, you *should* have to think about what you're doing.
The real problem with svn:externals is that they don't branch and tag "properly"; that is, the external still refers to the original part of the tree, and will get any changes made to it. You can work around this, and because the definition of "properly" is heavily dependent on intent, I doubt there really is a general solution. But it's a pain.
Thus, I've gone with the choice mentioned by the other poster: just copy the library into the project, and treat it just like a vendor drop of 3rd party code. That way, you don't have to worry about breaking other projects, or other projects breaking you, and tags and branches work as expected.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone else refer to BitKeeper as expensive in relationship to ClearCase. Did you do something to piss Larry McAvoy off?
Because, of course, all terrorists are Middle Eastern. Right. And all muggers are black. And all spies are Chinese (Or is it Russian? I get confused, sometimes, despite how obvious all this is for some people.)
Talk about "FALSE sense of security."
Reviewers receiving advance copies is standard practice. If you're going to be suspicious of that, you pretty much have to ignore reviewers in general.
Before you buy an Optra, price replacement toner cartridges for the specific model you're looking at. Some aren't bad, some are pretty outrageous.
Ebay usually has Audreys available, don't forget the USB ethernet adapter. FWIW, I've got one in my kitchen, it works fine, but it's browser is pretty limited: no javascript/java, which may make some of the popular recipe sites hard to use. If you're doing your own recipe DB though, no problem.
As the other poster said, get a separate TV.
The Neuros supports Ogg/Vorbis. They've also supported Linux users for years. Yeah, it's not the sleekest/smallest player available, but it works fine, and sounds better than many. No one said that supporting free software would be cheap!
OGG may not be the answer for everyone, but it certainly is the answer for a lot of us.
A secondary MX won't help for the case where the machine that gets your old dynamic address happens to be running a mail server. Depending on how unlucky you are, the message will be rejected (because the address isn't valid on that machine), or worse, accepted. In either case, the secondary MX will never see it. Admittedly, this is unlikely, but it *could* happen.
You are looking for www.zoneedit.com
Supports all record types, dynamic updates, and it's free for first 5 domains.
But you don't want to run a mailserver on a dynamic DNS machine anyway. When the IP changes, some of your mail will be delivered to some other machine until all the DNS caches expire. If you're lucky, than other machine won't be running a server, and it will just bounce. If you're unlucky, the other machine will reject the mail, and you'll never see it.
Did you read the article, or just the call-out? He said that Solaris/x86 is a joke because of the lack of drivers. And he's absolutely right.
Actually, despite the misleading prefix (HR), it's already passed the House and is in the Senate. As a side note, it's got an extremely misleading title.
"Majority". Would that be the majority that voted for Gore in 2000?
The Minibox appears to have only one ethernet port, and no way to expand, which makes it pretty useless as a firewall. Cute as hell, though.
Oh, bullshit. The person giving you the ride can easily determine whether or not the flight is on time and arrive at the airport to pick you up. In fact, it's *more* likely to be accurate: you don't know what the conditions are like at the airport, but the people/computer estimating at-the-gate times do.
Is it really to much to ask all you yell-phone users to just STFU for a couple of hours?
There is no monetary advantage to opening source or revealing trade secrets.
Sure there is. I buy only hardware that is supported by open source drivers. Philips, Nvidia, and ATI are in the hardware business. If they want to sell hardware to people like me, they'll have to supply the docs. I'm not asking them to supply drivers, although that would be nice. I'm asking them to make the docs available, so that others can write drivers.
The Philips case is especially absurd. I'm prepared to believe that ATI and Nvidia have stuff in their drivers that gives them a competitive advantage. But some dinky little compressor? Give me a break. I bet it's only proprietary because it's some crappy little algortithm that it would embarass them to release.
[repeats persistent myth about Chevy Nova in Mexico and Central America]
Not True.
They've released software that translates the raw GPS satellite data into corrected, useful coordinates (e.g. latitude/longitude) in a variety of mapping systems. These are the calculations that are done inside a typicall GPS unit. Unless you are building a homebrew GPS receiver, you probably don't need it.
It depends on the application, the cost of being cross-platform, and the potential value of the expanded market.
The likely answer is really that you can't afford to be cross-platform. Good cross-platform development is expensive. It's *not* just a matter of coding everything in (say) MONO/GTK#. You have to have installers for each platform. You have to have documentation for each platform. You have to have support for each platform. You have to have test infrastructure for each platform. It just goes on and on and on.
Therefore, if you have an application that makes sense on Windows, the market for non-Windows versions is so small that it's silly to waste the money and time to be cross-platform. Alternatively, if you have an app that is going to be Unixy, then just get the Unixy one right, and go after that market. Your revenues might not be as large, but I bet your profit margins will be better.
Sure, there are exceptions. But general statements like "you need to be cross-platform" means you probably haven't really thought about your target market and don't have any how much cross-platform really costs. (Just to be clear: running on a few different Unix variants isn't what I'm talking about, although even just that adds a surprising amount of effort.)