There's no opinion involved in the fact that you stated something that was factually incorrect in an extremely inflammatory matter and then got called out on it. I never claimed to be smart, but I'll take it as a compliment that you imply I feel as such. I've taken great pleasure in making a fool out of you. Every reply is another opportunity in doing so, so I look forward to your next far-reaching attempt at saving face.
Man, you're not good with this whole "logic" thing are you? It was an inflammatory comment regardless of whether or not the project was actually dead. My point was, apparently completely lost on you, is that if you *are* going to say something inflammatory, at least take 30 seconds worth of research to make sure what you're saying is factually correct. So to break this down in terms you might understand:
I don't check out the code for each project mentioned on Slashdot
Well, if you're going to make inflammatory comments, in this case contingent on the project being dead, perhaps you should verify that the project is *actually dead.* Moron.
Dead by what metric? The fact that the website hasn't been updated? Perhaps you should check the commit log before making such uninformed statements (~10 commits a day as far back as I checked). Typical cynical slashdot neckbeard, reading just enough to spew a bunch of indignant tripe.
You're talking to a bunch of people who likely pay $2 for a cup of coffee every morning but hem and haw over spending $.99 on a mobile app. People are retarded and unable to put things into perspective.
Hardly. JS is nuanced. Undefined vs null? == vs ===? Simple in the fact that it doesn't contain crazy "advanced" language constructs like namespaces or imports so you ultimately have to bastardize the ever-loving shit out of other language constructs to accomplish the same thing? Yes, it's simple in the sense that it will let you do almost anything and you will pull your hair out trying to figure out what the hell is going wrong.
In the browser it is single threaded. You don't need to worry about concurrent programming.
Well played, sir. Pretend that an inherent limitation is somehow a feature. As if, if I were to choose another language, I would be forced to write multithreaded code.
Also, JS has first class functions, yes, but so do LOTS of other languages.
Exactly. I was never "picking" on first class functions. It was part of all the hubbub when some random group of hipsters suddenly thought javascript had enough redeeming qualities to make it worth using outside the browser, as if it was somehow unique, or in the case of prototypal inheritance, actually useful in any sort of practical sense.
Remember when javascript had a terrible rep? Then people were all like, "No! It's totally awesome! It has first-class functions and prototypal inheritance!" Yeah, you remember. You read all the blogs. You had flashbacks to your not-so-pleasant encounters with javascript while developing client-side web applications. Then, all the sudden, prototypal inheritance became the in-thing, like popped collars. No matter how ugly or ridiculous it looked, you didn't want to be the only one who didn't think it was cool. You started writing gobs of hard to organize, impossible to refactor serverside javascript code. You convinced yourself, somehow, that you saved time by not having to issue some "compile" command. No, it just starts, DYNAMICALLY! What a cool word, dynamic -- like Ugg boots! And like wearing Ugg boots in the summertime, you tortured yourself searching for simple runtime errors. Static checking? Compiling? These are the things of white-collared enterprise folks.
You are not a white collared enterprise guy. You are a renegade. With a popped-collar. And ugg boots.
I'm sorry for all those who I've inconvenienced. This time it was my fault. I created a new username for security purposes. Apparently, PSN didn't take too kindly to the username "; drop table Users; --"
You act as if forking is always a good thing. IMO, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction that not only fragments the community, but the software as well. Now you have two similar yet different products with fewer people supporting both. The real victim here in the end-user, all because a few people share some flawed software ideology.
Not just OpenOffice. It also resulted in a fork of the big Java CI tool Hudson which is now Jenkins. And yes, the irony is still in full effect. In a hilariously delightful manner, you point out the "dangers" of proprietary software, where the most relevant example of such a thing happening illustrates the dangers of FOSS.
My point isn't that either one is inherently good or bad, it's that the vocal FOSS crowd are a bunch of freaking morons that ignore reality when attempting to make a point.
This issue is completely unlike the issue linux faces - if these people used Ubuntu, they would simply upgrade to a new release and not pay a dime.
So first off, let's clarify something -- We're talking about a desktop release of an OS. You imply that hardware requirements go unchanged with new releases of Ubuntu, which, obviously, is complete horse shit.
People might avoid upgrading a linux install to a newer release because they don't want to have to fix things that break because of inevitable changes in software packages.
Ubuntu is on a 6 month release cycle, with LTS releases supported for three years. So, unless you want to be running unsupported software, you will be forced to upgrade after a maximum of 3 years, and shit *will* break. The overwhelming majority of people have no problem paying for software that will be supported for a decade and that isn't breaking shit every 6 months.
People don't want to upgrade windows because they don't want to shell out huge amounts of money to upgrade hundreds or thousands of computers that are already working fine. This is the big difference.
You do realize that FOSS vendors make their money by, *gasp*, making people shell out huge amounts of money for support, right? Again, you play on this common misconception that FOSS comes with no monetary investment. Once again, complete horseshit.
This issue is completely unlike the issue linux faces - if these people used Ubuntu, they would simply upgrade to a new release and not pay a dime.
"Simply upgrade." Right, simple as in breaking tons of shit and spending hours pulling your hair out trying to fix everything, and eventually giving up and doing a fresh install.
Ironically, the best example of what you just said occurred when Oracle bought Sun. Thanks for the healthy dose of irony on this fine Thursday morning.
How did marketing and OEM bribes get in to a conversation about software maintenance?
Remember when Dell gave the option to put Ubuntu, OEM, on their computers? That worked out swimmingly, didn't it? Marketing my ass. You could throw all the marketing dollars you want at it, it won't change the fact that software written by a bunch of basement dwellers driven by an ideology that makes their software unusable in the mainstream will *not* be successful.
It's not idealism at all. It's total pragmatism. Any *popular* open source app will have:
- Well commented, maintainable code
- *Some* people in the community with the skills and inclination to maintain it
- Or, *some* people in the community with the money and inclination to pay someone to maintain it
More idealism. There are defacto standards that are horribly written, horribly documented, and only maintainable by a small number of people. OpenSSL is a great example of this. It is nothing other than sheer stupidity to believe that the quality of code is somehow affected by the license it chooses to adopt.
Spare me. FOSS depends on these idealistic principles that anyone can and will be able to maintain source code simply because it's available, which is complete and utter bullshit for reasons so obvious that I won't waste my time enumerating them. There's a reason FOSS fails to find mainstream success except in cases where code is being maintained by corporate entities.
They're attempting to replicate C# 5's feature set, and using a reasonable timeline it won't be ready until C# 6 is released. FOSS is going to fall victim to NIH syndrome, or more specifically, NIBM (Not invented by Microsoft) syndrome.
Considering a typical usage scenario of a phone app: downloading information from a remote source, loading cached data, UI animations, all happening simultaneously... yeah I could easily use 4 cores.
Who cares what kind of real world use it has? Give someone the choice between a phone with 5MP camera and a 6MP camera and more is always better, regardless of actual picture quality. Same with cores. The only thing more effective from a marketing standpoint is giving a fancy new name to existing technology. Your typical consumer is an easily-gamed moron.
Wrong. They banned any license that would place responsibility on Microsoft to distribute the source for 3rd party apps. In typical slashdot fashion, they take a completely reasonable clause and turn it into a war on open source. You can license your app under anything that wouldn't require Microsoft to distribute the source. Apple does the same exact thing.
You realize that once it's been leaked, mirrored thousands of times and exposed via major news sources to the entire world, it's hard to consider it "classified" information. You see the irony there? The fact that people making the decisions don't understand that it is now ubiquitous, and to even bother restricting it is entirely fruitless?
I'll be around to explain any other jokes that fly over your head, just hollar.
Did you even bother reading the summary? Specifically, the part that says "The move was ordered by the 24th Air Force."
I've been guilty of not RTFA, but jesus christ dude, the summary?
Slashdot Mirror
There's no opinion involved in the fact that you stated something that was factually incorrect in an extremely inflammatory matter and then got called out on it. I never claimed to be smart, but I'll take it as a compliment that you imply I feel as such. I've taken great pleasure in making a fool out of you. Every reply is another opportunity in doing so, so I look forward to your next far-reaching attempt at saving face.
Man, you're not good with this whole "logic" thing are you? It was an inflammatory comment regardless of whether or not the project was actually dead. My point was, apparently completely lost on you, is that if you *are* going to say something inflammatory, at least take 30 seconds worth of research to make sure what you're saying is factually correct. So to break this down in terms you might understand:
Saying something inflammatory + saying something factually incorrect == moron.
Therefore:
you == moron.
I don't check out the code for each project mentioned on Slashdot
Well, if you're going to make inflammatory comments, in this case contingent on the project being dead, perhaps you should verify that the project is *actually dead.* Moron.
Dead by what metric? The fact that the website hasn't been updated? Perhaps you should check the commit log before making such uninformed statements (~10 commits a day as far back as I checked). Typical cynical slashdot neckbeard, reading just enough to spew a bunch of indignant tripe.
You're talking to a bunch of people who likely pay $2 for a cup of coffee every morning but hem and haw over spending $.99 on a mobile app. People are retarded and unable to put things into perspective.
Microsoft didn't hire anybody from the Chevron team, but way to put a cynical spin on misinformation that will be blindly accepted here at Slashdot.
JS is SIMPLE.
Hardly. JS is nuanced. Undefined vs null? == vs ===? Simple in the fact that it doesn't contain crazy "advanced" language constructs like namespaces or imports so you ultimately have to bastardize the ever-loving shit out of other language constructs to accomplish the same thing? Yes, it's simple in the sense that it will let you do almost anything and you will pull your hair out trying to figure out what the hell is going wrong.
In the browser it is single threaded. You don't need to worry about concurrent programming.
Well played, sir. Pretend that an inherent limitation is somehow a feature. As if, if I were to choose another language, I would be forced to write multithreaded code.
Also, JS has first class functions, yes, but so do LOTS of other languages.
Exactly. I was never "picking" on first class functions. It was part of all the hubbub when some random group of hipsters suddenly thought javascript had enough redeeming qualities to make it worth using outside the browser, as if it was somehow unique, or in the case of prototypal inheritance, actually useful in any sort of practical sense.
Remember when javascript had a terrible rep? Then people were all like, "No! It's totally awesome! It has first-class functions and prototypal inheritance!" Yeah, you remember. You read all the blogs. You had flashbacks to your not-so-pleasant encounters with javascript while developing client-side web applications. Then, all the sudden, prototypal inheritance became the in-thing, like popped collars. No matter how ugly or ridiculous it looked, you didn't want to be the only one who didn't think it was cool. You started writing gobs of hard to organize, impossible to refactor serverside javascript code. You convinced yourself, somehow, that you saved time by not having to issue some "compile" command. No, it just starts, DYNAMICALLY! What a cool word, dynamic -- like Ugg boots! And like wearing Ugg boots in the summertime, you tortured yourself searching for simple runtime errors. Static checking? Compiling? These are the things of white-collared enterprise folks.
You are not a white collared enterprise guy. You are a renegade. With a popped-collar. And ugg boots.
I'm sorry for all those who I've inconvenienced. This time it was my fault. I created a new username for security purposes. Apparently, PSN didn't take too kindly to the username "; drop table Users; --"
So, like Facebook without the ability to properly monetize it. I'm sure that would work out swimmingly.
You act as if forking is always a good thing. IMO, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction that not only fragments the community, but the software as well. Now you have two similar yet different products with fewer people supporting both. The real victim here in the end-user, all because a few people share some flawed software ideology.
Not just OpenOffice. It also resulted in a fork of the big Java CI tool Hudson which is now Jenkins. And yes, the irony is still in full effect. In a hilariously delightful manner, you point out the "dangers" of proprietary software, where the most relevant example of such a thing happening illustrates the dangers of FOSS.
My point isn't that either one is inherently good or bad, it's that the vocal FOSS crowd are a bunch of freaking morons that ignore reality when attempting to make a point.
This issue is completely unlike the issue linux faces - if these people used Ubuntu, they would simply upgrade to a new release and not pay a dime.
So first off, let's clarify something -- We're talking about a desktop release of an OS. You imply that hardware requirements go unchanged with new releases of Ubuntu, which, obviously, is complete horse shit.
People might avoid upgrading a linux install to a newer release because they don't want to have to fix things that break because of inevitable changes in software packages.
Ubuntu is on a 6 month release cycle, with LTS releases supported for three years. So, unless you want to be running unsupported software, you will be forced to upgrade after a maximum of 3 years, and shit *will* break. The overwhelming majority of people have no problem paying for software that will be supported for a decade and that isn't breaking shit every 6 months.
People don't want to upgrade windows because they don't want to shell out huge amounts of money to upgrade hundreds or thousands of computers that are already working fine. This is the big difference.
You do realize that FOSS vendors make their money by, *gasp*, making people shell out huge amounts of money for support, right? Again, you play on this common misconception that FOSS comes with no monetary investment. Once again, complete horseshit.
This issue is completely unlike the issue linux faces - if these people used Ubuntu, they would simply upgrade to a new release and not pay a dime.
"Simply upgrade." Right, simple as in breaking tons of shit and spending hours pulling your hair out trying to fix everything, and eventually giving up and doing a fresh install.
Ironically, the best example of what you just said occurred when Oracle bought Sun. Thanks for the healthy dose of irony on this fine Thursday morning.
How did marketing and OEM bribes get in to a conversation about software maintenance?
Remember when Dell gave the option to put Ubuntu, OEM, on their computers? That worked out swimmingly, didn't it? Marketing my ass. You could throw all the marketing dollars you want at it, it won't change the fact that software written by a bunch of basement dwellers driven by an ideology that makes their software unusable in the mainstream will *not* be successful.
It's not idealism at all. It's total pragmatism. Any *popular* open source app will have: - Well commented, maintainable code - *Some* people in the community with the skills and inclination to maintain it - Or, *some* people in the community with the money and inclination to pay someone to maintain it
More idealism. There are defacto standards that are horribly written, horribly documented, and only maintainable by a small number of people. OpenSSL is a great example of this. It is nothing other than sheer stupidity to believe that the quality of code is somehow affected by the license it chooses to adopt.
Yes, because this is different from say, Ubuntu supporting a release for only so long, how?
Spare me. FOSS depends on these idealistic principles that anyone can and will be able to maintain source code simply because it's available, which is complete and utter bullshit for reasons so obvious that I won't waste my time enumerating them. There's a reason FOSS fails to find mainstream success except in cases where code is being maintained by corporate entities.
So as you watch the count down to XP's death tick by think about the problems created by using software that actually belongs to someone else..."
Yes, you're better off with opensource. It's much nicer knowing software you depend on may be abandoned without notice.
They're attempting to replicate C# 5's feature set, and using a reasonable timeline it won't be ready until C# 6 is released. FOSS is going to fall victim to NIH syndrome, or more specifically, NIBM (Not invented by Microsoft) syndrome.
Considering a typical usage scenario of a phone app: downloading information from a remote source, loading cached data, UI animations, all happening simultaneously... yeah I could easily use 4 cores.
Who cares what kind of real world use it has? Give someone the choice between a phone with 5MP camera and a 6MP camera and more is always better, regardless of actual picture quality. Same with cores. The only thing more effective from a marketing standpoint is giving a fancy new name to existing technology. Your typical consumer is an easily-gamed moron.
No, Microsoft banned all open source:
Wrong. They banned any license that would place responsibility on Microsoft to distribute the source for 3rd party apps. In typical slashdot fashion, they take a completely reasonable clause and turn it into a war on open source. You can license your app under anything that wouldn't require Microsoft to distribute the source. Apple does the same exact thing.
Sorry to rain on your outrage.
You realize that once it's been leaked, mirrored thousands of times and exposed via major news sources to the entire world, it's hard to consider it "classified" information. You see the irony there? The fact that people making the decisions don't understand that it is now ubiquitous, and to even bother restricting it is entirely fruitless?
I'll be around to explain any other jokes that fly over your head, just hollar.
These decisions are made by Congress.
Did you even bother reading the summary? Specifically, the part that says "The move was ordered by the 24th Air Force."
I've been guilty of not RTFA, but jesus christ dude, the summary?