Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 224

Thread: Shuttleworth On Mir: "A Fantastic Piece of Engineering"

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    483

    Default

    It's a metaphor--it can apply to many things. A tree-graph doesn't have to grow and breathe CO2 in addition to showing you how certain concepts relate, and a pie-graph doesn't have to be baked, nor does it need a filling.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Even Microsoft realizes HTML5 is the future.
    Microsoft is floundering since new developers are not picking up the platform lock in of .net, but instead locking themselves into Cocoa or Android. The only reason anyone even cares about html5 apps is because it is the only pervasive platform that targets every device ever.

    In practice, web apps are some of the ugliest hacks ever conceived. They take an xml derived fuzzy document language, a tacked on styling language with C syntax, and a malformed script language with semi-Java syntax that has barely improved in 20 years due to perverse standards by committee and terrible original syntax, and try to make real world applications of them. There is a reason people still see tech demos for html apps that look like native toolkit apps from 2000 (note I'm about to be a hypocrite on this).

    As a developer, html5 is an evil necessity in a more diverse world. Platform lock in just isn't an option anymore, and it is the lowest common denominator of cross platform applications. It still lacks any real input, audio, or state handling worth a crap. It is why I'm so hopeful for qt to become as ubitquitous as 5.1 is shaping up to be - being able to target all the new mobile GNU oses, Android, iOS, and the big 3 desktops in one app is what needs to happen to keep me sane not writing html5 webapps. Of course, most of that I do with the same language I was complaining about earlier - QML, json, and javascript - but at least in qt you aren't dealing with the awful DOM.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zanny View Post
    a malformed script language with semi-Java syntax that has barely improved in 20 years due to perverse standards by committee and terrible original syntax
    What are you talking about? Javascript is nothing like Java.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    How did this thread become about math and biology? I mean, it is an improvement, but...

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoen1x View Post
    So i can't comprehend your retarded posts eh? 1001 toolkits? Google some info on it. Why gtk was created, why g.n.o.m.e. was born. There are only 3 desktop environments and one of them is irrelevant. Wayland was started by Xorg devs, so no there are no 2 display servers. Yes MIR is fragmentention, but you are too dumb to understand.
    Wayland came from employee who was working for RedHat(even if it was side project), please stop posting bs like other buntutards here.
    Stay classy!

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jayrulez View Post
    Maybe I should have qualified by inserting the word "legally" for you. Hackintoshes are not legal. Hence, to legally run OS X, you need a apple branded computer. So there is no point to buying OS X if you do not own or plan to buy a Apple computer as long as you want to legally run it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#L...ple_objections
    ...and yet you can still buy OSX without a MAc, which you ahve claimed was not the case. ... If i had made no mention of hackintosh, whatr would ahve your response been, exactly??? would you have still calimed that people cannot buy MacOSX without a Mac? (since that WAS your claim)/

    Regardless, i am fully aware of Apple's EULA ~ and personally own a Mac, so this is not my concern - my main point was that your claim was blatantly absurd - ANYONE can buy MacOSX without a Mac.

    Quote Originally Posted by jayrulez View Post
    Canonical working on Mir doesn't top anyone else from working on Wayland. Mir only changes things for Ubuntu, not any other distro. I see a lot of hypocrisy behind this claim of fragmentation. When it's something you agree with, you will tout it as diversity. If it is something you disagree with, you will cry fragmentation.
    Use logic and reason here - by virtue of splitting the stack, Ubuntu using Mir vs. very other distro planning to use Wayland = fragmentation... and even an idiot should have enough brain power to see that. (no offense)

    Quote Originally Posted by jayrulez View Post
    E.g: People tout having 1001 distros as diversity and having choice. 1001 Toolkits is diversity. 6 or 7 desktop environments is diversity. 2 display servers (X and Wayland), diversity. Add Mir, now it becomes fragmentation? Where is the consistency?

    If Mir came from Google or Redhat, the story would be different.
    90% of those distros are nothing but derivatives, not unique distros. They are really only a few toolkits that have any real focus / impact on the vast majority.

    X and Waylaand doesn't = diversity, Wayland is intended to be the SUCCESSOR to Xorg. Throwing Mir into the mix, voids any standardization and throws another into the mix. ~ again, it doesn't even take a half-whit to be able to distinguish the difference here...

    it does not matter 'who' it came from. that's not the point, dude. (i thought that would have been obvious, but i guess not).
    Last edited by ninez; 03-09-2013 at 04:23 AM.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    WTF?
    Just ask Knuth or Dijsktra (if you could) what programming really is and stop just throwing out things that do not sum up to nothing. I'm mathematician and you have no fscking idea what it is really all about, so stop talking about it like if you did, because you are embarassing yourself. Also, linguistics? WTF, you have no idea what you are saying.
    Now, keep thinking that OOP is the true foundation for programming (I don't care if you don't want to open yourself and have such a NARROW view of programming), but stop implying that Knuth or Dijkstra or even Stepanov are just fools, or even imply that Alonso Church and Kurt Gödel are also that, because you own much of what you do to people like them.
    "Math is a model and so by definition..." Haha, you are lost...
    No sir you are no mathematician if you can't even understand that math is a model you are simply yet another deluded academic who has completely lost touch with the real world and how things work. I even gave an example showing that it's a model and one of the holes thereof (are you really going to argue that dark matter isn't just a placeholder? If so you've been reading far too much scifi). I have pointed out to you twice now that engineering does not work how you think it works, and that you need to read up on history to learn about how things work in the real world. The Constellation project is the perfect example of the equivalent of having buildings just collapsing as they're built (in fact if we go back to the law of Hammurabi this sort of thing happened enough that they made a law about it.. obviously they've gotten a lot better since), and some architecture (particularly from greek time frame) confounds modern engineers today. Also I guess Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, or any number of other famous inventors was crappy because well Edison found nearly 2000 ways to not make a lightbulb, because you know math makes things JustWork(tm), no extra development time required.

    And you sir are the one with the narrow worldview trying to force everything into fitting into your little math box, this may be news to you but not everything can or will fit in there. You think if people just do the math that things turn out perfect. Except the problem is that it doesn't and so the models involved have to be tweaked or even thrown out entirely and recreated from scratch. Sometimes people die as a result of an error in the model. I can understand that you don't quite get linguistics but I've already tried to explain to you how this all works and you've simply ignored it to try to push your math.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    You have NO clue what you are talking about. Have you ever even set foot in an Apple Store? (i guess not) You can buy MacOSX by itself and that has ALWAYS been the case. it's like $100. I know several people with Hackintoshes that have done just that.
    But this is just upgrade license, it's not OS itself. Just like in Windows case - upgrade license is nothing without "base" license for OS (retail, GGK, volume licenses) that you will upgrade.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    But this is just upgrade license, it's not OS itself. Just like in Windows case - upgrade license is nothing without "base" license for OS (retail, GGK, volume licenses) that you will upgrade.
    Again, walk into ANY apple store - Usually at the back of the store you will find Mac Software (DVDs). You can buy the OS - and i know this because i have been a long-term Apple customer for many years AND i have also serviced many other people's Macintosh in that time INCLUDING buying the OS (not just an upgrade, but the complete OS on DVD ~ which comes with all of the 'extras' too. ie: xcode, well up until lion anyway ~ if i remember correctly. etc). I've purchased *every version* dating back to the to the initial release of MacOSX, and MacOSX server, several times over.... 10.5.8 retail DVD case also happens to be in the room i am in. 10.6 + 10.8 are probably downstairs or possibly @ work.

    'Smartshop' even has a page showing the physical boxes (which is not easy to find on Apple's website, but easy if you walk into the store); http://wprnznxehycd.jet-software.net...ple%20mac%20os

    but hey what do i know, over someone whom probably has never even owned a Mac and probably isn't even a customer of Apple's and probably is just googling crap and drawing stupid conclusions...but do go on if you like, talking about sh*t that you OBVIOUSLY have no clue about. lol

    I should also point out something here ~ You can't upgrade MacOSX more than 1 major release. (ie: no upgrading 10.6.x to 10.8.x). Apple HAS to provide installation discs to their customers who have Mac's running older versions of MacOSX that can't be upgraded to the latest major version (if their H/W supports it).
    Last edited by ninez; 03-09-2013 at 11:22 AM.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    ...and yet you can still buy OSX without a MAc, which you ahve claimed was not the case. ... If i had made no mention of hackintosh, whatr would ahve your response been, exactly??? would you have still calimed that people cannot buy MacOSX without a Mac? (since that WAS your claim)/

    Regardless, i am fully aware of Apple's EULA ~ and personally own a Mac, so this is not my concern - my main point was that your claim was blatantly absurd - ANYONE can buy MacOSX without a Mac.
    Everybody here knows that he was referring to the fact that OS X is tied to Mac hardware and is not something that you can just install anywhere (legitimately) like Windows / Linux.

    Why are you so eager to rip everybody a new one...?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •