"My vote so far is for more autonomy to be given to states, and in the long run, to smaller collections of people than that. Democracies are only virtuous when they're small. There's really not enough room to get into what I believe here, and to be honest, I'm still working out the flaws myself."
This is an interesting discussion. However I doubt you can have ANY guarantees in life. Things can get fucked up with a small elite, as well as with a whole country. Just because one billion people believe one thing, doesn't make it more correct. What a person with 300 IQ believes and wants, could also be just as wrong.
You do have a point that irresponsible people should not have access to devastating technology. However, I believe education and helping people is better than leaving'em outside in the rain.
I seriously doubt anyone in our society should have the authority you are seeking. It has been tried before, and we're currently moving AWAY from such power-structures.
If this truly is an innovation, why should Adobe have monopoly on the idea of this? I thought patents covered implementations, not ideas. They shouldn't be able to restrict who can reverse-engineer, or come up with similar stuff. That is not competiveness, but old-fashioned monopoly and closed markets.
I can understand this if Macromedia used their design specifications or code (ripped from the patent), but not if Macromedia has evidence that they came up with this themselves (even by analyzing a bought Photoshop in action).
Heh, you've obviously never been in Scandinavia then. It's quite the opposite around here...;-)
More seriously I agree with the sentiment that we, the consumers, should be more aware of what we buy. NOT just for the external environment, but also for our internal environment (Just WHAT are we putting into our bodies anyways?) Consumer level awareness is very powerful in every ways, but who is controlling that awareness?
Also, be aware that creating hype and focusing only of one set of arguments, we will just do new mistakes. For example in Norway, we have just about made a power station out of every water-fall we got in this country. Also, there are plans on making huge arrays of wind-mills. This may be more "cleaner" than fossile fuels, but it's butt ugly and create problems for the surrounding area.
So what problems do we want to "get rid of", and what problems do we create by doing so? THAT should be on the agenda.
This applies to everybody, but especially to Germany. Being in a transition to abolish all nuclear power (deadline around 2020 IIRC), what will this be replaced with?
If you're going to use a CLI in Windows (NT/ME/9X) you might as well go with the real GNU stuff. Check out http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/. It'll make your Windows box behave very much as the GNU/Linux CLI. They're even working on an XFree86-implementation.
If you're writing code from scratch and are going to use C++ I'd recommend using the standards in C++: Namely The Standard C++ Library and Standard Template Library (STL). Spending time learning how to program more generically in C++ can save you vast amounts of efforts in implementing what you need. It's also more fun to program since you've already got the tools you need, and you can focus more on overall design.
However, one bad thing about C++ templates are the arcane error-messages you may get during compilation d;-P
- Steeltoe
Re:Half-Life did not have a good story
on
New Doom Details
·
· Score: 1
While I agree to this, I still enjoy a good show of Star Trek. The earlier versions. There's a lot of things about Star Trek that is not shown on the screen too. In fact, Star Trek is sort of original, so I think X-Files would be more appropriate to mention as a dumbed-down-to-the-masses SF show.
If you want high science fiction read a good SF book. No screens or speakers can beat your imagination.
Personally I find the mindless clicking of Next during InstallShields execution an insult to my and others' intelligence. InstallShield is a dreadful program which offers no customization or flexibility for the users (both package provider and the people installing). As a developer you can of course edit the scripts, but oh, theres so few standard ways do to things other than the mandatory clicks. If you do it differently, people will scream bloody murder at you. Also, binary self-extraction is too platform-dependent for my tastes. If people want to click on an icon in KDE and GNOME, it's up to the makers of KDE and GNOME to recognize RPMs and other filetypes I think.
On Linux, I think GnoRPM is sufficient, very intuitive and easy. It still lacks some functionality though, like being able to unpackage from other places than the CD-rom, but it's improving. It's lightyears ahead of InstallShield, but I hear Windows2000 comes with a more decent installer. I guess the borgs have learned their lesson about InstallShield.. Not that I use GnoRPM much myself. I'm dangling around in Windows-world too much to have to point-and-click in Linux too.
The sales figures are utterly meaningsless, since they are always interpreted in a subject opinion.
Annual Sales figures goes up:
1) Napster succeeded in getting people to buy RIAA records to "show" RIAA that people will still buy CDs. Huzzah for Napster!! (The future is still uncertain though)
2) RIAA succeeded in shutting down Napster, thus making it harder for people to find music "immorally". They begin buying CDs again. Huzzah for RIAA!! (People can still find new ways though)
Annual Sales figures goes down:
1) Anti-RIAA people succeeded in their boycott, RIAA-members are peeing in their pants now knowing their superiors. DIE RIAA, DIIIEEE!! (Will people begin to buy from RIAA again?)
2) As RIAA anticipated, the "immoral" transfers of MP3's are now taking effect. Huzzah for RIAA!! (More control over music and video will have to be initiated)
Not to mention that all of these arguments are meaningless in and by themselves. They can be interpreted in a subjective fashion all according to what people want of the world! An RIAA-member will think of him/herself and the company, as will any person out there.
So this whole boycott/buycott farse is meaningless, and so is discussing anything on this issue beside the fact that artists and CD-buyers are _currently_ being ripped off!
A used CD has already been bought and paid for, isn't it then reasonable to retain the right to sell it off, or give (heaven forbid!) to someone else when you're tired of listening to the music? WHAT did you buy exactly then?
Morals got NOTHING to do with this. Morals is BS people try to shove down your throat in order to control you. There's nothing forcing us to live life like we do other than our own ignorance and urge of compliance.
Logic is superior to morals, but unfortunately insufficient. Only our free will can tell us how to live.
If you feel like supporting artists more directly, fine, don't buy used CDs. But please spare us for your morals.
Isn't there a slogan in economics stating that any PR is good PR? So the more people bitch and whine about Microsoft, the more they will buy. Remember, I'm not talking about sensible people that will go hunt for alternatives. So all this talk about Microsoft may not be as bad for the company as it seems. Eventually they will probably start "playing the good guy" again, and everyone will rejoice and "forgive" them". It's all a game playing on human emotional needs (need for hate-outlet and forgiving/forgiveness, read "1984" by George Orwell). Just for the sake of earning big bucks, or maybe their leaders have some "religious-alike" convictions they are really saving the world.
On another note, why are people so reluctant to pay Microsoft? Don't they know that the more they pay, the better software Microsoft will produce? At least that _should_ be true if Microsoft REALLY is The Answer to all software problems. However, the resulting lack of competition is a HUGE argument against Microsoft as it is now.
- Steeltoe
Moderators: Don't mod arguments down because you disagree, mod arguments down because they are obvious trolls, flamebait, abusive or incoherent. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm raising an argument here. Mod up if you believe an argument is worth discussing. Thank you:)
Noone is "forcing" any company to buy Microsoft products. If the management is too stupid to make the correct decisions, they should be fired just like any other staff.
Calling them Aliens is extremely impolite, but I must agree with you. Statements such as these really shows how bloody our history has been, and how bloody it could get in the future. Just think what happens if we DO find less advanced "Aliens" in our solar system. Man... I'd die and turn in my grave!
If you're paranoid, there's also the same thing with X-Files, paranormal documentaries, SETI@Home, SF books, etc, etc, etc. However, I don't believe for a second there is a "secret government" of old men in a basement that has all the real power (Not that old men try on it, but I doubt they're very successful as there are so many old men in the world;-). I do believe though that there's no such thing as a coincidence, and like-minded people may shape the world in like-minded ways more or less independent of eachother. How? There are many natural and "unnatural" ways..
Now StarTrek is perhaps the best SF series on the telly. Its author has apparently used ALOT of well-time spent finding out how Earth could and should develop over time. Even counting bad periods with aggression, hate and wars. In StarTrek, earthlings have learned their lessons and are teaching the universe to live by developing themselves and accept others as equals. (Although I detest the "American way" the series seem to promote sometimes, it makes it more entertaining..)
Ultimately we all decide for ourselves what should be "legal" and "ethical" in our society. There are no final answers or solutions to our current situation other than those we create for ourselves. We create it, we experience it, we change.
So as you point out, it's not easy. There's really no arguments that hold either way! (If you're gonna start looking broader and broader on the subject) There are no limits, but of course we want a workable solution.
One big reason we live like we do is because of the scarcity of resources. Well, information technology is threatening to break that barrier since the natural state of information is to be spread and processed. Copying being the most simple form of operation, thus also the most natural one. Well, there has only been natural restrictions on information before man, natural laws. However, WE decide now, artificially..
The case now is: Should we add more restrictions on information, or should we change how we distribute wealth and create entertainment and software? Free information/speech and the current economic model are simply incompatible with eachother. Yet we still try to advance both, even though they both go in opposite directions. Both having their advantages and disadvantages.
This is NOT so easy to decide as many will have you believe. In a few years, technology will have broken the last barriers that the MPAA and RIAA are so afraid of (If we are not already living in a police state). You will be able to copy anything down on media that can handle bookstores of film, music, books and you-name-it. However, you may not even have to, because it will all be available in some form on the Internet, almost INSTANTLY. I'm talking about a decade or two from now, but it affects us NOW.
With such technology either the industry will go down with a big bang, draconian restrictions/regulations may be imposed on all citizens or people may be educated/brainwashed to believe they should buy instead of "stealing".
People say that the industry could live on the convinience factor, but for how long? We could create rules, but someone is bound to break them, and then you have to have harsh percecutions, procecutions and punishments. Should we teach our kids that looking at- or hearing something you didn't pay for is MORALLY WRONG?
How reliable is this "common sense" we're supposed to lean on? And if you think these issues are important, what about all the other problems in the world? This is small compared to how the rich exploit the poorer, but it gets all the attention since it's in the interest of us, the rich ones.
I hate to be devil's advocate, and my own opinion on the subject is that I tolerate that people do stupid things. You cannot control by regulation as effectively as by education and problem-solving. Anyways here we go:
>That additional 10% wouldn't buckle under the load right away, because they are *additional*, which was my point.
So if you have a network of computers that you want to use for some task, you would load them to the rim serially, rather than parallellizing the tasks at hand evenly among all the nodes?:-)
People make programs and invent new things. People, not companies. Companies only exist in peoples minds and on paper. So I don't understand how people "hate" Microsoft and "love" Apple, as if they're people. Because they're not (duh;-)
My point is that you're not gonna fix anything by give it another name, or coming up with an entirely new way of doing it without assessing what you are fixing and what you're breaking with what we already got (and not just X). So it's not so trivial even if you decide to "start all over". I'd say it'd be very easy to do some major errors if you're not looking back.
- Steeltoe
Re:A Better Written article on Why X-Windows is Ba
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
Why not submit your patch to the maintainers of GNU getopt() then? Why do the former poster want an _alternative_ if an improvement is good enough? I see that as unnecessary fragmentation. Fragmentation is not always so healthy. That's what the people dissing UNIX for lacking a standard GUI is arguing about anyways.
And if an alternative is really called for, whats the use in whining about it?
- Steeltoe
Re:A lovely summary of all that's wrong with X
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
It started out nicely, but dropped more and more in quality. At the end all I could read was a bunch of whining about configuration-problems in the OS X was residing. It sounded like a Windows-convert/Machophile who had't heard of the man-command, HOWTOs or how to search for clues on the WWW. Just wanted to type in his program and hit enter (If he wanted such an easy interface, why was he using a UNIX-shell in the first place?).
Remember folks, computing is an iterative process. You make a result and you start over again. Don't expect things to come out perfect at first, because it won't! If you lack respect for those that created huge leaps in computer history, think of them as you. You just made something work that nobody else has created before. However, after a while you're getting brushed off by kiddies who tell you about how things really should have been one.
It's not constructive at all. I seriously doubt a graphics-manager created without X in thought will ever beat the concept. X do have serious advantages, that's why it's popular. There are many good reasons to involve many layers, if speed is not your utmost concern. It's not Xs fault people don't agree on formats, protocols, standards and meta-formats. But we're getting there, slowly.
Yes, X could have been built on a better programming paradigm. But that paradigm was almost non-existant, far from implementable, at the time X was designed. In 50 years the newest programming paradigms of today (Java, SGML/XML, UML, etc) will be just as easily brushed off by the kiddies as crap -- If we don't change our attitudes!
Slashdot Mirror
I'll quote you from your previous post:
"My vote so far is for more autonomy to be given to states, and in the long run, to smaller collections of people than that. Democracies are only virtuous when they're small. There's really not enough room to get into what I believe here, and to be honest, I'm still working out the flaws myself."
This is an interesting discussion. However I doubt you can have ANY guarantees in life. Things can get fucked up with a small elite, as well as with a whole country. Just because one billion people believe one thing, doesn't make it more correct. What a person with 300 IQ believes and wants, could also be just as wrong.
You do have a point that irresponsible people should not have access to devastating technology. However, I believe education and helping people is better than leaving'em outside in the rain.
I seriously doubt anyone in our society should have the authority you are seeking. It has been tried before, and we're currently moving AWAY from such power-structures.
- Steeltoe
If this truly is an innovation, why should Adobe have monopoly on the idea of this? I thought patents covered implementations, not ideas. They shouldn't be able to restrict who can reverse-engineer, or come up with similar stuff. That is not competiveness, but old-fashioned monopoly and closed markets.
I can understand this if Macromedia used their design specifications or code (ripped from the patent), but not if Macromedia has evidence that they came up with this themselves (even by analyzing a bought Photoshop in action).
Basically, patents like these shouldn't exist.
- Steeltoe
"(the sun is everywhere, unlike fossil fuels)"
;-)
Heh, you've obviously never been in Scandinavia then. It's quite the opposite around here...
More seriously I agree with the sentiment that we, the consumers, should be more aware of what we buy. NOT just for the external environment, but also for our internal environment (Just WHAT are we putting into our bodies anyways?) Consumer level awareness is very powerful in every ways, but who is controlling that awareness?
Also, be aware that creating hype and focusing only of one set of arguments, we will just do new mistakes. For example in Norway, we have just about made a power station out of every water-fall we got in this country. Also, there are plans on making huge arrays of wind-mills. This may be more "cleaner" than fossile fuels, but it's butt ugly and create problems for the surrounding area.
So what problems do we want to "get rid of", and what problems do we create by doing so? THAT should be on the agenda.
This applies to everybody, but especially to Germany. Being in a transition to abolish all nuclear power (deadline around 2020 IIRC), what will this be replaced with?
- Steeltoe
Frankly, DOS just don't cut it anymore.
- Steeltoe
If you're writing code from scratch and are going to use C++ I'd recommend using the standards in C++: Namely The Standard C++ Library and Standard Template Library (STL). Spending time learning how to program more generically in C++ can save you vast amounts of efforts in implementing what you need. It's also more fun to program since you've already got the tools you need, and you can focus more on overall design.
However, one bad thing about C++ templates are the arcane error-messages you may get during compilation d;-P
- Steeltoe
While I agree to this, I still enjoy a good show of Star Trek. The earlier versions. There's a lot of things about Star Trek that is not shown on the screen too. In fact, Star Trek is sort of original, so I think X-Files would be more appropriate to mention as a dumbed-down-to-the-masses SF show.
If you want high science fiction read a good SF book. No screens or speakers can beat your imagination.
- Steeltoe
Hehe, neither does a ping ;-)
- Steeltoe
"But i think these will not be possible until RMS or Linus does. Who knows?"
Comments like that makes me wonder how the Open Source movement moves at all...
- Steeltoe
Personally I find the mindless clicking of Next during InstallShields execution an insult to my and others' intelligence. InstallShield is a dreadful program which offers no customization or flexibility for the users (both package provider and the people installing). As a developer you can of course edit the scripts, but oh, theres so few standard ways do to things other than the mandatory clicks. If you do it differently, people will scream bloody murder at you. Also, binary self-extraction is too platform-dependent for my tastes. If people want to click on an icon in KDE and GNOME, it's up to the makers of KDE and GNOME to recognize RPMs and other filetypes I think.
On Linux, I think GnoRPM is sufficient, very intuitive and easy. It still lacks some functionality though, like being able to unpackage from other places than the CD-rom, but it's improving. It's lightyears ahead of InstallShield, but I hear Windows2000 comes with a more decent installer. I guess the borgs have learned their lesson about InstallShield.. Not that I use GnoRPM much myself. I'm dangling around in Windows-world too much to have to point-and-click in Linux too.
- Steeltoe
The sales figures are utterly meaningsless, since they are always interpreted in a subject opinion.
Annual Sales figures goes up:
1) Napster succeeded in getting people to buy RIAA records to "show" RIAA that people will still buy CDs. Huzzah for Napster!! (The future is still uncertain though)
2) RIAA succeeded in shutting down Napster, thus making it harder for people to find music "immorally". They begin buying CDs again. Huzzah for RIAA!! (People can still find new ways though)
Annual Sales figures goes down:
1) Anti-RIAA people succeeded in their boycott, RIAA-members are peeing in their pants now knowing their superiors. DIE RIAA, DIIIEEE!! (Will people begin to buy from RIAA again?)
2) As RIAA anticipated, the "immoral" transfers of MP3's are now taking effect. Huzzah for RIAA!! (More control over music and video will have to be initiated)
Not to mention that all of these arguments are meaningless in and by themselves. They can be interpreted in a subjective fashion all according to what people want of the world! An RIAA-member will think of him/herself and the company, as will any person out there.
So this whole boycott/buycott farse is meaningless, and so is discussing anything on this issue beside the fact that artists and CD-buyers are _currently_ being ripped off!
- Steeltoe
Morals, morals, morals. When will people learn?
A used CD has already been bought and paid for, isn't it then reasonable to retain the right to sell it off, or give (heaven forbid!) to someone else when you're tired of listening to the music? WHAT did you buy exactly then?
Morals got NOTHING to do with this. Morals is BS people try to shove down your throat in order to control you. There's nothing forcing us to live life like we do other than our own ignorance and urge of compliance.
Logic is superior to morals, but unfortunately insufficient. Only our free will can tell us how to live.
If you feel like supporting artists more directly, fine, don't buy used CDs. But please spare us for your morals.
- Steeltoe
Isn't there a slogan in economics stating that any PR is good PR? So the more people bitch and whine about Microsoft, the more they will buy. Remember, I'm not talking about sensible people that will go hunt for alternatives. So all this talk about Microsoft may not be as bad for the company as it seems. Eventually they will probably start "playing the good guy" again, and everyone will rejoice and "forgive" them". It's all a game playing on human emotional needs (need for hate-outlet and forgiving/forgiveness, read "1984" by George Orwell). Just for the sake of earning big bucks, or maybe their leaders have some "religious-alike" convictions they are really saving the world.
:)
On another note, why are people so reluctant to pay Microsoft? Don't they know that the more they pay, the better software Microsoft will produce? At least that _should_ be true if Microsoft REALLY is The Answer to all software problems. However, the resulting lack of competition is a HUGE argument against Microsoft as it is now.
- Steeltoe
Moderators: Don't mod arguments down because you disagree, mod arguments down because they are obvious trolls, flamebait, abusive or incoherent. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm raising an argument here. Mod up if you believe an argument is worth discussing. Thank you
Noone is "forcing" any company to buy Microsoft products. If the management is too stupid to make the correct decisions, they should be fired just like any other staff.
JMHO..
- Steeltoe
Calling them Aliens is extremely impolite, but I must agree with you. Statements such as these really shows how bloody our history has been, and how bloody it could get in the future. Just think what happens if we DO find less advanced "Aliens" in our solar system. Man... I'd die and turn in my grave!
- Steeltoe
If you're paranoid, there's also the same thing with X-Files, paranormal documentaries, SETI@Home, SF books, etc, etc, etc. However, I don't believe for a second there is a "secret government" of old men in a basement that has all the real power (Not that old men try on it, but I doubt they're very successful as there are so many old men in the world ;-). I do believe though that there's no such thing as a coincidence, and like-minded people may shape the world in like-minded ways more or less independent of eachother. How? There are many natural and "unnatural" ways..
Now StarTrek is perhaps the best SF series on the telly. Its author has apparently used ALOT of well-time spent finding out how Earth could and should develop over time. Even counting bad periods with aggression, hate and wars. In StarTrek, earthlings have learned their lessons and are teaching the universe to live by developing themselves and accept others as equals. (Although I detest the "American way" the series seem to promote sometimes, it makes it more entertaining..)
- Steeltoe
I think you're absolutely right. More people would probably understand Einstein relativity principles if they followed your example.
However, its a matter of convinience to agree upon a fixed reference point in each given context.
- Steeltoe
Ultimately we all decide for ourselves what should be "legal" and "ethical" in our society. There are no final answers or solutions to our current situation other than those we create for ourselves. We create it, we experience it, we change.
So as you point out, it's not easy. There's really no arguments that hold either way! (If you're gonna start looking broader and broader on the subject) There are no limits, but of course we want a workable solution.
One big reason we live like we do is because of the scarcity of resources. Well, information technology is threatening to break that barrier since the natural state of information is to be spread and processed. Copying being the most simple form of operation, thus also the most natural one. Well, there has only been natural restrictions on information before man, natural laws. However, WE decide now, artificially..
The case now is: Should we add more restrictions on information, or should we change how we distribute wealth and create entertainment and software? Free information/speech and the current economic model are simply incompatible with eachother. Yet we still try to advance both, even though they both go in opposite directions. Both having their advantages and disadvantages.
This is NOT so easy to decide as many will have you believe. In a few years, technology will have broken the last barriers that the MPAA and RIAA are so afraid of (If we are not already living in a police state). You will be able to copy anything down on media that can handle bookstores of film, music, books and you-name-it. However, you may not even have to, because it will all be available in some form on the Internet, almost INSTANTLY. I'm talking about a decade or two from now, but it affects us NOW.
With such technology either the industry will go down with a big bang, draconian restrictions/regulations may be imposed on all citizens or people may be educated/brainwashed to believe they should buy instead of "stealing".
People say that the industry could live on the convinience factor, but for how long? We could create rules, but someone is bound to break them, and then you have to have harsh percecutions, procecutions and punishments. Should we teach our kids that looking at- or hearing something you didn't pay for is MORALLY WRONG?
How reliable is this "common sense" we're supposed to lean on? And if you think these issues are important, what about all the other problems in the world? This is small compared to how the rich exploit the poorer, but it gets all the attention since it's in the interest of us, the rich ones.
- Steeltoe
I hate to be devil's advocate, and my own opinion on the subject is that I tolerate that people do stupid things. You cannot control by regulation as effectively as by education and problem-solving. Anyways here we go:
Child pornography on a T-shirt anyone?
- Steeltoe
You are forgetting the vast amounts of /. readers scripting to see if the 5% load-balance is indeed correct ;-)
- Steeltoe
>This goes to show how much you should trust one data point.
;-)
Yours included! Hee hee
- Steeltoe
>That additional 10% wouldn't buckle under the load right away, because they are *additional*, which was my point.
:-)
So if you have a network of computers that you want to use for some task, you would load them to the rim serially, rather than parallellizing the tasks at hand evenly among all the nodes?
- Steeltoe
People make programs and invent new things. ;-)
People, not companies. Companies only exist in peoples minds and on paper. So I don't understand how people "hate" Microsoft and "love" Apple, as if they're people. Because they're not (duh
This is NOT a flame, just an observation.
- Steeltoe
My point is that you're not gonna fix anything by give it another name, or coming up with an entirely new way of doing it without assessing what you are fixing and what you're breaking with what we already got (and not just X). So it's not so trivial even if you decide to "start all over". I'd say it'd be very easy to do some major errors if you're not looking back.
- Steeltoe
Why not submit your patch to the maintainers of GNU getopt() then? Why do the former poster want an _alternative_ if an improvement is good enough? I see that as unnecessary fragmentation. Fragmentation is not always so healthy. That's what the people dissing UNIX for lacking a standard GUI is arguing about anyways.
And if an alternative is really called for, whats the use in whining about it?
- Steeltoe
It started out nicely, but dropped more and more in quality. At the end all I could read was a bunch of whining about configuration-problems in the OS X was residing. It sounded like a Windows-convert/Machophile who had't heard of the man-command, HOWTOs or how to search for clues on the WWW. Just wanted to type in his program and hit enter (If he wanted such an easy interface, why was he using a UNIX-shell in the first place?).
Remember folks, computing is an iterative process. You make a result and you start over again. Don't expect things to come out perfect at first, because it won't! If you lack respect for those that created huge leaps in computer history, think of them as you. You just made something work that nobody else has created before. However, after a while you're getting brushed off by kiddies who tell you about how things really should have been one.
It's not constructive at all. I seriously doubt a graphics-manager created without X in thought will ever beat the concept. X do have serious advantages, that's why it's popular. There are many good reasons to involve many layers, if speed is not your utmost concern. It's not Xs fault people don't agree on formats, protocols, standards and meta-formats. But we're getting there, slowly.
Yes, X could have been built on a better programming paradigm. But that paradigm was almost non-existant, far from implementable, at the time X was designed. In 50 years the newest programming paradigms of today (Java, SGML/XML, UML, etc) will be just as easily brushed off by the kiddies as crap -- If we don't change our attitudes!
- Steeltoe