archived stringclasses 2
values | author stringlengths 3 20 | author_fullname stringlengths 4 12 ⌀ | body stringlengths 0 22.5k | comment_type stringclasses 1
value | controversiality stringclasses 2
values | created_utc stringlengths 10 10 | edited stringlengths 4 12 | gilded stringclasses 7
values | id stringlengths 1 7 | link_id stringlengths 7 10 | locked stringclasses 2
values | name stringlengths 4 10 ⌀ | parent_id stringlengths 5 10 | permalink stringlengths 41 91 ⌀ | retrieved_on stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | score stringlengths 1 4 | subreddit_id stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_name_prefixed stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_type stringclasses 1
value | total_awards_received stringclasses 19
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
True | [deleted] | null | > This is also a simple interface with one method, If it had 10+ methods you wouldn't want to re implement every method for every test.
Bingo. | null | 0 | 1316579762 | False | 0 | c2lfgpe | t3_klypn | null | t1_c2lfgpe | t1_c2lf1aj | null | 1427627074 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | sidcool1234 | null | Wow...Thanks a ton, mate! | null | 0 | 1316580051 | False | 0 | c2lfhpm | t3_kks9l | null | t1_c2lfhpm | t1_c2l7uj7 | null | 1427627087 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | crinos666 | null | This is only slightly less stupid and pointless than programming Perl in Klingon: [Lingua::tlhInganHol::yIghun](http://search.cpan.org/~mschwern/Lingua-tlhInganHol-yIghun-20090601/lib/Lingua/tlhInganHol/yIghun.pm) | null | 0 | 1316580409 | False | 0 | c2lfj17 | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lfj17 | t1_c2l9h1u | null | 1428193583 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | kshep92 | null | Quite possibly the geekiest thing I have EVER read... I'm going to keep this and review it once my nerd muscles get bigger | null | 0 | 1316580422 | False | 0 | c2lfj2r | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lfj2r | t3_klrrx | null | 1427627114 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316580474 | False | 0 | c2lfja6 | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lfja6 | t1_c2lboqu | null | 1427627109 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | max99x | null | We do plan to get sockets working sometime in the future, but it's near the bottom of the priorities list right now. Technically for Emscripten-powered languages we'd have to do that through the low-level web sockets API, which requires the server to provide a cross-origin header specific to web sockets. It's pretty rare for servers to provide the regular AJAX cross-origin headers. To the best of my knowledge almost no servers in the wild provide the web sockets one. | null | 0 | 1316580502 | False | 0 | c2lfje6 | t3_klv3o | null | t1_c2lfje6 | t1_c2lfe0e | null | 1427627114 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | adolfojp | null | I posted this on his website. I want to share it with you guys. And I am usually one of the guys who defends Silverlight for some very specific purposes.
---
Alberto asked: "Whats the problem the site beeing in silverlight?"
I answered:
1. The website doesn't work in Opera. I had to open it in Chrome.
2. The links don't open in new tabs. I can't middle click on them either.
3. My browser allows me to search for text by selecting it. That is disabled. Silverlight websites disable that.
4. The spell check is not available because of the silverlight. Your spelling errors are a good example of this problem.
5. My readability plugin doesn't work. I have an eye problem that makes reading with a white background difficult sometimes. With a regular webpage I can change that.
6. I can't send parts of the website to Evernote like I sometimes do.
7. The mouse scrolling doesn't work inside of this textbox. When I tried it with my keyboard it collapsed this region.
8. Not everybody has Silverlight installed or admin privileges. Everybody has a web browser.
I could go on forever but I think that I made my point very clear. | null | 0 | 1316580644 | False | 0 | c2lfjvr | t3_kmdqz | null | t1_c2lfjvr | t1_c2lfeua | null | 1427627125 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | > Saying better out of context is meaningless, the question is better from whom?
For a developer who re-uses open-source code. That is the person affected by the GPL. (The original author, of course, is free to do whatever he wants, no matter what license he uses, so he is uninteresting for the purposes of this discussion.)
> Closed source based on somebody else's open source is clearly more beneficial to the individual who chooses to take open source and use it for personal gain.
What's so obvious about it? As one example, by releasing his code back, he does not need to maintain a separate fork, thus he gains from using it.
By arguing that this is not the case, you really are arguing that the open source model is inferior for that programmer. You are then using the GPL to force him to take actions which are against his best interests.
Thus, the GPL is anti-developer, or at least, anti that particular developer. It might be good for other developers, but if we take what you say at face value, it means the GPL *is* aimed *against* some developers.
Me, I don't really think that is the case. I think open source is generally beneficial for most developers. That is why I do not feel the need to force them to act in any specific way, because I feel they will do so of their own free will. | null | 0 | 1316580659 | False | 0 | c2lfjxl | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfjxl | t1_c2leb3r | null | 1427627125 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | prank?
oversight?
did the guy think false=1? | null | 0 | 1316580794 | False | 0 | c2lfkg1 | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lfkg1 | t1_c2l9iqd | null | 1427627128 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | > Common benefit outweighs personal benefit, do you understand this position or not?
Of course I do. But that is orthogonal to the point I am making.
> Releasing software under the GPL ensures that everybody benefits. So to recap, individual users of the GPL software might end up with less benefit, but overall benefit is greater because it ensures that the knowledge and experience offered by the source stays open.
So basically you think people need to be forced to open their code, because they would not do so on their own.
> If somebody wishes to keep their source closed it is their choice, but then it is my choice to exclude them from being able to build on my code.
And thus you use a license directed against their best interests.
> The vision being, in case I haven't made it clear, is to make sure that the code and its derivatives remain open.
But the vision is apparently *not* that it is good for them to release the source, since they need to be forced to do so.
| null | 0 | 1316580834 | False | 0 | c2lfkl5 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfkl5 | t1_c2le6pc | null | 1427627130 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | >Which is why I turned to desktops, because that's the other half of the coin. After all, servers are somewhat pointless without clients to serve.
Right, but I've already stated, and you haven't disagreed, that the reason for Linux not being prevalent on the desktop have very little to do with the GPL or "open source extremism" as you refer to it. Linux is an excellent example of the fact that projects licensed under the GPL can be highly successful and beat out closed source counterparts. Linux is not the only example of this, it's just one of the most prominent.
>But before I close on Linux on the server, I have to point out that RMS thinks that web applications (arguably one of the most common uses of Linux on the server) are as bad as or worse than proprietary applications.
And again, the points that he makes are relevant and important. Web applications do indeed circumvent the spirit of the GPL, and that is a valid issue. I feel that he is absolutely correct in being concerned about it.
>I would argue that any Linux server which runs a proprietary web application as part of its software stack can not be considered a success story for open-source extremism (hereafter referred to as OSE).
I agree with that, however there are plenty of Linux servers that do run completely open stacks and that there is nothing inherent about them which prevents them from being successful.
>For the same reason, any TiVoized device, including many Android phones, cannot be seen as OSE successes. They rely on proprietary components, which means that it fails the basic tenets of Open Source software--that a person should be able to review and modify the source code which runs on the computer.
I agree with that, but that's why there are efforts like [Replicant](http://replicant.us/about/) to provide a completely open solution. Again, the concerns RMS has about TiVoized devices are completely valid and relevant, and I see nothing extreme about wanting my devices to operate the way I want and do things that are beneficial to me.
But, I think you're muddying the issue here. The question was whether "extreme" open source can be successful, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. You're saying that there is often closed source that runs on top of it, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that open source can and is successful on its own.
Just because the situation isn't perfect right now, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards improving it.
| null | 0 | 1316580846 | False | 0 | c2lfkmr | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfkmr | t1_c2lfge9 | null | 1427627130 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316580873 | False | 0 | c2lfkqi | t3_k8jnv | null | t1_c2lfkqi | t3_k8jnv | null | 1427627131 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | SnowdensOfYesteryear | null | > q2 hacking
Just a pet peeve of mine, but why do always insist that they're "hacking" rather than programming? It's really irritating to hear to most the inane bit coding referred to as hacking.
Just my 2 cents before I go back to hacking my RoR Hello World program | null | 0 | 1316580881 | True | 0 | c2lfkrv | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lfkrv | t1_c2ladmk | null | 1427627133 | -7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | SteveMcQwark | null | Is there anything causal here, do you think? | null | 0 | 1316581114 | False | 0 | c2lflln | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lflln | t1_c2l96kw | null | 1427627141 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | I doubt anybody is going to invest 10 million dollars in a windows desktop application. | null | 0 | 1316581124 | False | 0 | c2lfln4 | t3_kljc0 | null | t1_c2lfln4 | t1_c2le019 | null | 1427627144 | -4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | chason | null | Because hacking has long been used as a term for hobbyist programming? | null | 0 | 1316581155 | False | 0 | c2lflrf | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lflrf | t1_c2lfkrv | null | 1427627143 | 17 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | They don't want to understand. They are driven by ideology much more than RMS is.
| null | 0 | 1316581158 | False | 0 | c2lflrv | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lflrv | t1_c2ldy6g | null | 1427627143 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | thepowerofone | null | Is there something similar for Quake 3? | null | 0 | 1316581290 | False | 0 | c2lfm8z | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lfm8z | t3_klrrx | null | 1427627151 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | >So basically you think people need to be forced to open their code, because they would not do so on their own.
No, and you know perfectly well that's not what I said, and I have clarified this exact point repeatedly for you. But, none the less, here it goes again.
**Some** people do not wish to participate in open source, and I **do not wish to share** my code with them so they can benefit from it. There are plenty of people who **choose** to use open source and they don't have any problems with GPL, and we all share our code happily.
I'm not sure why you have such a great difficulty understanding this simple concept. It smells a lot like trolling frankly.
>And thus you use a license directed against their best interests.
I choose how I share what I make, and I have no obligation to share my work with everybody. If these people do not share my ideals I do not feel obliged to serve their interests. Seems like a rather simple concept to me.
>But the vision is apparently not that it is good for them to release the source, since they need to be forced to do so.
And I'll reiterate the simple point that you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting here. Not everybody wishes to contribute, some people simply wish to consume for personal benefit. I see no reason why they should benefit from my effort.
You keep using the term to force, but there is no forcing here. If I **make** you do something against your will, that is the use of force. In this scenario nobody is **forcing** anybody to do anything. People are just choosing whom they're sharing with.
if I bring a lunch to work, and don't let you eat it, then I'm forcing you to starve because you're too cheap to buy your own lunch and you expected to take mine. This seems to be your argument, yes?
| null | 0 | 1316581351 | False | 0 | c2lfmgd | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfmgd | t1_c2lfkl5 | null | 1427627153 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | >For this post, I'd prefer to discuss open-source extremism, which was what I claimed to be unrealistic (actually a better word would be untenable.)
You sound more extremist than any open source advocate here.
| null | 0 | 1316581391 | False | 0 | c2lfmkx | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfmkx | t1_c2lfge9 | null | 1427627154 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | soviyet | null | > Legal extortion
I don't even know how to answer this. | null | 0 | 1316581468 | False | 0 | c2lfmu3 | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfmu3 | t1_c2ldyys | null | 1427627165 | -10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Yea sure you have. That's why you hate the GPL.
Uh huh. | null | 0 | 1316581526 | False | 0 | c2lfn1l | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfn1l | t1_c2ld5qg | null | 1427627171 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | >By arguing that this is not the case, you really are arguing that the open source model is inferior for that programmer. You are then using the GPL to force him to take actions which are against his best interests.
you are confusing open source with free software.
You are also confusing good for the user with good for the developer.
The GPL aims to be best for the USER of the software. It gives the USER rights. | null | 0 | 1316581635 | False | 0 | c2lfnev | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfnev | t1_c2lfjxl | null | 1427627173 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | soviyet | null | (duplicate post, whoops) | null | 0 | 1316581729 | False | 0 | c2lfnoy | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfnoy | t1_c2lekse | null | 1427627175 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | soviyet | null | > Isn't a patent troll someone who holds a patent but makes no honest effort to develop upon it?
Yes, but there are two problems with that definition that make all "patent troll" arguments ridiculous. First, what defines "honest effort" to produce something from a patent? And second, why does anyone think this is required in the first place?
A very common purpose of patents is not to ever manufacture a product based on the patent, but to license it out to companies who do want to manufacture products based on it. A *lot* of industries work this way.
There are companies who do nothing but R&D. Invent things, build a prototype, test it out, and then license the tech to manufacturers. That's a legitimate business, and a legitimate use of patents, and yet it would fall under the "patent troll" definition bandied about on Reddit by people who aren't affected in the least by patents on either side of the fence.
As I said, patent law sucks. It's horrible. But no one complaining about it seems to really understand *why* it sucks or *who* the big offenders really are.
The biggest and most immediate problem, in my opinion, is not *how* patents are used and inforced, but *what* is granted a patent in the first place.
> corporations that bank on IP.
Just to drive the point home, the fact that you think a company banking on its own IP is a bad thing is the problem with almost every patent troll argument I've ever seen. Do you have any idea how many legitimate businesses operate under this model? | null | 0 | 1316581746 | True | 0 | c2lfnqn | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfnqn | t1_c2lekse | null | 1427627175 | 13 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | >Yep. By being the only ones not constrained by the GPL, and having customers that likewise had no interest in that license, they were able to make a fortune.
Right so the GPL is good for business.
>Had they offered a truly free open source license like Apache or BSD, that wouldn't have happened.
That's right. They would not have made much money.
GPL is better for making money than those licenses.
>But on the other hand the company that arose from the ashes of MySQL AB would be able to do something besides give bug fixes to Oracle to resell.
Sun also made money on MySQL.
So you are proven wrong twice!
| null | 0 | 1316581787 | False | 0 | c2lfnyk | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfnyk | t1_c2ld301 | null | 1427627179 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | > You are also confusing good for the user with good for the developer.
Oh do I now?
Let's see what I said that got everybody yelling at me:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kl7h0/ms_only_allowing_enterprises_and_developers_to/c2la13o
> No, he is pro-user at the expense of developers. All the restrictions the GPL imposes are on developers.
| null | 0 | 1316581832 | False | 0 | c2lfo47 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfo47 | t1_c2lfnev | null | 1427627180 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | http://code.google.com/u/paracelsus/
That is not everything, but it includes one FSF high-priority project.
You were saying?
| null | 0 | 1316581905 | False | 0 | c2lfodl | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfodl | t1_c2lfn1l | null | 1427627182 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | In that case you keep changing your arguments.
You should stick to one of them.
Also stop saying "open source" when you mean "free software". They are different things.
Finally the best thing for the developer is proprietary software. It's also the worst thing for the user. Go figure. | null | 0 | 1316581952 | False | 0 | c2lfok9 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfok9 | t1_c2lfo47 | null | 1427627184 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | >For a developer who re-uses open-source code. That is the person affected by the GPL.
This is only one of many people affected by the GPL, and in my opinion not the most important. The people who use the code which this person builds are affected. For example, if this person takes open source code and makes a closed source product on top of it, then his customers do not enjoy the same freedom they did. None of the improvements that person made are available to others using the original source, and nobody benefits from this except the person who took the source and closed it.
>What's so obvious about it? As one example, by releasing his code back, he does not need to maintain a separate fork, thus he gains from using it.
Depending on the scenario, they may benefit by releasing it, but they may choose to use it as a lock in, to prevent competition. The only time the code would be released back is when the individual or a company feels its in their interest to do so. I feel that the interest of the community trumps the interests of the individual entity.
>Thus, the GPL is anti-developer, or at least, anti that particular developer. It might be good for other developers, but if we take what you say at face value, it means the GPL is aimed against some developers.
Absolutely correct, GPL aims to filter out those kinds who want to play with your marbles, but don't want to share theirs. Why do you feel this to be problematic again?
>Me, I don't really think that is the case. I think open source is generally beneficial for most developers. That is why I do not feel the need to force them to act in any specific way, because I feel they will do so of their own free will.
A lot of people do this of their own free will, and we do see a lot of open source projects, many popular and successful. However, this does not mean that there aren't people and organizations who are parasitic.
Why support people who do not wish to contribute anything back is my question. If a person is of a good character, and they were willing to give back to the community, then GPL has no effect on them.
So, at worst GPL coerces people who might not have shared anything to share. And those who do not find this acceptable are free to implement their own solutions, or pay others to do so.
To me this seems like a net positive, people who would have contributed anyways are unaffected, and people who might not have contributed anything often choose to also contribute. How is this a bad thing?
| null | 0 | 1316582068 | False | 0 | c2lfowy | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfowy | t1_c2lfjxl | null | 1427627187 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | See, what I am presenting you with a choice (and please read through this whole post and answer the conclusion, rather than any individual points, because they are not really interesting):
Either, you think that the open source model is clearly superior. In this case, the GPL wouldn't be necessary, as people would choose to release their source of their own free will.
Or else, you think the open source model is not clearly superior, and people would take your code and not contribute back. In this case, you use the GPL against these people.
As you do not seem to agree with the former, you seem to tend towards the latter. Even putting aside semantic discussion about what is "superior", you clearly are using the GPL *against* certain developers.
It is with that basis I called the GPL "anti-developer" in my first post, which you saw fit to take issue with. | null | 0 | 1316582412 | False | 0 | c2lfpl6 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfpl6 | t1_c2lfmgd | null | 1427627193 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Read the article, and the comment to which you replied - the word was "kind" and *not* "type".
FTA:
> I’m using the word kind on purpose, there, because Simonyi mistakenly used the word type in his paper, and generations of programmers misunderstood what he meant.
> If you read Simonyi’s paper closely, what he was getting at was the same kind of naming convention as I used in my example above where we decided that us meant “unsafe string” and s meant “safe string.” They’re both of type string. The compiler won’t help you if you assign one to the other and Intellisense won’t tell you bupkis. But they are semantically different; they need to be interpreted differently and treated differently and some kind of conversion function will need to be called if you assign one to the other or you will have a runtime bug. If you’re lucky.
> [...]
> Apps Hungarian had very useful, meaningful prefixes like “ix” to mean an index into an array, “c” to mean a count, “d” to mean the difference between two numbers (for example “dx” meant “width”), and so forth.
> Systems Hungarian had far less useful prefixes like “l” for long and “ul” for “unsigned long” and “dw” for double word, which is, actually, uh, an unsigned long. In Systems Hungarian, the only thing that the prefix told you was the actual data type of the variable. | null | 0 | 1316582414 | False | 0 | c2lfplq | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lfplq | t1_c2laqyq | null | 1427627193 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | honcas | null | Arguing about arguing time.
>Seems like you're shifting your argument here. You claimed that Linux is not doing well, I showed that indeed it does.
I didn't say that Linux wasn't doing well. I said that Open Source Extremism (OSE) was unrealistic. You said that Linux was doing well. I asked how you defined "well" and listed three common complaints about Linux.
>I recently installed Ubuntu on an HP notebook, and was pleasantly surprised that WIFI worked out of the box, OpenGL worked, and even the built in web cam got picked up.
So we've had slightly different experiences. As loathe as I am to use "number of hits" metrics, I'll point out that searching Google for the words "linux" "wireless" "doesn't" "work" has about 160mil hits. Substituting "wireless" for "graphics card" has 40mil or 10mil, depending upon if you quote the term. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find a counter-metric, because far, far fewer people are going to post "Installed linux and everything worked great!"
> Sure, once in a while you'll run into a piece of hardware that doesn't have good support, but you can hardly blame Linux, or it being open source for that.
But I'm not blaming its GPL nature. I'm arguing about its success. **If** it's not successful, it certainly can't be upheld as an OSE success story. Heck, even if it was successful, you'd have to argue that the extremist part was relevant.
It's late here, so I hope I'm making sense. Put another way, if RMS' extremist view contributed to the success of Linux, I would be forced to agree that OSE was a successful strategy. However much of what makes Linux a success overall still makes use of proprietary software. That proprietary software comes in two forms: on the server, it comes in the form of closed-source web-application stacks, while on the desktop, it comes in the form of binary blobs. Would Linux have done as well as it had if Amazon was forced to hand out the code to its software stack? If Facebook had? Or Google? Would Ubuntu have been successful if a significant portion of wireless cards didn't work at all? Or if graphics were slow (nv driver) or crashed all the time (open source radeon driver)? And by the way, at least the radeon open source driver still requires binary blobs in some cases.
> The fact is that Windows is a dominant desktop and vendors just care about it more. Most drivers in Linux are done by the community effort and that clearly shows that the model does work.
I don't know that I can draw the same conclusion that you did. I'd say the model works in some cases, when all of your hardware is just right. Because most people don't care where the drivers came from. They care that they exist. They care that they can use the hardware on their computer.
> It's completely disingenuous to claim that Windows is great at picking up hardware out of the box.
It's a good thing that I didn't make such a claim anywhere in my post.
> I've used most of these applications, I certainly wouldn't say that these are difficult to use or don't work well. For example, while Gimp in fact used to have a ton of issues, all of those have been addressed years ago, ever since 2.x Gimp has been rather polished.
None of the mentioned applications (except for LibreOffice) passes the intuitiveness test. Those that are usable aren't polished, which was the complaint I made. Pan looks like crap. LibreOffice is fine for basic word processing, but fails in usability when compared to even the simplest word processor on, say, Mac OS X. I'm not going to discuss the abomination of Office 2007+, but that's okay. The failure of closed source products (in terms of usability) doesn't imply that I'm wrong.
As for Gimp, I won't deny that it's gotten better, but I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone thinks that it's a polished piece of software for the end-user.
> I certainly don't share your sentiment that Linux offers inferior desktop experience to Windows.
More arguing about arguing.
I didn't say that. I don't think I even implied it. I didn't mention Windows by name once, except to say that I used to use it. I implicitly was referring to Windows when I was talking about repos, but I was doing so in a negative (to Windows) way. That said, Windows **has** come a long way in terms of usability. When I boot into it to play games, Windows 7 very nearly usable.
I would say that Linux is superior to Windows when it works. In my argument about arguing, I have to point out that this is not the same as it being an OSE success. My Linux has binary blobs, tainting it in the eyes of Linus (from a debugging perspective) and RMS (from an ideological perspective.)
But my problem with Linux is that it often doesn't work.
Addressing some of your specific Windows warts, though:
> Things like being able to kill programs when they hang
Post-XP, this is quite possible. Unkillable programs are really, really rare. But this problem also exists on Linux. Usually it has to do with software which holds some lock when it was killed.
> a decent terminal
I find it hard to take this argument seriously. Have you even looked at Powershell?
> having multiple desktops
Big, big, **big** problem on Windows. There's no excuse for this not being built into the OS in 2011.
More arguing about arguing:
>What does this have to do with open source? The issue here is market dominance.
No, the issue is the feasibility of OSE. The implied criteria is whether OSE can make a successful product. The argument put forth was that Linux was successful. I was disputing that.
> OS X is closed source and I'm not seeing it doing a significantly better job than Linux breaking onto the desktop.
Are we including laptops in this (I usually do, because when I say "desktop" I'm differentiating it from "server".) In 2007, 17% of all laptops sold were Apple. http://www.macuser.com/business/176_percent_of_all_laptops_sol_1.php Overall, Apple has about 10% of the client (better word than desktop if we're including laptops) market. http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?newsid=3276687 But I'm not even sure what the relevance is. The reason I asked about bad consumer experiences was because I think that trying to install Linux on my computer and having pieces of it fail is a bad thing, something that doesn't promote open source, isn't an OSE success story, and doesn't help make Linux a success.
> Not at all, it just shows why closed-source is bad for customers and developers, and this is exactly the point that RMS highlights.
I like open source a lot. I like the ideology. I like the practical matters (that I can audit/modify software.) I agree that it would be better for customers than closed-source. What I'm saying, over and over, is that open-source extremism isn't tenable. Huge swaths of the computer-using population would be worse off if they adhered to RMS' policies. | null | 0 | 1316582427 | False | 0 | c2lfpoj | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfpoj | t1_c2lf58z | null | 1427627195 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | honcas | null | In what way? | null | 0 | 1316582434 | False | 0 | c2lfppq | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfppq | t1_c2lfmkx | null | 1427627195 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | PhysicsIsMyBitch | null | Point well made - what would compel anyone to write an entire blog site in Silverlight is beyond me. | null | 0 | 1316582443 | False | 0 | c2lfpqw | t3_kmdqz | null | t1_c2lfpqw | t1_c2lfjvr | null | 1427627195 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | simonask | null | Right, that's true. `auto` is the better choice, if you want to be prepared for refactoring. | null | 0 | 1316582444 | False | 0 | c2lfpr3 | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lfpr3 | t1_c2lbe2e | null | 1427627195 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | simonask | null | I know about `std::move`, but it specifically does *not* apply to the situation I'm describing: Returning a collection from a member function. The function `node.get_children()` does not want to give up its internal collection upon return. The move constructor is only relevant for functions that *generate* collections, not functions that access them. :)
(Of course, in that situation you could use a const reference to the collection, but the point is that your library user needs to know about the collection type.) | null | 0 | 1316582448 | True | 0 | c2lfpro | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lfpro | t1_c2lcc46 | null | 1427627195 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | throwaway-o | null | What, you don't believe there can be legal extortion?
Cos if it's "THE LAW", nothing mandated by it can be wrong, *right?* Magical words turn wrongs into rights, and things into not-things, and concepts into their opposite...
If "the law" (just orders written by generally demonstrably corrupt individuals on magical pieces of paper) mandates an act of extortion, then it magically gets converted into an act of charity... if "the law" mandates rape (reference from 2005 Arizona penal code waiting to spring at your response here, so think) then it becomes "medical examination"... if "the law" mandates theft but calls it with a different word, it becomes "not theft"...
Or what are you trying to say here? | null | 0 | 1316582498 | True | 0 | c2lfpyb | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfpyb | t1_c2lfmu3 | null | 1427627197 | 15 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | munificent | null | > Vows is perhaps a good example of prototypical OO: http://raynos.github.com/vows-fluent/docs/vows-fluent.html
I don't see anything in there that relies on prototypal inheritance. All of the `__Able` objects could be mixins or traits in other languages, and the following objects just look like regular classes. What am I missing?
> But of course, prototypical OO lets you do far more than that, it lets you separate behaviours from the data that you use to represent the state needed for them
I think it's more accurate to say that the magic of prototypes is that they *don't* require you to separate behavior from state: you can inherit state in addition to methods.
> all sub-classes obligatory inherit all properties from the upper-classes
Not in Smalltalk, Ruby, Python, as far as I can tell.
> I'd suggest you reading the 'Organising Programs Without Classes' paper.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the Self papers. I wasn't asking to understand the paradigm. I'm pretty sure [I get prototypes](http://finch.stuffwithstuff.com/). My question is, does anyone in practice actually like organizing codebases like that?
As far as I can tell, the answer is no like 99% of the time. Some of that may be class-based indoctrination influencing the way we use JS, or JS's weird Java syntactic legacy, but I find myself wondering if maybe the paradigm just isn't that great of a fit for how we want to organize our code.
| null | 0 | 1316582541 | False | 0 | c2lfq3j | t3_kketr | null | t1_c2lfq3j | t1_c2l9653 | null | 1427627204 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | > In that case you keep changing your arguments.
Only if do not pay attention what I am actually arguing.
> Also stop saying "open source" when you mean "free software". They are different things.
I must say that I could not possibly care less.
> Finally the best thing for the developer is proprietary software.
Now why would a proponent of open source claim this? Do you honestly think this is true? That releasing source code is bad for the developer, and they should to be forced to do so for your benefit?
That would make the GPL extremely anti-developer, yes? | null | 0 | 1316582589 | False | 0 | c2lfq9i | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfq9i | t1_c2lfok9 | null | 1427627200 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316582703 | False | 0 | c2lfqnf | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfqnf | t1_c2lfkmr | null | 1427627205 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | YHVH | null | via [visual chinatown of davidope](http://dvdp.tumblr.com/) | null | 0 | 1316582877 | False | 0 | c2lfr18 | t3_kmg03 | null | t1_c2lfr18 | t3_kmg03 | null | 1427627209 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | Your argument assumes that everybody has everybody else's best interests in mind. This is a fallacy, and that's what makes your argument invalid.
When you say "the GPL wouldn't be necessary, as people would choose to release their source of their own free will", the underlying assumption is that everybody is not an egoist. This of course isn't the case, in the real world you have all kinds of people, and not all of them happen to be altruistic. GPL is anti-egoistic, it doesn't allow people who do not like sharing to benefit from the work of people who do. | null | 0 | 1316582921 | False | 0 | c2lfr5r | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfr5r | t1_c2lfpl6 | null | 1427627218 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | honcas | null | > The question was whether "extreme" open source can be successful, and the answer to that question is clearly yes.
The question was whether or not open source extremism can be realistic. I'm not sure what 'extreme open source' even means, really. Open source extremism, in my mind, has to do with what you run (or what you suggest others run)--that they only run things which are open from top to bottom. Today, that is untenable. Lots of computers wouldn't work. Lots of people would be unable to do their jobs. Lots of things would break. Implemented today in a flash-cut, the world would be a worse place.
I think it's a great ideal. I also think that we're never going to reach the point where the majority of computing systems even **can** be fully open source. The whys and hows ultimately don't matter.
> invalidate the fact that open source can and is successful on its own.
Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that the millions of Linux servers out there that run proprietary web stacks **cannot count**. The "plenty" of Linux servers that don't run any proprietary stacks... well, we can't easily count them. They're not that prominent. I don't know how they can reasonably be used in the argument. I think, sadly, that this is just a place where we will have to agree to disagree. | null | 0 | 1316582934 | False | 0 | c2lfr8s | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfr8s | t1_c2lfkmr | null | 1427627213 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316583212 | False | 0 | c2lfrxt | t3_kls47 | null | t1_c2lfrxt | t3_kls47 | null | 1427627223 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | 33a | null | Bleh. Best-practices-business-advice style posts like this are the absolute worst type of content on r/programming; and this one in particular gets my goat as just being one of the most down right distasteful displays of self aggrandizing lazy writing.
All he did was rehash [Spolsky's old jeremiad](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000073.html). I got news for you: it wasn't even that clever an essay when Spolsky belched it out the first time (though he certainly got some mileage on it), and letting it stew for a decade hasn't made it any fresher. | null | 0 | 1316583224 | True | 0 | c2lfs04 | t3_kls47 | null | t1_c2lfs04 | t3_kls47 | null | 1427627223 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | > Your argument assumes that everybody has everybody else's best interests in mind.
Not at all. I am assuming everyone has their own best interests in mind and nothing else. I have made no arguments about any greater good. Only you have brought that up. Every argument I made was based on self-interest.
But my argument was exactly that you reject that first option. You are more aligned with the second. Thus, to you, the GPL is anti-developer, at least for some subset of developers. | null | 0 | 1316583271 | False | 0 | c2lfs85 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfs85 | t1_c2lfr5r | null | 1427627226 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | bitchessuck | null | Probably, yes. But who can blame the compiler developers? C++ is a hideously complex language. | null | 0 | 1316583412 | False | 0 | c2lfsoy | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lfsoy | t3_klphp | null | 1427627233 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316583443 | False | 0 | c2lfssx | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lfssx | t3_klphp | null | 1427627233 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | joesb | null | Nope, his position that developer should always give. But since he can't force that, he tried to make GPL code spread so that developer will take, therefor must give.
In RMSs ideal world he will want GPL code so wide spread and part of everything so that it's practically impossible to do anywork without touching GPL code at all. | null | 0 | 1316583557 | False | 0 | c2lft72 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lft72 | t1_c2lcyhk | null | 1427627237 | -4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | adolfojp | null | The guy deleted this thread and also deleted my comment on his website. My comment wasn't even an attack. It was an answer to a question that somebody else made. That kind of reaction to criticism fits the entire Silverlight website deal. This is my theory:
In his article he says that Windows 8 is insecure because you can see the markup of the HTML apps and toy with it. That's the exact same thing that you can do on any regular website. And then he complains about how the .NET code can be decompiled by decompilers. The decompilers were not made specifically for Windows 8. And then he mentions code obfuscation as a solution. He doesn't like the idea of other people looking at his code. And what better way to hide your code than by writing your website in Silverlight? View source? That's preposterous! | null | 0 | 1316583564 | False | 0 | c2lft80 | t3_kmdqz | null | t1_c2lft80 | t1_c2lfpqw | null | 1427627237 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | badsectoracula | null | Well, it has :-P. Even Turbo Pascal from 80s didn't had some of the issues mentioned in the article (like the part about strings). FreePascal has none (except some of the cosmetics, but those are not real issues). In brief:
1. Array length (#2.1) is still part of the type, but you have dynamic arrays which can be used to create a "sort procedure to sort integers" (although you probably would want to use generics so you won't be limited to integers).
2. FreePascal provides the `string` type (#2.1), which is an alias for `short string` (classic TurboPascal-like string of 255 characters), `ansistring` (8bit or utf8 string of variable length) or `unicodestring` (16bit unicode string of variable length). Which one is used, depends on the compiler settings and mode (although for most code, the OBJFPC mode is used with huge strings, which means that `string` is an alias for `ansistring`).
3. FreePascal has `initialized typed constants` which behave like static variables in C (#2.2). So you can do something like `const dir: Integer = 1;` and change the value later (the value is only set at initialization time, not every time the function/procedure is called).
4. FreePascal allows declaration of types, constants, functions, classes, etc in any order and mixing of them (#2.3).
5. FreePascal has `units` which behave in a similar way to objects in C (#2.4), except that they also contain information for the compiler for *much* faster compilation (no need to parse header files, etc all the time). Also has `libraries`, for dynamically linked libraries and syntax for importing symbols directly from dynamically linked libraries in a cross platform way.
5. FreePascal eases the need to declare types for everything (#2.5), although not to the same extent as in C.
6. You can use pointer arithmetic, type casting and a bunch of other C-like stuff in FreePascal, almost like in C. So, there is escape (#2.6). FreePascal even comes with documentation on how the underlying implementation works so you know what to do.
7. FreePascal by default uses short-circuit evaluation using a left-to-right order, like in C (#3). Also there is `break` and `continue` (#3). FreePascal provides `exit` (with a single parameter in functions and no parameter in procedures) that works like `return` in C (#3). To keep with the one-entry-one-exit scheme of the original Pascal, in OBJFPC mode it also provides a predefined `Result` variable that has the same type as the function. You can have an `else` clause in `case` constructs, which behaves similar to `default` in C (#3).
8. The runtime library that comes with FreePascal is very extensive, supporting cross platform I/O, terminal, graphics, keyboard handling, etc. Also there are many packages for interfacing with external libraries, such as Gtk+, zlib, Qt, etc.
So, yeah, i think that almost the whole article is far from true, at least as far as FreePascal is concerned. Given that most modern Pascal implementations (Delphi, Oxygen) have similar feature sets, i might say that this is true for modern Pascal in general. Although i don't really have much experience with them. | null | 0 | 1316583591 | False | 0 | c2lftav | t3_klgme | null | t1_c2lftav | t1_c2lentu | null | 1427627238 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | munificent | null | Seconded. Great article! | null | 0 | 1316583932 | False | 0 | c2lfudy | t3_klrrx | null | t1_c2lfudy | t1_c2lef5k | null | 1427627252 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | flycrg | null | My favorite one that I came across (mostly due to my 12 year old humor) was cum_log_lik_ratio for cumulate logarithmic likelihood ratio. This was in a published interface specification. | null | 0 | 1316583986 | False | 0 | c2lfuje | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lfuje | t3_klhlv | null | 1427627255 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | xTRUMANx | null | TRWTF isn't the variable names in that snippet of code.
I mean, surely he could have just wrote `b1 = b2 ? true : false;` and saved himself the equality check. | null | 0 | 1316584044 | False | 0 | c2lfup6 | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lfup6 | t1_c2l8ioy | null | 1427627257 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | >It's late here, so I hope I'm making sense. Put another way, if RMS' extremist view contributed to the success of Linux, I would be forced to agree that OSE was a successful strategy.
The point is that RMS "extremist" views are what guarantees that the code is used in the interest of the customer as opposed to the vendor. The question is if code written under such restrictions can be competitive, and the answer is yes it can.
>Would Linux have done as well as it had if Amazon was forced to hand out the code to its software stack? If Facebook had? Or Google? Would Ubuntu have been successful if a significant portion of wireless cards didn't work at all? Or if graphics were slow (nv driver) or crashed all the time (open source radeon driver)? And by the way, at least the radeon open source driver still requires binary blobs in some cases.
Obviously, while no open source alternatives exist, proprietary software is indispensable. But is it not a worthy goal to have **more** open source software and less need for proprietary alternatives and stop gaps?
>I don't know that I can draw the same conclusion that you did. I'd say the model works in some cases, when all of your hardware is just right. Because most people don't care where the drivers came from. They care that they exist. They care that they can use the hardware on their computer.
But if Linux came before windows, and it was the first popular desktop, then vendors would have been writing drivers for Linux as opposed to windows, and the whole situation would have been reversed. Also, do remember that even RMS [recognizes the idea of software as a circuit](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/03/profile-richard-stallman.cfm).
>As for Gimp, I won't deny that it's gotten better, but I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone thinks that it's a polished piece of software for the end-user.
Photoshop is no picnic to learn either however, these programs are aimed at people who need to do complex image manipulation, and tend to have learning curves. 3D studio and Maya aren't intuitive either, doesn't mean they're not well designed for their task.
>But my problem with Linux is that it often doesn't work.
I think you're being rather harsh on it, for something that is only used by 3% of the overall market, it's working rather well in my opinion. Until very recently majority of Linux users were hardcore developers, and these types of users tend to be able to ignore the warts. Ubuntu is probably the first truly general user centric distribution, and it's been making stellar progress with every release in my opinion.
>I find it hard to take this argument seriously. Have you even looked at Powershell?
I have, and I find xterm and bash far more usable in practice.
>I think that trying to install Linux on my computer and having pieces of it fail is a bad thing, something that doesn't promote open source, isn't an OSE success story, and doesn't help make Linux a success.
I agree that it is a bad thing, but what does this have to do with open source extremism as you call it? To me this just seems like an issue with the market, where Windows is the popular OS, and drivers and hardware are made with it in mind. While Linux is left to its own devices most of the time. Although, I notice this situation is changing, and nowadays you often do find Linux drivers directly from vendors.
>What I'm saying, over and over, is that open-source extremism isn't tenable. Huge swaths of the computer-using population would be worse off if they adhered to RMS' policies.
I feel that there are short to medium terms issues with open source extremism, but I feel that in the long term the benefits outweigh the intermittent warts on the way. One point I do disagree with RMS on is that you shouldn't use proprietary software while waiting for open source counterparts to catch up. I feel it's perfectly fine to mix them as needed, but the goal is to steadily move towards more open source.
| null | 0 | 1316584072 | False | 0 | c2lfusj | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfusj | t1_c2lfpoj | null | 1427627259 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | berkut | null | To other production raytracers (VRay and MentalRay) (and rasterisers) out there.
> I'm well aware of the current directions of rendering in post production.
What made you say "Also, scene complexity has to be significantly reduced for ray tracing" then?
They limit some of the raytracer parameters (max bounces for GI and reflection bounces), but geometry count is nowhere near as much of a problem in VFX as it is in games. | null | 0 | 1316584136 | False | 0 | c2lfv02 | t3_kldfr | null | t1_c2lfv02 | t1_c2lcil5 | null | 1427627260 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | joesb | null | Nope, he wanted to give to others without forcing them to give it as well. | null | 0 | 1316584229 | False | 0 | c2lfvax | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfvax | t1_c2ld0p7 | null | 1427627265 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | >Not at all. I am assuming everyone has their own best interests in mind and nothing else. I have made no arguments about any greater good. Only you have brought that up. Every argument I made was based on self-interest.
If your line of reasoning was correct, then there would be no need for GPL to begin with. Since everybody would be enlightened enough to release all their code as open source. This clearly isn't the case in reality, so there must be some flaw in your logic no?
>But my argument was exactly that you reject that first option. You are more aligned with the second. Thus, to you, the GPL is anti-developer, at least for some subset of developers.
GPL is anti-freeloader, plain and simple, if a developer happens to be a freeloader, in that case GPL is indeed not helpful to that developer.
| null | 0 | 1316584344 | False | 0 | c2lfvod | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfvod | t1_c2lfs85 | null | 1427627270 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | filipf | null | Any plans for C# or F#? | null | 0 | 1316584656 | False | 0 | c2lfwm5 | t3_klv3o | null | t1_c2lfwm5 | t3_klv3o | null | 1427627292 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | substitutionarynanna | null | I know what you mean, and after this you need some knowledge methods to CASH http://tinyurl.com/663o5sj
| null | 0 | 1316584674 | False | 0 | c2lfwo4 | t3_kcpdg | null | t1_c2lfwo4 | t3_kcpdg | null | 1427627286 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | yogthos | null | > Today, that is untenable. Lots of computers wouldn't work. Lots of people would be unable to do their jobs. Lots of things would break. Implemented today in a flash-cut, the world would be a worse place.
I agree with you completely, I'm merely saying is that this is an ideal to work towards, regardless whether it's attainable or not in practice. In my opinion once software reaches the point of being good enough, there's very little incentive to pay for something better in most cases. So, my hope is that we'll see a future where open source is the default, and people make proprietary software for niche situations which aren't addressed by the needs of most people.
>I think it's a great ideal. I also think that we're never going to reach the point where the majority of computing systems even can be fully open source. The whys and hows ultimately don't matter.
In practice it's unlikely, but I think it's important to raise awareness about why it's a bad thing. Just by existing, open source is doing an important job in my opinion.
>Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that the millions of Linux servers out there that run proprietary web stacks cannot count. The "plenty" of Linux servers that don't run any proprietary stacks... well, we can't easily count them.
I think they do count, it's open source penetrating into something that used to be completely proprietary. If you recall many of these servers used to run commercial *nixes, and now they're at least partially open source. If the trend continues more and more parts will become open source. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, nor does it have to happen overnight.
| null | 0 | 1316584703 | False | 0 | c2lfwsc | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lfwsc | t1_c2lfr8s | null | 1427627283 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | wonglik | null | I wonder if companies like IBM , MS or Apple are included in this half a trillion. | null | 0 | 1316584995 | False | 0 | c2lfxn3 | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfxn3 | t3_klqte | null | 1427627296 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ravenex | null | The problem is that SDRAM is not really a _random_ access memory, it never was. As bus transfer speeds has gone up the internal memory latencies became even harder to hide. [What every programmer should know about memory](http://lwn.net/Articles/250967/). And good luck keeping million polygon scenes in an instantaneous SRAM. Cache hierarchies are there for a reason. | null | 0 | 1316585049 | False | 0 | c2lfxss | t3_kldfr | null | t1_c2lfxss | t1_c2lc8mn | null | 1427627298 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | wonglik | null | >Isn't a patent troll someone who holds a patent but makes no honest effort to develop upon it?
I consider a patent troll any company that sue other company for usage of trivial or obvious patent. For money or for market share. | null | 0 | 1316585187 | False | 0 | c2lfy75 | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfy75 | t1_c2lekse | null | 1427627302 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MtnViewMark | null | I recommend the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Boldrin and Levine. And yes, you can read it on-line for free: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm | null | 0 | 1316585222 | False | 0 | c2lfyav | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lfyav | t3_klqte | null | 1427627303 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | king_of_the_universe | null | That's what I meant (expose engine). But if what the editor creates is not just the scene but also working rendering code, then that would achieve what I intended (and why I was :/ because I thought that's not what it is): By using the output of the editor, you get a 3D scene running, not just 3D scene data. | null | 0 | 1316585512 | False | 0 | c2lfz4h | t3_kg44k | null | t1_c2lfz4h | t1_c2ld4rf | null | 1427627314 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316586176 | False | 0 | c2lg0ym | t3_kmh5r | null | t1_c2lg0ym | t3_kmh5r | null | 1427627343 | -5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mreiland | null | he's avoiding naming specifics, he's probably only incidentally experienced with C++ and is just spouting talking points.
C++ certainly has it's problems, but it's ability to go from high level abstracts to low level bits and bytes is unmatched by any language that I know of. | null | 0 | 1316586215 | False | 0 | c2lg11z | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg11z | t1_c2lbvra | null | 1427627350 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Samus_ | null | I would love a more technical explanation of this, other than downvotes.
I've zero knowledge of the topics being discussed but from what I got from the article Win8 certified machines require signed firmware for their "secure" mode now if this is just a mode, why can't you boot in "normal" mode and install something else?
(edit) missed this bit:
> We just have to rely on Manufacturers & OEMs so that they would include an option in their UEFI firmware to disable the secure booting feature.
I don't know how this *couldn't* be an option but I guess MS can put pressure thru sales and shit if they mean it. | null | 0 | 1316586395 | True | 0 | c2lg1jl | t3_kmh5r | null | t1_c2lg1jl | t3_kmh5r | null | 1427627349 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | fatbunyip | null | Yeah, I tend to use tbl in place of table a lot. It only saves me 2 characters, but I guess there's not much it can be confused for (eg user_tbl or data_tbl) | null | 0 | 1316586438 | False | 0 | c2lg1no | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg1no | t1_c2lekxv | null | 1427627351 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ex_ample | null | Time to switch to Linux. Interestingly the HTML5 "revolution" makes it even easier. Without flash, there's nothing really preventing you from using Linux as a full time web surfing OS | null | 0 | 1316586795 | False | 0 | c2lg2k2 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lg2k2 | t1_c2l5pdn | null | 1427627359 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ex_ample | null | Yeah I remember comments on Slashdot years and years ago about his "right to read" story and someone said it was *completely insane*. The only reason it hasn't come to pass is that the government was just lazy about enforcing copyright -- particularly since republicans don't care too much about it since the entertainment industry mostly donates to democrats.
There have actually been laws proposed in states that would make it *illegal to share passwords* for streaming services, exactly as RMS predicted. | null | 0 | 1316586911 | False | 0 | c2lg2uz | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lg2uz | t1_c2l83al | null | 1427627363 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ex_ample | null | Mozilla makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year of search advertising. | null | 0 | 1316587023 | False | 0 | c2lg358 | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lg358 | t1_c2le0sy | null | 1427627367 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mmhrar | null | Good point, I'd do that too. Still a judgement call as I see it, I would understand user_tbl and data_tbl just fine, especially w/ the context of how their being used right there as well. | null | 0 | 1316587262 | False | 0 | c2lg3s5 | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg3s5 | t1_c2lg1no | null | 1427627375 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | adelle | null | Is it just me or are all the WinRT samples passing around managed references using the Microsoft-specific ^ ? | null | 0 | 1316587310 | False | 0 | c2lg3w6 | t3_klgme | null | t1_c2lg3w6 | t3_klgme | null | 1427627377 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | >PM me your real name
Sounds legit | null | 0 | 1316587578 | False | 0 | c2lg4l3 | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg4l3 | t1_c2lahko | null | 1428193573 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | adelle | null | Nevermind. I see from [this thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kk7c6/using_winrt_from_c_stack_overflow/) that it doesn't mean what I thought it meant. | null | 0 | 1316587647 | False | 0 | c2lg4qv | t3_klgme | null | t1_c2lg4qv | t1_c2lg3w6 | null | 1427627389 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | or just use any sort of editor/IDE that color codes by scope instead of polluting your variable names | null | 0 | 1316587796 | False | 0 | c2lg53d | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg53d | t1_c2lbf8u | null | 1427627393 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | >That's actually exactly why URLs use ASCII instead of Unicode.
Google إختبار, hit first link. Reddit and everywhere else chokes on it, but it's not ASCII. | null | 0 | 1316587933 | False | 0 | c2lg5fk | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg5fk | t1_c2lalni | null | 1427627397 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | swuboo | null | "Firefox can't find the server at www.%d9%85%d8%ab%d8%a7%d9%84.%d8%a5%d8%ae%d8%aa%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b1." | null | 0 | 1316587993 | False | 0 | c2lg5ld | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg5ld | t1_c2lg5fk | null | 1427627400 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | Yeah, I can't paste it into Reddit, or use TinyURL, or use Bitly. The magic of IDN!
| null | 0 | 1316588089 | False | 0 | c2lg5ts | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg5ts | t1_c2lg5ld | null | 1427627413 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Gotebe | null | And yet, despite that, they support standard C++ pretty well since, I dunno, 2003. And their compiler's performance is up there with the best.
IOW, your rant is not based in recent reality. | null | 0 | 1316588140 | False | 0 | c2lg5y4 | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg5y4 | t1_c2ld9jy | null | 1427627405 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | revonrat | null | Of all the responses (both here and there) nobody wants to know the scope of the project. If you want me to bet re-implement Windows on 100M, stuff you -- it doesn't matter what language. | null | 0 | 1316588158 | False | 0 | c2lg5zv | t3_kljc0 | null | t1_c2lg5zv | t3_kljc0 | null | 1427627407 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Hip kids?
Windows developers and BSDtards are the ones frothing at the mouth from RMS hatred. Neither are what I would describe as hip but I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. | null | 0 | 1316588260 | False | 0 | c2lg68y | t3_kl7h0 | null | t1_c2lg68y | t1_c2ldr6t | null | 1427627416 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | swuboo | null | You do realize it's already been pointed out to me twice that what I said was outdated, right?
What I said was true the last time I'd looked into it a few years ago, but it's not any more. Unfortunately, looking into it, the problem of spoofing remains unsolved—the IDN standard restricts character sets for language-specific TLDs, but not for, say, .com.
My example of cіtіbank.com is presently valid, with warning to the user being left to the broswer. | null | 0 | 1316588308 | False | 0 | c2lg6dc | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg6dc | t1_c2lg5ts | null | 1427627414 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | kouteiheika | null | > Linux could have "won" but the GPL cancer got in the way. Dump the GPL and then everyone can use and contribute to the code.
I don't say this often, but, you are an idiot.
Everyone can use GPL'ed code, however not everyone can ~~steal~~ borrow and exploit it, like, e.g. Apple does with some BSD licensed code.
Also, everyone can contribute to it. [Even Microsoft does](http://tuxradar.com/content/microsoft-contributes-linux-kernel). | null | 0 | 1316588357 | False | 0 | c2lg6hu | t3_kmh5r | null | t1_c2lg6hu | t1_c2lg0ym | null | 1427627416 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | jkff | null | Your university had a main method? | null | 0 | 1316588400 | False | 0 | c2lg6ld | t3_klhlv | null | t1_c2lg6ld | t1_c2ldww7 | null | 1427627418 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Gotebe | null | Dude, C has no ABI either. And I mean, *at all*. Check your C standard.
Here's hwo ABI works: when you speak about ABI, you speak about *platform ABI*. Not e.g. C ABI. It so happens that platform offers it's services through a C interface (and I remember platforms doing it on a lower level, and these days, and probably more and more in future, you'll get platforms doing it on a higher level).
You think e.g. \_\_cdecl is something from C? Well, think again. Saying that any C compiler can link with any other is a complete bull. On any platform they differ. *You*, the user, have to make sure interfaces matches (packing, calling conventions, alignments). If you don't, it works by due to platform conventions, not due to C. | null | 0 | 1316588562 | True | 0 | c2lg6zs | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg6zs | t1_c2lcf4t | null | 1427627420 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | luckystarr | null | The OTRS guys used to do that too. | null | 0 | 1316588570 | False | 0 | c2lg709 | t3_kmevq | null | t1_c2lg709 | t3_kmevq | null | 1427627420 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | acmecorps | null | sqlite? | null | 0 | 1316588639 | False | 0 | c2lg75i | t3_klypn | null | t1_c2lg75i | t1_c2lf56x | null | 1427627421 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | NitWit005 | null | > They have one guy doing all the STL work with Dinkumware.
Wouldn't that be 1 guy, plus however many Dinkumware has working on it? | null | 0 | 1316588673 | False | 0 | c2lg78n | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg78n | t1_c2l9n26 | null | 1427627421 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | wadcann | null | >VS2008 was a decent enough compiler in terms of standard compliance
Depends on the language. Visual Studio gave up on any attempt to track C years ago.
I'd kind of assumed that this was because they wanted to focus on C++, but apparently not... | null | 0 | 1316588775 | False | 0 | c2lg7gy | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg7gy | t1_c2ldaki | null | 1427627423 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316588827 | False | 0 | c2lg7l8 | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg7l8 | t1_c2lg78n | null | 1427627425 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | jyper | null | There's a ton of political stuff for avoiding GPLv3, I seriously doubt e planning on shipping llvm on the iphone anytime soon. | null | 0 | 1316588897 | True | 0 | c2lg7qw | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg7qw | t1_c2lf3pb | null | 1427627427 | 8 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316588927 | True | 0 | c2lg7ta | t3_klphp | null | t1_c2lg7ta | t1_c2lcnlx | null | 1427627428 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | oSand | null | You're so first generation. And you scarcely use any hyphens. | null | 0 | 1316589383 | False | 0 | c2lg8uq | t3_klypn | null | t1_c2lg8uq | t1_c2ldkv3 | null | 1427627442 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Code_Monkey | null | No matter how you bend it, I can never accept the concept that locking up an _idea_ is a good thing. Protecting products is just fine, but not ideas. (in my opinion)
Software patents are even worse: even if you would want to protect these ideas, it's practically impossible for a programmer to check each piece of functionality against all possibly related patents. Especially considering the multiple levels of abstraction there can be in a design.
Furthermore, it will make people think twice before they want to make there software open source, because competition could scavenge for patent violations more easily. | null | 0 | 1316589451 | False | 0 | c2lg90p | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lg90p | t1_c2lbz15 | null | 1427627444 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | thepowerofone | null | The article seems to imply that WinRT is exclusive only to metro style apps. Is this the case? | null | 0 | 1316589682 | False | 0 | c2lg9hu | t3_kl1qp | null | t1_c2lg9hu | t3_kl1qp | null | 1427627450 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | You don't need to act arrogant, if you know so much about patent law why not have a go at dispelling some misconceptions you see in this thread? | null | 0 | 1316589742 | True | 0 | c2lg9mn | t3_klqte | null | t1_c2lg9mn | t1_c2lex1f | null | 1427627452 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
Filtered Reddit Uplifting News
The query retrieves specific news articles by their link IDs, providing a basic overview of those particular entries without deeper analysis or insights.
Recent Programming Comments
Returns a limited set of programming records from 2020 to 2023, providing basic filtering with minimal analytical value.